Archive for Friday, July 29, 2011

Abortion providers argue Kansas’ new regulations aren’t backed by data

July 29, 2011, 1:23 p.m. Updated July 29, 2011, 7:17 p.m.

Advertisement

— Kansas officials drafted new regulations for abortion providers without independently compiling data or studies on how the new rules would make the procedures safer for the women seeking them, and attorneys for providers expect the apparent lack of such research to be a central issue in a federal lawsuit challenging the rules.

Teresa Woody, a Kansas City, Mo., attorney representing two Kansas doctors who perform abortions, said Friday that the providers don't think the state can show it has a medical justification for the new regulations. The rules tell providers what drugs and equipment they must stock and set requirements for room sizes and temperatures, among other things.

The rules were supposed to take effect July 1, but U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia, in Kansas City, blocked their enforcement until the lawsuit is resolved. After an initial hearing, Murguia questioned whether the state had compiled evidence showing the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's rules were "rationally related" to protecting patients.

The Associated Press then filed an open records request, seeking a copy of studies, reports or summaries of data compiled by the department's staff from Jan. 1 through early July, or summaries of existing data or studies used in drafting the regulations. A response said the department "has no document that meets this request."

"We don't think any of these regulations are medically necessary," Woody told The Associated Press. "If they have research out there that shows the regulations are medically necessary, we haven't seen it."

Health department officials have said they based their regulations on rules from other states, most notably Arizona and Texas. KDHE spokeswoman Miranda Myrick said Friday that both state and federal guidelines for hospitals, clinics and other facilities are based on an assumption that they will "result in a higher level of care."

"In developing these regulations, KDHE looked to resources that used established, industry-accepted standards of care in clinical settings that have been developed over many years," she said in an email, adding that such standards are "grounded in evidence."

Woody filed notices in federal court this week disclosing that the providers' attorneys plan to question health department officials and members of the attorney general's staff in September. Those to be interviewed include Joseph Kroll, the director of the KDHE bureau that drafted the regulations, and KDHE Secretary Robert Moser.

She also filed a notice that both the health department and attorney general's office had received a list of questions and a demand to produce documents. Court filings show the providers' attorneys want to question officials about the steps they took to research their regulations.

"It obviously goes to proving our case that it's an undue burden," Woody said.

The health department drafted its regulations under a law requiring hospitals, clinics and doctor's offices to obtain a special, annual license if they perform five or more elective abortions a month. Gov. Sam Brownback signed the law May 16. The department had a final draft of its regulations ready June 17 — and told providers they had to comply by July 1, when the law took effect.

Two of Kansas' three abortion providers were denied licenses under the new regulations. A Planned Parenthood clinic in Overland Park received one, but it was already regulated by the health department as an ambulatory surgical center. All three clinics are in the Kansas City area.

Woody represents Drs. Herbert Hodes and Traci Nauser, his daughter, who provided abortion services at the Center for Women's Health in Overland Park. The third clinic, Aid for Women in Kansas City, also is involved in the lawsuit, along with its physician, Ronald Yeomans.

Health department officials said the law forced them to work quickly and gave them no discretion to waive any requirements. The providers' lawsuit argues that the state violated their right to due legal process.

Brownback is an anti-abortion Republican, and abortion-rights supporters contend the real goal behind the regulations was keeping clinics and doctor's offices from terminating pregnancies.

The governor's office has said Brownback, his chief of staff and his policy director did not communicate with Kroll while the regulations were being drafted. Caleb Stegall, chief counsel for both Brownback and the health department, declined to release his own communications with Kroll.

An open records request from The AP for communications between Attorney General Derek Schmidt's staff and the health department is pending. Schmidt's office declined to comment Friday because the lawsuit is pending.

Comments

Crazy_Larry 4 years ago

Arbitrary rule won't fly. (I am number one)

verity 4 years ago

Who woulda thunk it could happen in Kansas?

DillonBarnes 4 years ago

The Bible doesn't count as data!?

somedude20 4 years ago

as much as Clifford the Big Red Dog is an instruction manual for pet ownership

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

Amazing how religion and God are always being attacked by the pro-abortion crowd!

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

Where is this blunt weapon??--evidence?

CloveK 4 years ago

The evidence, kansanjayhawk, is in every one of your posts.

Thankfully most of us have gotten use to your blindly swinging of this blunt weapon and it has become no more effective than a Nerf bat.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

I have never leveled personal attacks like many of the liberal activists on this site. I only bring up a conservative view on the issues even if you don't like it.

Scribeoflight 4 years ago

Well, that's going to happen a lot when you try and run a government based on religion. Not everyone in Kansas follows or believes in your bible.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

I don't think you have too or are required to in order to support basic health and safety regs. Where is the "religious requirement"? --it doesnt' exist here!

CloveK 4 years ago

Safety regs???? Like the size of the janitors closet?

Boy I was sure nervous to get that procedure done at an already medically approved clinic, but now that I know the janitor's closet is up to regs, I am worry free!

Keep swinging that Nerf bat bud and sippin your Kool-Aid.

DillonBarnes 4 years ago

In this thread you are simultaneously arguing against abortion and claiming these laws have nothing to do with religion.

Scribeoflight 4 years ago

I would be hard pressed to find anyone who is pro-life, and does not also strongly identify with a religion.

You are the ones who talk of saving souls, and try to frame counter arguments in those terms.

Therefore, I'm going to assume that your reasoning for opposing abortion rights are based on your religion. And that leads me to believe that any law that seeks to further restrict legal access is based on those same religious beliefs.

There is no "religious requirement", but the idea suffuses every action and law your side wants to make.

Crazy_Larry 4 years ago

It's pro-choice you a-hole; nobody I know is pro-abortion. And, you are the fool who's attacking people.

"Wouldn't it be hilarious if Satan wrote some BS book and convinced us it was the word of God so that we would spend the rest of eternity ignorant and divided?" -Contero

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

I don't see anyone on the pro-life side offering the personal attacks especially against your personal religious beliefs!

ivalueamerica 4 years ago

another false witness from you.

Christian Supremacy is not acceptable, not even in the Bible. No one attacked God, only those who abuse Christianity.

It is dishonest for you to try and make a leap of logic that means all Christians are being attacked. In fact it is an outright lie.

I encourage you to read the Bible BEFORE you speak on its behalf so you do not appear so foolish.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

Amazing how, according to our Constitution, religion has nothing to do with our laws.

Hal Larsen 4 years ago

All hail His noodly appendage!!

itwasthedukes 4 years ago

So regulation have to be backed by data now? Good by federal fuel efficiency regulations!!

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

exactly! They only want data when it comes to defending their sacrament of abortion on demand!

Scribeoflight 4 years ago

sacrament implies a religious origin. I thought we were the godless heathens and you guys had all the sacraments?

And yes, i want access to a legal medical procedure without government interference. (well, not me, i got boy parts. but you get my meaning i hope.)

Crazy_Larry 4 years ago

The person known as 'kansanjayhawk' is clearly an idiot. It's perfectly okay ignore idiots.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

sounds like you don't like conservative ideas! You just have resort to name-calling that is why liberalism is failing in it's current form.

Scribeoflight 4 years ago

Well, of course I don't like conservative ideas. That's the whole point of this current discussion. I'm at least trying to make some points on WHY.

And, for the record, the name calling in the above post was directed at myself. I've been called a godless heathen quite often. And, also for the record, you are the one using loaded words to paint your opponents with a negative brush.

Scribeoflight 4 years ago

I was just having a long day, and am tired of the people who yell the loudest getting the attention.

: sigh :

I know, I know, don't feed the trolls.

chootspa 4 years ago

We have a finite amount of oil. There's your data. Kthxbye.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

Once again this is a backward argument because Supreme Court precedent does not require such studies and these laws have been upheld and are in effect elsewhere!

Scribeoflight 4 years ago

But are they a good idea? Do they contribute to the health of women?

Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. that cuts both ways.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

Yes--they may be a good idea--but they have nothing to do whether the law is constitutional or not.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

No they were not "upheld". This is the first time they've been challenged and, believe me, other states are watching.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

laws like this have, in fact, been upheld in other states. This law was modeled after laws that have been upheld elsewhere.

somedude20 4 years ago

Yeah, I would not expect much as religion is based on no factual data (and really is just so unbelievable that the word faith was invented to try and sugar coat and make the fairytale palatable) so don't hold your breath. It is rather sad that a few people can use a bs myth to control people,cause pain, anguish and death all for something that odds are is 99.99999999999999999999999999% not real. It makes me anrgy that the gullible can be lead so easily but all well..... immaculate conception? heck no, it is the Immaculate Reception! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xMDIcsUMmA

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

First of all this law is designed to protect women from some of these monsters who claim to be doctors but are really drug addicts and perverts! These abortionists are the ones who are causing the pain and anguish! Secondly, a personal relationship with Jesus Christ will give you a relationship with the creator and allow you to have your eyes open and see the need for social justice and for opposing violence and destructive behavior. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God--read your Bible and allow it to open your eyes of faith-- allow God to show you that He cares for you and the unborn.

Linda Endicott 4 years ago

And how will having the temperature regulated in the room at a particular point save a woman from a doctor who is a drug addict or pervert?

I respect your right to not agree with abortion and to not ever have one. But you do not have the right to tell everyone else in the world how they should live...

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

However, the Supreme Court has upheld reasonable health and safety regulations as here, this law does not ban abortion or even substantially interfere with it!

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

The law contains alot more regs than just temperature in the rooms. I challenge you to read the law.

deec 4 years ago

Actually the filthy conditions and perverts operated as back alley abortionists pre-legalization. The clinic that keeps getting referenced was dealt with under existing regs. There is an enforcement problem, not a problem with the regs that applied to abortion clinics as well as all other medical clinics.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

Guess who was enforcing?--Sebelius--the legal clinics can be just as bad as the illegal ones were.

Frictional 4 years ago

Okay...you keep calling them abortion doctors. I never once received (or was offered) an abortion at PP. I was given a well woman exam and a couple handfuls of condoms. I also was uninsured...so they were a godsend. And another thing...the doctors were women, most definitely were not perverts and very obviously not drug addicts. They were healthy, understanding women who advocated personal responsibility and healthy living choices. Had you ever been there for a well woman check up, you would know this.

Also, on your religious points- I work towards social justice every single day of my life, have attended college for a degree in social welfare, and vehemently oppose violence. I am not a Christian...but that is not to say that I am not spiritual. Christianity is not the only faith that believes in those things, Jayhawk...and quite honestly Christians are some of the most judging, violent and opposed to social justice I have seen. I'm not trying to attack your religion by any means...but please do not attack those who do not believe in your religion. Yours is not the only valid belief system in the world...and not the only way to God.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

I have never attacked anyone or their religion. But I have constantly seen on this site post after post from liberals attacking God and faith.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

No they aren't attacking "God and faith". They are attacking judgmentalism, coercion, bigotry, self righteousness and proselytization wrapped in a blanket of "God and faith". Huge difference there.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

do the research into some of the clinic abuses and you will see that this is no lie. There have been problems at abortion clinics all across the country and that is why these types of laws are being enacted!

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

**not an attack on their beliefs just their actions there is a difference!

beatrice 4 years ago

The temperature of a room and size of the utility closet will finally bring an end to the drug addicts and perverts! Time we start making similar demands of the church then.

If you care to have a belief in Jesus, that is fine by me. Once you start telling me that I need to do the same is when I feel free to remind you that having personal relationships with people who have been dead for 2000 years, if they ever lived at all, is dilusional thinking. I simply ask, would you leave your child in the care of someone who says they have such a personal relationship with god that they can hear him speak to them in their head? Reality cometh by hearing and reading the real world and recognizing that there is no magical being living up in the sky. Zeus doesn't exist either. Put down your book of anciet Middle-Eastern superstitions already and read something else for a change. Maybe start with Moby Dick. That is always a good read.

Crazy_Larry 4 years ago

We've solved our drug addiction and pervert crime problem, folks! We've been doing it all wrong...change the building code and require every home have anti-pervert/anti-drug addict closet dimensions. Who'd a thunk it?!?

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

Your eyes are being blinded by your unbelief.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

"I have never attacked anyone or their religion." (KJH)

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

stating the facts as I see them about your refusal to look at the clinic regs. why can't you accept that there may be some justification for the law?

Crazy_Larry 4 years ago

Clinic regs? Was there a problem? I don't ever recall reading stories of patients leaving Kansas' Planned Parenthood Clinics in body bags. None, nada, zilch.

joanni 4 years ago

Seriously??? We can't legislate based on the word of "God." I don't need to be protected from doctors, I need to be protected from religious zealots who presume they know what I should do with my body.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

If you are with child there is a baby growing inside you. It is not just "your" body...

Crazy_Larry 4 years ago

A zygote has no body. And up until the very end of pregnancy a fetus has no useful body outside the womb. A baby is not a baby until it take it's first breath of fresh air outside the mother's womb...then we have an individual with personhood.

Crazy_Larry 4 years ago

I've got a great idea! You mind your own business and let everyone else mind theirs. I guarantee the world would be a better place if you did this. No one will force you to abort your zygote.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

Saving a human soul for eternity is something magical!

Scribeoflight 4 years ago

and forcing them to grow up unwanted, uneducated, abused, is also sooooooo awesome!!!

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

better than being dead, killed, and dismembered!

Scribeoflight 4 years ago

No, some of them end up that way too. But it happens way later.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

So what if I don't want my "soul saved"? I'm perfectly happy with my soul, thank you very much. Are you going to force it on me any way? Legislate my salvation? Give it a rest already.

Katara 4 years ago

Every time I read a Kansanjayhawk post on abortion, this pops into my head.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/192/magicblastocystgh9.jpg/

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

That is something that cannot be legislated...

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

Gasp! You're actually admitting that people can't be forced into Christianity! Just that you want people forced to live by the laws of your religion, whether they believe it or not.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

bad premise cait48--this law is not a law only of my "religion". Reasonable health and safety regs. have consistently been upheld read Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Webster, even Roe itself.

MarcoPogo 4 years ago

The regulations were not intelligently designed.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

The Supreme Court does not require these kind of studies. The law requires simply that the proposed regulations do not create and "undue burden" and that is what the abortion providers will have to claim and prove. These types of basic clinic regulation laws that require abortionists to meet min. standards of medical care have been upheld across the country and there is no reason to believe that the Kansas law will not withstand the legal challenge. The filthy conditions in some of our Kansas clinics like the one in KCK which had a rat in the hallway and unsanitary conditions is an example of why we need this and other reasonable health care protections.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

we have already gone over that in the past. You need to get the committee min. from the committee hearing held in the Kansas House and Kansas Senate and look at that testimony please stop calling names. This has already been proven and you just will not explain why you oppose the reasonable constitutional regulations!

Crazy_Larry 4 years ago

It is my opinion that false and misleading information has been spoon fed to the guy...It's all he/she's ever known, for Krom's sake.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

Just a little research and you could open your own mind...

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

I have repeatedly cited committee hearing minutes and testimony offered before Kansas House Fed and State affairs Committee and hearing in the Senate.

Crazy_Larry 4 years ago

A link to some credible information on the internets would be absolutely stunning.

MarcoPogo 4 years ago

Here we go with the rats again...

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

Face the fact that some of these clinics have been unhealthy and explain why these reasonable health and safety standards should not be in effect?

MarcoPogo 4 years ago

Face the fact that I didn't say anything about whether or not standards were being violated. But you want to ignore that and make it seem like I made an argument that I never made. Here, I will repeat EXACTLY what I said:

Here we go with the rats again...

madameX 4 years ago

How about you explain why you consider rules that make requirements for things as arbritrary and the size of the janitor closet, for clinics that perform abortions but not for any other type of minor surgery, reasonable?

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

because that is the standard for medical care. A min. standard applied to many such clinics.

Crazy_Larry 4 years ago

Shutting down a business because their closet dimensions do not meet arbitrarily selected specifications is an 'undue burden', bud.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

You kind of remind me of those "pregnancy crisis centers" that intentionally lie to pregnant women to keep them from aborting; showing them nasty photoshopped pictures of monkey fetuses and telling them that if they have an abortion they will be infertile for the rest of their lives. You do know that there is a fraud bill up in the Senate to ban those places from deliberately telling falsehoods, don't you? Oh my! What will you do now?

jhawkinsf 4 years ago

"Not backed by data" That's the whole problem with the abortion debate. Neither side can agree when humanity begins. And there is no data to support either position.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

Life begins at conception--biology 101--a self-evident fact that pro-abortionists will not face!

Scribeoflight 4 years ago

by the same standard mowing your lawn is genocide then.

beatrice 4 years ago

So "life" is the joining of two cells? And what of viability? Perhaps a course beyond the simplistic biology 101 is in order.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

Since at least two thirds of all conceptions are naturally "aborted" in the first two weeks without the women even knowing she is pregnant, what a terrible waste of "life"! At least in your view.

Corey Williams 4 years ago

Good lord! But that would mean that god is the biggest abortion provider of all! Where is Roeder when you need him?

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

you twist my views and you know it. Nature taking it's course is not the same as an induced abortion and you know it.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

Excuse me if I point out the obvious BS.

jhawkinsf 4 years ago

Please note I used the word humanity, not life.

Katara 4 years ago

Perhaps a more appropriate word choice is "personhood"?

Barry Watts 4 years ago

Honestly, I wish this was left up to the states to decide. A better decision by SCOTUS would have. That way we would have the opportunity to outlaw it in Kansas, since a majority of citizens are against it. If California or other more liberal states want to stop beating hearts and destroy human life, then go for it. We just don't want it here!

deec 4 years ago

"From the date of the last menstrual period, the fetal heart will begin to beat on the 22nd day of development. This means that by the 5th week of pregnancy, the heart is beating." So I take it you are in favor of abortions in weeks 1-4? http://www.i-am-pregnant.com/encyclopedia/F/Fetal-Heart-Rate/

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

So I guess you're also against he harvesting of organs for transplant since they try to keep the donor's heart beating until they do so?

mikewilliams 4 years ago

  1. Abortion is legal.

  2. It was clear when Brownback was elected there would be attempts to block abortion somehow.

  3. At this time the best he can do is to tie the abortion providers in sticky red tape.

  4. Failing that we will probably see assasinations,:it has happned before in this State.

  5. Then we will see a name change from"Kansas" to "Brownbackistan."

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

5 is over the top but yeah, I agree with everything else.

Sharon Aikins 4 years ago

Or we could combine his name with the current state name.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

cute--but really Brownback is doing his best to end injustice and protect women-- many of us appreciate what he is doing to protect Kansans and others.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

You've never revealed (not that I would necessarily believe you, as you are a known liar), but are you male or female? You know as well as I do that these aren't laws to protect "women". The mere fact that you think women are stupid enough to buy that pretty much reveals your gender.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

"Brownback was elected overwhelmingly by Kansans in a high turnout election." One third of registered voters was a "high turnout" election? Nor was it "overwhelmingly". I suggest you do a little Googling and look at the numbers.

"Women still have access to abortions and birth control." No they won't. At least not in this state. Oh they will still have access to birth control. You can't stop that. But in a state that was already down to just three clinics that performed abortions, these laws would cut it down even further to just one, the PP clinic in Kansas City. Had they not passed and licensed the PP clinic prior to the injunction, Kansas would have ended up the first state in the US to have none. That's not "access".

Nice spin but it's not drying my clothes.

MarcoPogo 4 years ago

No matter what they try to tell you, remember this:

  1. Han shot first.

  2. Laura Palmer's dad was the killer.

  3. The Screamroller was the first looping roller coaster at Worlds of Fun.

  4. AOL used to only give users 10 hours a month.

  5. In Greek mythology, Abacab was the brother of Sussudio.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/agnostick/2011/jul/29/abortion-in-kansas-its-a-trap/ Agnostick has written a blog post on this subject and for, whatever reason, it's not showing up on the web edition home page. I suggest you read it.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

Maybe that's why these CEOs want to get so rich; so they can afford the price of AC in hell.

Richard Heckler 4 years ago

This Brownback admin thinkers have been operating on assumptions for many many many years.

They are of the dictator mentality which in essence = when we speak how dare anyone to challenge.

What they do not realize is that there can never be enough money to cool their hell.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

I remember the dictator mentality when Sebelius was in office. She vetoed every single piece of pro-life legislation because she did not agree with it. Many of us on the pro-life side were not happy--an now the shoe is on the other foot--face it the election made a difference and we have a great many pro-life legislators in Topeka to thank.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

In actuality, Sibelius acted in a way that the system was meant to act, as a check and balance on an overly anti-choice, pro-birth legislature. (There is nothing "pro-life" about this legislation.) Now we have unchecked (both literally and figuratively, as this article proves) anti-choice, pro-birth legislation coming out of the legislature that will be challenged at every turn and end up costing this state possibly millions of dollars (which claims at every turn that it's broke). I truly expect a lot of it will be shot down in the Federal courts, so don't get your hopes up, KJH. I actually appreciate that there are pro-choice groups and organizations willing to fund those challenges. I find it highly ironic that the Governor is willing to close the local SRS, the very agency that cares for "born" children, for a projected savings of 400K and has the potential for putting their lives in danger, and yet is willing to spend at least twice that much to ensure that children that will actually need those services make it into the world. Some of them will spend months in utero in pain and suffering and then live for mere hours or days before dieing, in agony, leaving behind medical bills in the hundreds of thousands that their parents will never be able to pay that will have to be picked up by the state. It sickens me that there are people who actually call themselves "pro-life" that will look in glee on that kind of situation. The truth is, KJH, we have a pro-abortion Governor. He just believes in it post-birth instead of pre-birth.

tomcats 4 years ago

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

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

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

Crazy_Larry 4 years ago

Data? What's that? Don't say nothing about no data in my bible! As a matter of fact, the bible does not contain the word data, let alone any fact.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

Under Roe there are only certain regs that can be enacted and this health protection law is one that has been approved under SCOTUS precedent why can't we agree that the overwhelming majority of the Kansas Legislature might have a reason to approve this law that is motivated by the desire to protect women.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

Oh they have a "reason" alright. But it's not motivated by the desire to "protect women". You've tried using this excuse in the past and I've called BS on you for it. This legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with "protecting women". You know it, I know it and the legislature and the Governor knows it. Stop trying to cover it up like a cat in a litter pan. It's not going to work. And just like cat poop, it's still going to stink just as much. Not to mention it's highly irritating to me that my gender is being used as a manipulative excuse to further an agenda that I, a woman, see as "anti-woman". Why don't you try, for once, to take a step back and get your head out of the crotches of women and realize there's a lot more to the gender than a uterus? (Now comes the screed about "protecting life" and "dismemberment" and "the Holocaust" and "the babieeeeees" and the Big Sky God and the little angelic "souls" you're saving, etc., etc. ad nauseum. Somebody roll my eyes back to me.)

Crazy_Larry 4 years ago

Someone firebombed a Planned Parenthood clinic in McKinney, Texas, late Tuesday night. A potential incident of domestic terrorism this week got a yawn from most of the press -- and the political right.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/30/planned_parenthood_terrorism/index.html

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

Too bad it wasn't an "Islamic terrorist". The press would be all over it like stink on the brown stuff (and I don't mean chocolate).

yourworstnightmare 4 years ago

Why should we be surpised that these actions were not based on facts and research? Ideology is all that matters to these people anyway.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

"these people" happen to be a super majority of the Kansas House of Representatives and a solid majority in the Kansas Senate and Governor Brownback! Wake up friend the wind is blowing against killing the unborn and in favor of restrictions on abortion--these happen to be minor commonsense--rules for insuring women's health and protection.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

Another attack that is made not based upon facts but upon a desire to put your ideological opponent in a box and not allow the issues to be openly debated. This is very much like name calling!

The fact is that I reject violence and so do most pro-life citizens here in Kansas.

The fact is that I resent the implication and suggestion of your statement and it certainly does not go anywhere toward seeking common-group or being open or liberal.

But as I have seen in this LJW site many liberals are just cliche liberals without well-grounded views.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

These rules are neither "minor" nor "commonsense" nor are they for "women". And by the way, as much as you hate it, abortion is legal. Get that? LEGAL.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

Tell that to gun owners when anti-gun people take a page from this book and start applying "harassment laws" that block a legal right by not denying it but wrapping it in so much red tape that it may as well be. Let's see where the Second Amendment ends up then.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

Yes it is legal--something I oppose--but SCOTUS has allowed reasonable restrictions to be placed upon it read Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This law is very much like the current law which is in effect in PA. do a little research and you will see that these type of laws have been upheld.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

I have read, KJH, something you obviously haven't. Lawsuits are current against six other states that have enacted the same laws. To date, none have been upheld. Your wishful thinking is showing.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.