Archive for Friday, April 3, 2009

New anti-abortion bill passes House

April 3, 2009


— Anti-abortion legislators were close Friday to winning final passage of a bill they believe will strengthen enforcement of Kansas’ restrictions on late-term abortions.

The House approved it, 82-43, and supporters also expected the Senate to consider the measure Friday. Senate approval would send it to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

The bill would require doctors performing late-term abortions to give detailed medical reasons for them in reports to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Also, if a woman or girl comes to believe her late-term abortion was illegal, she, her husband or parents could sue the doctor for damages.

The measure arises from disputes involving Dr. George Tiller, whose Wichita clinic is one of the few in the U.S. that performs late-term abortions.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment has said doctors need only say that a patient faced death or “substantial and irreversible” harm, while anti-abortion groups believe Tiller and other providers should be spelling out their medical diagnoses.

They believe Tiller does not have legally sufficient reason for some procedures, and the bill is an effort to force state officials to look into that issue.

“Apparently, some of our law enforcement folks need some clarification,” said Sen. Tim Huelskamp, an anti-abortion Fowler Republican.

But critics say the bill represents new and unnecessary restrictions on providers.

“It’s aimed not at prohibiting or eliminating access, but at making access more difficult to obtain,” said Rep. Judy Loganbill, a Wichita Democrat.

The House passed a similar bill last month, but it hasn’t been considered by the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee. With the latest bill, anti-abortion House members can get an up-or-down vote in the Senate, bypassing the committee.

Legislators passed a bill last year to allow former abortion patients and others to sue doctors if they came to believe a late-term abortion was illegal. It also allowed them to seek a court injunction beforehand to block one.

But Sebelius, who supports abortion rights, vetoed last year’s measure, saying the provision allowing a court to intervene before an abortion was an unconstitutional restriction on access. That provision isn’t in this year’s bill, and Sebelius’ spokeswoman has said the governor would review the measure carefully before making a decision.

Last week, Sebelius signed a bill requiring doctors who use ultrasound or monitor fetal heartbeats to make the images or sound available to patients at least 30 minutes before a procedure.


sinverguenza 9 years, 2 months ago

"Also, if a woman or girl comes to believe her late-term abortion was illegal, she, her husband or parents could sue the doctor for damages."

How about a little personal responsibility? The doctor didn't get you pregnant. The doctor didn't force you into the abortion clinic. The doctor didn't tell you to get an abortion. You did that all yourself, so when you regret it later down the road, hate yourself, not the people who helped you when you asked for their help.

That's ridiculous.

fearsadness14 9 years, 2 months ago

It seems to me that this is just trying to stop all late term abortions. There are lots of implications attached to this measure that would certainly cause any doctor to hesitate....It only makes the process of getting an abortion much more of a hassle.

calvin 9 years, 2 months ago

It would be nice if the LJ World used the term Pro-Life. When they refer to those who don't have a problem with abortion they are called Pro-Choice. But those who do not favor abortion are called anti-abortion. I guess if the LJ World wants to use anti-abortion then they shoud also use the term anti-life.

storm 9 years, 2 months ago

calvin...the pope uses the term pro-life correctly but alot of pro-life people don't. We now know that most pro-lifers are really pro-choice because they say it's okay to abort in criminal cases such as incest or rape. For some pro-lifers they call that situation a medical procedure but it's still an abortion and they've chosen when its okay to abort.

verity 9 years, 2 months ago

If passed and not vetoed, this law will be declared unconstitutional by the courts.

I'm predicting it will be vetoed.

KansasPerson 9 years, 2 months ago

Meanwhile, here's a point of view from a prominent person in the Episcopal Church:

"And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight — only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.

"These are the two things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.

"I want to thank all of you who protect this blessing – who do this work every day: the health care providers, doctors, nurses, technicians, receptionists, who put your lives on the line to care for others (you are heroes — in my eyes, you are saints); the escorts and the activists; the lobbyists and the clinic defenders; all of you. You’re engaged in holy work."

This is from a sermon given by Katherine H. Ragsdale, who has just been named president and dean of Episcopal Divinity School. The sermon was given in July of 2007, but (oddly enough) it's been removed from her website since her new appointment.

Even the most pro-choice people I know would never call abortion a "blessing" or the people who perform them "saints" who are "engaged in holy work."

RonBurgandy 9 years, 2 months ago

Ridiculous. The Kansas Legislature again tries to add more red tape to something that doesn't need anymore.

The measure will be vetoed. And they will try again and again and again, instead of really working on legislation that will actually benefit Kansans.

shockchalk 9 years, 2 months ago

Yes! Thank goodness this measure passed. Highly unlikely that it will be vetoed and there are NO good reasons why it should be. Partial-birth abortiion is murder and one life shouldn't be values over another.

SettingTheRecordStraight 9 years, 2 months ago

Any legislation that makes getting an abortion more cumbersome or committing an abortion more expensive is welcome news.

Reuben Turner 9 years, 2 months ago

if y'all would find someone suitable to have a baby by this wouldn't have to happen. if y'all would stop letting every dick-tom-and harry taste of your goods and then regretting it later, this wouldn't have to happen. if y'all would use any of the products manufactured to prevent pregnancies, this killing could be stopped. after all that is all that u r doing, killing. wheter early or late term u are killing. when you stop and think about it, it's irresponsible and you oughta be shame. if y'all would just think about what could happen and act on that thought, i believe there would less abortions. anyway, at the end the killers will have to answer for this act and from what i read it won't be pretty nor feel good. if you ain't ready for a baby don't go doing things that could cause a baby to show up. and no standing up ain't going keep u from getting pregnant; lol(dummie). and the hanger won't be neccessary if you act responsibly.

davidsmom 9 years, 2 months ago

Is there anyone who can explain how a woman's life can be in danger so that killing her viable baby after it's half born is going to save the mother's life? Can anyone give a medical explanation of how that works? Has there EVER been a documented case where killing a half-born baby legitimately saved the life of a mother? And I don't mean her social life, either.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.