Advertisement

Archive for Monday, August 1, 2011

Judge blocks Kan. law defunding Planned Parenthood

August 1, 2011, 8:27 a.m. Updated August 2, 2011, 12:22 a.m.

Advertisement

— An incredulous federal judge on Monday rejected the state’s claim that a new Kansas statute that denied Planned Parenthood federal funding did not target the group, ruling that the law unconstitutionally intended to punish Planned Parenthood for advocating for abortion rights and would likely be overturned.

U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten granted the request from Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri for a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the law, which would require the state to allocate federal family planning dollars first to public health departments and hospitals, and leave no money for Planned Parenthood or similar groups.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt said the state will appeal the ruling, which orders Kansas to continue providing the federal Title X grant funding to Planned Parenthood.

Marten’s order handed the state its second major setback after abortion foes succeeded in pushing through the Republican-controlled Legislature a slew of anti-abortion legislation, only to see federal judges quickly block their enforcement. Last month in a separate lawsuit, a federal judge in Kansas City, Kan., also temporarily blocked stringent new abortion clinic regulations.

Planned Parenthood argued the Kansas statute is part of a national campaign to cut off the entity’s federal family planning money because of its advocacy of abortion rights. A federal judge in late June put on hold on a similar law in Indiana. Similar actions to partially or fully defend Planned Parenthood were taken by state legislatures in New Hampshire, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin.

Marten agreed with Planned Parenthood’s argument that the Kansas law is unconstitutional because it would impose additional restrictions on a federally-funded program, thereby violating the Supremacy Clause. He also agreed with the group’s contention that the law was intended to punish Planned Parenthood for advocating abortion rights and therefore infringes on its rights of association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth amendments.

“The purpose of the statute was to single out, punish and exclude Planned Parenthood,” Marten said.

Planned Parenthood had argued that that several lawmakers boasted on the floor, in news releases and in Twitter posts about defunding the group and touted the law as a victory for the anti-abortion movement. Marten, who was nominated to the federal bench by former President Bill Clinton in 1995, specifically noted in handing down his decision the floor statement referring to Planned Parenthood by the legislator who proposed the language at issue.

The judge also noted that Republican Gov. Sam Brownback reportedly told to the state GOP caucus before the vote in that Kansas would become only the second state in the nation, after Indiana, to “zero out funding of Planned Parenthood.”

Planned Parenthood had argued that without the injunction, it would have lost $330,000 a year in federal funding and been forced to close its clinic in the western Kansas city of Hays. It contended its 5,700 patients would face higher costs, longer wait or travel times for appointments and have less access to services.

Planned Parenthood has sued to overturn the law, and Marten’s order was to remain in effect until the case is resolved.

The Title X funding at issue targets low income individuals and helps pay for reproductive health care services such as contraception, cancer screenings and testing for sexually transmitted diseases. No federal funds are used for abortions.

Planned Parenthood offers abortion services in Kansas only at its clinic in Overland Park, a Kansas City suburb, but it also has clinics in Wichita and Hays.

The state contended the injunction was unnecessary because other entities could provide the same services Planned Parenthood offers in Wichita and Hays.

Monday’s hearing was the first legal test of the statute. Planned Parenthood is challenging its constitutionality based in part on the Supremacy Clause, which prohibits states from imposing conditions of eligibility on federal programs that are not required by federal law.

Kansas has defended the statute as a matter of state sovereignty, arguing an injunction would unconstitutionally replace the state’s discretion with the court’s judgment.

“It appears that the Court declared a duly-enacted Kansas statute unconstitutional without engaging in the fact-finding one would expect before reaching such a conclusion,” the state attorney general said in a prepared statement.

Peter Brownlie, president of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, said the judge’s ruling was clear that the law was unconstitutional and enacted for the wrong purpose.

“We take comfort in the fact that the judge said we have a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits when the full case is heard,” Brownlie said.

Kathy Ostrowski, legislative director for Kansans for Life, said she would have been surprised if Marten had denied Planned Parenthood anything.

“The simplified issue is whether the federal government has taken over complete control of health care allocations to benefit its own priorities, or whether the state can make its own prudent priorities,” she said in a written statement.

Comments

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 3 months ago

(Cross posted from another thread.) Out of curiosity, just what was the exact excuse given by the Kansas legislature for specifically singling out Planned Parenthood for defunding from Title X funds? The state cries that "abortion had nothing to do with it", yet gives no replacement excuse for just why PP was stripped of funds it has historically qualified for and received for over 25 years. Nor does it give any reason why PP was the only organization singled out in this legislation. What I actually expect to see happen is that Kansas will, in the end, lose Title X funding, which will be redistributed to other states; one more example where Brownback would rather lose Federal dollars than have them go to people/organizations in this state with whom he ideologically disagrees. Ironically, he will then tout that he has "saved tax dollars from being spent", (N.D. Just as he did with the Arts Commission) never mind that they are Federal dollars and not state dollars and never mind that the money was spent anyway. Just not in this state.

0

Fred Whitehead Jr. 3 years, 3 months ago

Cait48, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Brownbackwards is bound and determined to try to create a theocracy in this state and in the nation as a whole. His recent behavior reveals a diehard idiologue and religious zealot. Planned Parenthood provides many, many services for people, but the addled governer just cannot get past the anti-abortion wackos who want sharia style laws implemented to punish those who have done things against their views of conduct and seek medical care and proceedures that are safe, legal and appropriate for situations that none of these wackos have any consideration for.

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 3 months ago

They provide no services that cannot be provided by local health departments.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 3 months ago

Actually, that's not the truth but when has "truth" ever been important to you?

0

saraj 3 years, 2 months ago

You are correct. His behavior does, indeed, reveal a religious zealot. Read about Opus Dei. It will open your eyes to what is coming for Kansas.

0

Lindsey Buscher 3 years, 3 months ago

Woohoo, a victory for the born and unborn!

0

veggiegirl 3 years, 3 months ago

Not sure if the headline is the AP's or LJW's, but it is seriously misleading. The funding that was cut, and that this ruling restored, was federal Title X funding. As in, for family planning. As in, preventing abortions. This headline veers way too close to suggesting the funding was for abortion care. Kansas unfortunately does not allow public funding of abortion care.

0

Jonathan Kealing 3 years, 3 months ago

It's AP's headline. I don't think it's inaccurate, but I'll work on it to make it more clear.

0

veggiegirl 3 years, 3 months ago

Thanks, the new one is better.

0

weeslicket 3 years, 3 months ago

@jkealing can you fix the sentence that reads: Similar actions to partially or fully defend Planned Parenthood were taken by state legislatures in New Hampshire, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin.

that's gotta be "defund". thanks.

0

Beth Bird 3 years, 3 months ago

Yes - but it is illegal to use federal funding for abortions to begin with - This cuts funding to birth-control and preventative care.....

0

veggiegirl 3 years, 3 months ago

Some states' Medicaid funding covers abortions in cases of rape or incest, or life of the mother, as allowed under the Hyde amendment. Unfortunately, like I said, Kansas is not one of them.

0

overthemoon 3 years, 3 months ago

Nor does Federal law allow public funding for abortion. Heck, they won't even let private insurance cover abortion without a rider that allows any woman purchasing it to be easily identified.

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 3 months ago

That statement is only partly true some abortions are eligible to receive funding. Also, many of us who oppose abortion do not believe that our tax dollars should go to abortion or to Planned Parenthood. You need to research the eugenics and racist roots of this organization surely you do not defend the blatantly racist views of Margaret Sanger?

0

deec 3 years, 3 months ago

Sanger supported birth control so that women would not have babies they could not afford to care for. She also understood that unrelenting pregnancy was detrimental to women;s health and well being. You might want to read her complete works rather than distorted snippets of quotes. And why should pro-birthers be able to dictate how "their tax dollars" are allocated, but all other citizens who object to some specific government program cannot dictate how tax funds are spent?

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 2 months ago

She also supported eugenics and racial cleansing...

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

See previous post. Read her works, not distorted quotes.

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

"At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by a wide variety of prominent people, including Winston Churchill,[15] Margaret Sanger,[16][17] Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling[18] and Sidney Webb.[19][20][21]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics... Ironically, many probirthers are opposed to welfare, arguing those who cannot afford children ought not to have them. That's eugenics.

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 2 months ago

That does not make it right...it is racist

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

So you admit probirther anti-welfare conservatives are racist!

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 2 months ago

no I admit that planned parenthood has racist foundations...

0

overthemoon 3 years, 3 months ago

Do we know for a fact that the Arts Foundation board members are paid? Just askin'.

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 3 months ago

The amount spent to defend these laws will be a drop in the hat compared to overall spending. Remember we have an Attorney General just for the purpose of defending laws passed by our Kansas Legislature.

0

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

Except that the governor has now hired outside counsel instead of using the AG.

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 2 months ago

Actually the AG hired the outside counsel and this is standard procedure in these types of cases.

0

jafs 3 years, 2 months ago

Really?

Then why are we paying the AG?

Source for your claim that this is "standard procedure"?

"we have an Attorney General just for the purpose of defending laws passed by our ... Legislature"

If that's the case, why would hiring outside counsel be "standard procedure" - that doesn't make any sense.

0

rhd99 3 years, 3 months ago

In your face, Brownback!!!

0

dogsandcats 3 years, 3 months ago

Thank you U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten.

0

itwasthedukes 3 years, 3 months ago

Why do we need legislators when we can just have judges decide everything?

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 3 months ago

I believe this law will be upheld in the end let's let it develop. Also, if we need to we can simply go back to the legislature and make any modifications that are needed with the strong conservative pro-life majority and the pro-life Governor!

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 3 months ago

I'm very glad you are not at the helm of this government. BB scares me enough. You outright terrify me.

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 2 months ago

Well a real conservative will always terrify a liberal d...

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 3 months ago

The "balance of law?" Do you mean "separation of powers?" What "school" did you attend?

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 2 months ago

Do you know what "separation of powers" means, or not? "Balance of law?" That's a corker. Sounds like something Leno would get from his "On the Street" interviews.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 2 months ago

No, it made me laugh my tail off.

0

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 3 months ago

The legislators are welcome to try and come up with another law...I suggest the next one be based in fact and not fantasy. Then the judges can't say, 'bad law.'

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 3 months ago

Well let us give this time to work its way thru the legal system because SCOTUS precedent seems to support it being an acceptable law.

0

deec 3 years, 3 months ago

Wow. You mean federal laws apply even in Brownie's realm? End sarcasm

0

whatupdown 3 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

kernal 3 years, 3 months ago

Whatsa matteh? Ya skip too many of those guvmint and history classes in high school?

0

JustNoticed 3 years, 3 months ago

"Apes for Ancestry"? Not exactly. Apes are not our ancestors. We and apes have a common ancestor although that common ancestor might have seemed ape-like. And along those lines, if you can follow, "Shoes for industry, shoes for the dead."

0

somedude20 3 years, 3 months ago

and girls will get the b-control for cheap or free, nice! Brownback, I know you don't like women and that they scare you (more for me, thank you) but they too are people and should have the rights that us men folk get (dude can get an erection pill but b-control costs women a small fortune) Women, take back the rights that Brownie is stealing from you (then meet up at South Park for a victory bra burning celebration, I will help support rights)

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 3 months ago

Killing and dismembering babies in the womb and claiming that it is a "right" is a great injustice and an act of violence!~

0

DRsmith 3 years, 3 months ago

This means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of the suit.

0

deec 3 years, 3 months ago

It means they get funded while it is being litigated. That ought to take a year or two.

0

deec 3 years, 3 months ago

not true, as usual. They have to fund PP while it goes through the courts "U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten granted the request from Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri for a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the law, which would require the state to allocate federal family planning dollars first to public health departments and hospitals, and leave no money for Planned Parenthood or similar groups. " The law is blocked, so the funding will be provided.

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 2 months ago

long-term this is not yet decided and with the pro-life majority in the legislature this funding is very much in doubt in the future...

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

But the funding is assured right now.

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 3 months ago

The Planned Parenthood contraceptive website offers up Abstinence at the top of the list. Abortions are like 2% of the overall budget not to mention the fact federal tax dollars cannot be utilized for abortions so I understand.

The remaining 98% of the budget is devoted to family planning issues and health care issues.

0

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

Is that true? I'm guessing that some of the budget is for rent. Some for utilities, some for insurance, some to pay staff, etc. I'm guessing that some of the opposition comes from the perception that even if no federal funds are going to fund the abortion itself, if some of the money is going to pay rent and utilities and to pay staff, that makes the abortion services easier to access. And it's that easier access to the objectionable service that they object to. I'm firmly on the fence when it comes to this issue, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 3 months ago

They do nothing that the local health department cannot do and they are the largest abortion provider in the nation. Check out some of the youtube undercover investigations that have been done at planned parenthood clinics and you will find that the some in the organization are very deceptive.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 3 months ago

And you will find edited film with statements taken out of context and edited together to say something totally different from what was said in the first place and film edited in not original to the raw footage. My son is a film maker and it's truly amazing how film can be manipulated. Neither you nor your comrades are trustworthy, just as your governor is not trustworthy.

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 2 months ago

I guess you are always an apologist for them?

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 3 months ago

I dunno about your wife/gf. But if I were she I would be horribly insulted by this post. So much so that your #10 driver might land in an unexpected place.

0

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 3 months ago

Bad boys play golf? Dude must be one of them new fangled 'metro-sexuals.' Probably wouldn't know a pipe wrench if it slapped him in the head.

0

Lana Christie-Hayes 3 years, 3 months ago

This is a great start... more positive results on other Browncrack opposition lawsuits to come.. news at 11! (So put that in your pipe and smoke it Brownie!)

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 3 months ago

Now when do we get the First Amendment lawsuit against the "Office of Faith Based Initiatives"?

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 3 months ago

What Planned Parenthood Actually Does? ( This article provides a spending chart) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-planned-parenthood-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html

I stand corrected: Abortion services are 3% not 2%.

0

verity 3 years, 3 months ago

"Today, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it will require all new insurance plans to cover birth control without co-pays under the new health reform law. . . . By recognizing that birth control is an essential part of preventive health care, this HHS ruling will give countless women access to affordable birth control."

Thank you, former governor!

Wonder what Brownback will do to try to stop this.

0

verity 3 years, 3 months ago

Oops, forgot to attribute---Cecile Richards, President, Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 3 months ago

Especially because it also covers Plan B. Can't have that Day After pill funded. Oh noes! That's an abortion pill! That little four cell organism has a soul dontcha know?

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 3 months ago

do you consider abortion a method of birth control?

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 3 months ago

Yes I do. It deals with all kinds of situations where giving birth is not a positive outcome. You, on the other hand, would be quite willing to sacrifice the life of a woman, a born person, for the life of an "unborn".

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 2 months ago

now we know the truth...you view abortion as a method of birth control...most Kansans disagree with you and that is why we apparently have a difference of opinion about the law on this subject!

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 2 months ago

Of course you're going to jump all over me for calling abortion "birth control". I expected that. It all depends on your definition and your definition is obviously one that's far narrower than mine. In it's strictest definition, "birth control" refers to pregnancy prevention. In that sense, abortion isn't and never will be "birth control". In the sense that I use it, where giving birth is not a positive outcome, then yes, it is "birth control".
Pointing fingers and going "Ahmmmmm" is more than a little childish.

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 2 months ago

no one said that every woman does! Do you also view abortion as a method of birth control?

0

Don Whiteley 3 years, 3 months ago

I've got a much better idea that N.O.W. would be drooling over and every Democrat and Judge in the country would rush to support. When pregnant women enter the hospital, let's just issue them a baseball bat. If they don't like their babies after they're born, they can just bash their heads in. In practice, little difference to what we are already doing.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 3 months ago

I think the defunding of SRS is accomplishing that for them. Thank your Governor. He's the one who really believes in "post birth" abortion.

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 3 months ago

The truth is that the taxpayer should not be required to pay for the brutal violation of human rights that is abortion on demand! All of the other services, other than abortion, can be provided by local health departments serving local families and respecting the family values and parental rights of those families! We need to return to a culture of life in which each member of the human family is given dignity and respect and we defend the most innocent and defenseless.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 3 months ago

"The truth is that the taxpayer should not be required to pay for the brutal violation of human rights that is abortion on demand!" Three words: the Hyde Amendment.

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 2 months ago

Do you support the Hyde Amendment?

0

deec 3 years, 3 months ago

Yes let's defend the dignity of all humans by letting them starve to death or die from no health care, like most pro-birthers want.

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 2 months ago

Which we as Christian pro-life people also oppose. That is why most hospitals and healthcare organizations have religious roots!

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

Right....that's why probirthers, who are overwhelmingly christian republican conservatives, oppose welfare. And please do post a list of all those free-care religious hospitals and healthcare organizations. I'm sure all the people who won't have access to SRS services after christian conservative Brownie closes the local office would love to know which church-based hospitals will be providing them with free or low cost medical care.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 3 months ago

Give it up, Silver. This person has their head so far up Operation Rescues's and Mary Kay Culp's derriere they will never see the light of day.

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 2 months ago

no one is forcing anyone to do anything--just expressing my views--so that should not be a threat to you.

0

coleja 3 years, 3 months ago

I'm glad that the judge ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood. This isn't just about abortion but women's healthcare in general. If you don't agree with abortion then you should at least agree with the use of contraceptives, preventative healthcare and the screening for STD's are for the good of society.

0

Katara 3 years, 3 months ago

PP also provides prenatal care in some areas. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/nassau-county/25589.htm http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/local-press-releases/planned-parenthood-starts-prenatal-care-second-site-22229.htm http://www.ppsev.org/services/prenatalCare.html http://jamesriverjournal.com/pressreleasearchive/15437-planned-parenthood-expands-prenatal-care-services-to-hampton-health-center.html?catid=26%3Apress-releases http://www.plannedparenthoodosbc.org/services/prenatal.asp

Not all religious pro-life people believe that PP funding should be cut as well. They understand that tax dollars are not funding abortions and that PP provides needed services to women.

"I am a pro-life pastor, and I know that the concerns regarding Planned Parenthood are misguided. It is clearly understood that there is no federal funding for abortion -- end of discussion," the Rev. Derrick Harkins, pastor of Nineteenth Street Baptist Church in Washington, said in a statement Friday.

"What we're really talking about is this: Planned Parenthood provides critical services for at-risk pregnancies and prenatal care, often in underserved communities. We should have robust debate about social issues, but we can't let that debate derail our economy by forcing a government shutdown that hurts hardworking families."

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2011/04/08/Faith-leaders-Stop-Planned-Parenthood-cut/UPI-20121302306993/

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 2 months ago

obviously he is very uninformed...about the racial eugenics roots of planned parenthood. They directly target minority communities for "birth control" to reduce the birth rate of what they consider to be undesireables read Margaret Sangers works...

0

Katara 3 years, 2 months ago

Oh. I see. You're saying the black pastor is too stupid to know the history of Planned Parenthood.

I've read Margaret Sanger's works. It is something that you've obviously not done.

0

Eileen Jones 3 years, 3 months ago

They ought to support sex education and birth control as much as possible, since they don't want to help women and families out. At least honestly help prevent unplanned pregnancy, Republicans.

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 2 months ago

pro-life citizens believe that the best way to reduce unwanted pregancies is to rebuild a culture of life and reinforce the traditional family unit. Good relationships with a mom and dad and promotion of values like waiting for sex until one is married is a good start. We should all be unified on these issues and Governor Brownback is providing a path to help lead us to this culture of life.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 2 months ago

It didn't work in the '60's, or the '50's, or the '40's. In fact it's never worked except in the fantasies of Christianists. There is nothing to "rebuild" because it was never there in the first place. The only "path" that Brownback is providing for women is one back into the closet and the coat hanger.

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 2 months ago

Traditional family values have existed and do exist in happy conservative family units! Wish you could experience it in your own life...

0

jafs 3 years, 2 months ago

Why should we all be unified on issues like the "traditional family unit" and "waiting for sex until one is married"?

Our country is composed of a diverse population with diverse views.

0

jayhawxrok 3 years, 2 months ago

Brownback is providing a path to 1860, nothing more. His zealotry is forefront and his pursuit of that drives him, he cares not one tinker's damn about the State of Kansas or its citizens.

0

ferrislives 3 years, 2 months ago

kansanjayhawk (from your August 2, 2011 at 7:05 p.m. post in response to cait48):

Let me (hopefully) education you a bit. Plan B is an emergency contraceptive for a reason; it's not an "abortion pill". cait48 was just trying to give uptight people such as yourself something to get riled up about, which obviously worked.

Plan B prevents the egg and sperm from meeting in the first place to prevent conception; thus avoiding abortions. Women only have three days to use it before conception, and it doesn't work after you are already pregnant.

Maybe you should spend less time watching Faux News, and more time researching the truth about the drivel you like to spew on everyone: http://www.planbonestep.com/plan-b-faq.aspx

0

verity 3 years, 2 months ago

It's the sex they object to. Therefore Plan B is just as bad as an abortion---it keeps one from the consequences of having sex.

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 2 months ago

Maybe you should consider that many of us believe the current abortion "culture" is a sign of moral decay and loss of family values...

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 2 months ago

Give it up, Ferris. You're talking at this person, not to them. They aren't here to actually "debate" or learn anything. They will repeat the same rhetoric over and over again even in the face of the most blatant facts. In fact, I'm pretty sure that their true beliefs about the subject are very skillfully hidden and that what they are doing is a neurotic, attention seeking thing akin to OCD. Oddly, I do have to admit their behavior and certain things they have said have served to make me do some research and clarify my own thinking with myself, but not in the direction they (supposedly) desire. I truly believe the best possible thing any of us can do is ignore them. As this award winning website hasn't seen fit to give us an "ignore" feature we'll just have to grit our teeth and get stern with ourselves (or at least I will). "You can lead someone to knowledge but you can't make them think." Trite but true.

0

ferrislives 3 years, 2 months ago

Good point, but I felt the need to respond to the lie on Plan B. I get tired of ignorant people stating lies, regardless of their personal views.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 2 months ago

I'm sure (I hope) you know I was being satirical when I said that about Plan B. It's a common misconception among "pro-birthers" and, like many of them, they refuse to believe the facts when presented with them. I was probably out of line saying that if someone (other than our resident KJH) actually took it seriously but I thought the deliberate misspellings and such would have given it away. I'm sorry.

0

ferrislives 3 years, 2 months ago

I understood that from your original post, and that's what I was trying to make clear to mr/miss judgmental. Viewing previous posts and looking at the post just below, it's obvious that I was trying to educate someone that doesn't want to be educated. But we could buy kansanjayhawk a new set of blinders for Christmas. I'm sure they'd use and appreciate them fully.

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 2 months ago

Does that make you all knowing and not willing to consider any conservative views? I guess you cannot handle a little opposition to the liberal "status quo"? Well wake up and realize that you and all of the liberal views here on this site are actually "minority opinions" in Kansas. Look at the Legislature we have elected almost 100 pro-lifers in the House and a majority in the Kansas Senate!

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 2 months ago

Oh they don't have a hard time raising money. It just comes from only ten or so different sources.

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 2 months ago

sounds a little "elitist" and "condescending" not very liberal values...

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 2 months ago

well that may be what you "believe" however, I don't agree with you. My view is that the church has stopped standing against sin and preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and that is what has led to decline. The largest declines you will find has been in the "mainline" more liberal denominations.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.