Topeka — Kansas' top public health official said Monday that his office will require abortion providers to give the state more details about late-term procedures they perform, a change long sought by abortion opponents and one likely to be seen by abortion rights supporters as a move further limit such procedures.
Health and Environment Secretary Robert Moser told The Associated Press that his department's interpretation of a law requiring physicians to file reports on each late-term abortion after they are performed is different than how the law has been enforced in the past.
Moser said doctors must spell out the medical reasons for aborting a viable fetus after the 21st week of pregnancy. The law permits those abortions only when the mother's life is in danger or she faces major, permanent harm to her physical or mental health.
Moser said that interpretation is in line with the intent of a 1998 law restricting late-term abortions. He said the Department of Health and Environment will enforce the reporting requirements as providers file their documents with the agency, without changing any state regulations.
"It's pretty straightforward," he said. "We're not looking at changing the forms at all. They're adequate. It's just the information that needs to be provided in there needs to be accurate, just like any other reporting form. That's all we're looking for — accuracy."
The change would be welcomed by abortion rights opponents, who have complained for years that the reporting law hasn't been adequately enforced.
But abortion rights proponents would likely view the change as a veiled threat to any doctor who would consider performing a late-term abortion. Should the state determine a doctor performed such a procedure without good reason, the doctor could be charged with performing an illegal late-term abortion, a misdemeanor that could land them in jail for a year.
The 1998 law restricts when abortions can be performed after the 21st week of pregnancy when the fetus is viable, or capable of "sustained survival" outside the womb without "extraordinary medical means."
The law says that abortions can be performed in such cases only if the life of the pregnant woman or girl is in danger or if she faces "a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." State officials have interpreted the last phrase — in keeping, they've said with past court decisions — as including mental health.
The same law requires abortion providers to file a report on each late-term abortion, listing the reasons such a procedure is necessary and the basis for the assessment.
"This is a form that requires it to be completed accurately — no different than a death certificate in the need for accuracy — and that's what we're looking for," Moser said. "This is not changing anything at all that's required; it's just adhering to the statutory requirements."
With Democrats Kathleen Sebelius and Mark Parkinson were governor, the Department of Health and Environment allowed providers to repeat the exact "substantial and irreversible impairment" phrase in the law in their reports, without a more detailed medical diagnosis, arguing it was the only thing legally required.
Moser is an appointee of new Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, who's long been a strong opponent of abortion. But Moser said he and Brownback have not discussed the reporting law.
Anti-abortion legislators and groups say the intent of the law is to require doctors to spell out exactly what irreversible harm a woman or girl faces to her physical or mental health if the pregnancy continues and how the diagnosis is made. Such information will allow the state to determine whether a doctor is following the law, they argue.
They've also unsuccessfully sought to rewrite the reporting law to prevent state officials from continuing with the same interpretation.
Abortion rights supporters say such reporting requirements are designed to be an additional burden for physicians and to discourage them from performing such procedures. They've also noted that the late Dr. George Tiller's clinic in Wichita was the only one in Kansas to acknowledge performing late-term abortions, and Tiller was murdered in May 2009.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
cait48 (anonymous) says…
I have no problem with this as long as it's not used to block abortions of malformed fetuses simply because the mother herself is in no immediate danger. Forcing a woman to carry a brainless fetus until it either dies in utero or is born dead is beyond cruel.
ronwell_dobbs (anonymous) replies…
Well you best brace yourself, cait48. Don't for a minute think that the forced-birthers will grant an inch of letter (or spirit) of the law.
jhawkinsf (anonymous) says…
There was an article in last week's N.Y. Times about a woman in Australia who aborted twin male fetuses because she and her husband wanted a daughter to go along with their three sons. Aborting for the purposes of gender selection is common in China and India. Who can argue that SOME restrictions on abortion must be implemented?
cait48 (anonymous) replies…
We don't live in Australia. Women are stoned to death in some Muslim countries for being raped. We don't do that here either.
jhawkinsf (anonymous) replies…
The question stands: Should abortions for the purposes of gender selection be outlawed?
cait48 (anonymous) replies…
Prior to 21 weeks why a woman aborts is none of your business. I suggest you get your head out of their panties. I *will* point out that gender identification of a fetus can't be done prior to viability, though, and is not a viable excuse for a late term abortion. Therefore, your argument is moot.
jhawkinsf (anonymous) replies…
I'm not sure your statement about gender determination not being possible prior to viability is accurate. And since you believe I should not have an opinion on this subject, perhaps you will enlighten me as to what subjects I may have an opinion on?
cait48 (anonymous) replies…
I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion. Anybody can have an opinion. I just said it's none of your business. I can have an opinion on how you spend your money or what you do in your bedroom. It's none of my business either.
*Reliable* gender determination *may* be possible prior to viability but it's pretty difficult. It either has to be done by ultra sound and won't show up clearly before then or has to be done by genetic testing which isn't safe until later in pregnancy. It's also part of the reason why fetal anomalies aren't diagnosed until later in pregnancy. We don't have the technology.
Either way, at least in this country, your question is moot.
RuralWanderer (anonymous) replies…
Since it is legal, we shouldn't question it? I wonder if slave owners used the same argument before the Civil War to support the continuance of their cause?
missmagoo (anonymous) says…
"Moser said doctors must spell out the medical reasons for aborting a viable fetus after the 21st week of pregnancy. The law permits those abortions only when the mother's life is in danger or she faces major, permanent harm to her physical or mental health."
What is the definition of a "viable" fetus? If a baby is going to be born with half a brain and no limbs but would survive, it is "viable," correct? So if discovered in the 18-21 week ultrasound, the mother would not have the option to abort, correct?
cait48 (anonymous) replies…
It doesn't make any difference. Anything after 21 weeks is considered "viable" whether it is or not.
Cappy (anonymous) says…
I'm sure glad the republicans are in power to keep the government out of our personal lives...wait, what?
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
I think you might be confusing republicans and libertarians. If my house is on fire, I want the government in my personal life! If someone is breaking into my house, the government is more than welcome to protect me! If someone was trying to kill you; the government is completely useless and irresponsible if they don't step in!
Republicans want to limit the 'size' of ineffiicent government; libertarians don't necessarily consider 'anarchy' a bad thing. It's one thing to protect innocent, defenseless babies...it's another to tax the dead. (Just one example)
mr_right_wing (anonymous) says…
I can see a day coming when 'post-birth abortions' will no longer be considered murder.
I'm proudly pro-life, anti-choice, anti-abortion.
Regardless of if you agree, or disagree with me..I'm very grateful you weren't aborted (aka flushed down a drain.) So calling me 'hateful' makes no sense.
Please don't kill your innocent, defenseless baby.
cait48 (anonymous) replies…
I hate to tell you this but by their denial of health care, education and food the state is already performing "post birth" abortions. And no one has called you "hateful" so drop the "poor me" attitude.
Bottom line, until people care for children as much *after* they'e born as they seem to do *before* they are born, that so called care is pretty hypocritical.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
I'm very grateful you weren't aborted. Hey, I wasn't aborted; so no 'poor me' intended! There are some out there (perhaps not you) who put anyone who disagrees with abortion as 'hateful' towards women. I will have to respectfully disagree with blaming yet something else on our government..too easy an out. In this country 'personal responsibility' is becoming a very rare character trait. (That's not a projection on you.) Thanks for your thoughts.
cait48 (anonymous) replies…
So it's ok for the state to intervene before the child is born to ensure it's survival but not ok to "interfere" after it's born to ensure it's survival. That's not an "easy out", MRW. In fact, to me claiming "personal responsibility" is an "easy out".
If a child is valued before it's born than by logical progression it should be cared for after it's born. In fact, the state doesn't *really* care for the "pre-born". I currently know a pregnant woman in a high risk pregnancy who is receiving food assistance from a local food bank because her husband (who makes all of 10$/hour) makes "too much money" for them to qualify for food stamps. Now "personal responsibility" says she shouldn't be pregnant at all but hey! She's pregnant! Tell me, what should they do?
RuralWanderer (anonymous) replies…
She could get on WIC - the income requirements are much more generous. The food bank is also a good option. There'd probably be help through her local church (it may be the entity running the food bank.)
I don't understand your insinuation that there is no post-birth help from the state. There are so many programs for early childhood that there are organizations created to coordinate all the available programs.
These programs are available starting with infant care (WIC again), health care through Kansas Healthwave, all sorts of health checkups done by businesses and the state, then starting at three years old there are several educational options like Head Start and preschools through learning cooperatives. Then once they get into school, they can qualify for free lunches and now there are even summer nutrition programs available in some districts and even evening and weekend programs coordinated through schools in partnership with entities like Harvesters (called Backsnack).
And this is just a small sampling of the state-related services. Private efforts through non-profits fill in much of the rest of the need if people in need apply themselves to find them.
cait48 (anonymous) replies…
She's actually on WIC, which provides milk, beans, cereal, juice, cheese and eggs. No meat. HealthWave is paying for the pregnancy. These are good things. She lives in a rural part of south central Kansas where many of the assistance programs available here in Lawrence don't exist. She was actually referred to the food bank (out of a church) she receives food from by her obstetrician who was concerned she was protein starving.
I simply find it ironic that 10$/hr for 2 people doesn't qualify someone for food stamps. These people aren't asking for a cash grant. Not even housing help. They live in a one room studio apartment. and they pay for it and their utilities. They have a roof over their heads and they're warm. They live paycheck to paycheck but they are making it. By the skin of their teeth but they're making it.
This...THIS...is the face of the working poor.
And by the way, I find the implication of laziness in your statement, "Private efforts through non-profits fill in much of the rest of the need *if people in need apply themselves to find them*." insulting (emphasis is mine).
There is an implication in many church charities that, "We will be happy to feed you if you will listen to us proselytize.". It hijacks the poor and forces them to submit in ways that I find repugnant. But then it's truly amazing what a pregnant woman will do to bring her baby safely into the world.
RuralWanderer (anonymous) replies…
I live in a rural area of north central Kansas (one of the no stop lights counties). Our food bank is run by the county ministerial association but they don't preach to any of their customers. (That is their policy.)
The annual Christmas gift giveaway and coat and hat giveaway are also coordinated through churches and they do not preach. Period.
The most anyone does with proselytizing is a local family who makes a huge Thanksgiving meal to give away and their preaching is basically a Bible verse attached to the meal on Thanksgiving colored cardstock created by a local homeschool family.
A Sunday meal giveaway by another church has no proselytizing.
I find it insulting that you're likely assuming things that aren't true.
Living paycheck to paycheck is a common way of life in rural Kansas. $10 an hour is a pretty good wage out here. We do not have, nor do we need, the Lawrence standard of living to make us happy. We also don't have the housing costs of Lawrence.
Instead of calling your friend the "face of the working poor" maybe you should raise her up as an example of doing what needs to be done to get by. She'll likely be stronger as a result of it in the coming years.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) says…
Wow, cait48 you got a much better answer there than I could have given!!
The government does not insure 'quality' of life on either side of pregnancy. They don't hand feed a pregnant woman before she gives birth, and they don't hand feed the baby after he/she is born. Before birth you are free to get an abortion, you are free to smoke and drink as well. Right now there is very little protection for the unborn, yet after they're born the 'protection' given by SRS can get quite severe...if I were to make a complaint about you (if you have any kids) to SRS out of spite, that child could be out of your house by this evening. There are plenty of cases where that should happen, but there are also plenty of times when SRS steps over the line with 'good' parents.
Pretty complicated, isn't it? No easy answer here.
cait48 (anonymous) replies…
No there are no easy answers and never were. But the logical progression still stands. If one asserts that the state should intervene to protect the child's life and welfare before it's born, then the state should intervene to protect the child's life and welfare after it's born.
You give as examples the laws as they now stand (which are inadequate and unbalanced). If you wish to *change* the laws then they need to be changed on both sides of the equation. If you want that child born then you should ensure that the pregnant woman have access to adequate nutrition and shelter. And this should be for *all* pregnant women, no matter their income or status. After the baby is born, the child should be guaranteed access to the same plus adequate education.
Why is there such "care" for the "unborn" on the part of the state when, in my opinion, there is very little care for the result?