Archive for Thursday, October 27, 2011

Group to sue over new Kan. abortion clinic rules

October 27, 2011


— A national abortion rights group announced Thursday that it will sue over revised regulations for abortion providers in Kansas, saying that even with recent changes meant to placate the doctors who have already persuaded a federal judge to block the earlier version, the rules still impose unreasonable and "irrational" requirements.

The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights represents Dr. Herbert Hodes and his daughter, Dr. Traci Nauser, who perform abortions and provide other services at their medical offices in the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park. The center, on behalf of the doctors, filed a lawsuit in late June, when the Kansas Department of Health and Environment was preparing to enforce new regulations mandated this year by the Legislature.

The first version of the rules told providers what drugs and equipment they must stock and set minimum size requirements for procedure and recovery rooms. The department recently revised the rules, paring down the list of drugs and equipment required and dropping specific sizes for rooms. The state published the revised regulations Thursday and they are set to take effect next month.

A federal judge blocked enforcement of the original regulations until a trial of the doctors' lawsuit. Learning last week that revised regulations would take effect Nov. 14, the judge ordered the parties in the lawsuit to analyze the differences between the two sets of rules.

"While the regulations have been changed in some respects, they are still unacceptable," Bonnie Scott Jones, an attorney with center, said in a statement. "They run roughshod over patient confidentiality, and impose unnecessary and unreasonable requirements that will prevent physicians from providing the full range of reproductive health services to the women of Kansas."

A spokesman for the attorney general's office did not immediately return a telephone message seeking comment. Health department spokeswoman Miranda Steele said the agency had not seen the announcement.

"KDHE will move forward as we can legally, however we need to do our jobs within the rule of law," she said.

The health department wrote both sets of regulations under a law enacted this year requiring clinics, hospitals and doctors' offices performing five or more elective abortions a month to obtain a special, annual license. It was a part of a wave of anti-abortion measures enacted this year across the nation, as abortion opponents capitalized on the election of new, sympathetic Republican governors like Kansas' Sam Brownback.

A third physician, Dr. Ronald Yeomans, who performs abortions at a Kansas City, Kan., clinic was also part of the original lawsuit.


Paul R Getto 6 years, 5 months ago

"They run roughshod over patient confidentiality, and impose unnecessary and unreasonable requirements that will prevent physicians from providing the full range of reproductive health services to the women of Kansas." === Hmmmmmmmmm..........other than that, what is the problem?

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 5 months ago

Abuse by the abortion industry in Kansas calls for reform and reasonable regulation.

mcontrary 6 years, 5 months ago

Ah, another antiabortionist. Let those babies live! Impose your beliefs on the mother, no matter the costs (figuratively and literally). Make sure that there is little or no support or assistance with shelter, medical care, food or clothing expenses for the mother or baby during the pregnancy and following the birth of the baby. Congratulations! keep up the good work, you just saved a baby, albeit at the expense of both the baby’s or mother’s future!

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 5 months ago

Just who are you suggesting is advocating this opposing view? I think you are setting up an argument against an opponent that does not exist. Members of the Christian community are the ones who support the weakest among us and who want to provide all the support needed to save all of God's children.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 5 months ago

"legal abortion are here to stay". Agreed Freedom of speech is also here to stay, yet I can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Freedom of the press is here to stay, yet libel is not protected. Freedom of religion is here to stay, yet I can't engage in animal sacrifice.

Yes, legal abortion is here to stay, but that's not to say it will be unregulated and without reasonable restrictions. Our other rights have been around for more than two centuries and we're still debating what restrictions are reasonable. The right to an abortion is relatively new and needs to be debated with equal vigor.

thebigspoon 6 years, 5 months ago

Nor, Ag, does this lawsuit seek to make abortions mandatory. The point is that the regulations put forth by the state held no relationship to logical standards of health, safety, or the well-being of the patients. They were put out there to make women's health clinics toe lines in the sand that were totally arbitrary and meant to make it not cost-effective to run the places. If you or yours don't want an abortion, don't get one. Continue to campaign against them, if it makes you feel useful. Post anti-abortion items wherever you can whenever you can. But try to read the articles you post against before commenting--otherwise your words make you seem to be tilting at windmills.

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 5 months ago

It just depends upon how the Courts rule and what the people of this country decide about the continued dismemberment of the unborn children! We do live in a democracy and we the people can end this practice if we so choose!

ivalueamerica 6 years, 5 months ago

The Governor and his posse are going to make a lot of lawyers rich and spend a lot of our tax dollars fighting laws that will never be allowed because they bypass the Constitution.

I do not think we have the money to keep up all these lawsuits for indefensible laws.

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 5 months ago

You only care about the waste of money when it comes to defending conservative pro-family law. If this was some kind of liberal agenda item I question how much you would be concerned about the cost of litigation!

ivalueamerica 6 years, 5 months ago

of course you are a liar. I support and defend the Constitution, even when I do not like it. Phelps for example.

However, if you feel the only way you can make your point is by saying something about me that is not true, attacking me for and and pretending you are honest, you have much deeper rooted problems than just simple dishonesty.

bwhacker 6 years, 5 months ago

First of all, for clarity's sake, I assume that you are suggesting that the Governor is spending tax dollars fighting for laws that bypass the Constitution. Secondly, how exactly does this law bypass the Constitution? Casting aside the point that abortion is not at all addressed by the Constitution, nor is the right to privacy upon which the legality of the procedure rests, it is well within the purview of the government to regulate business. In fact, that is one of the main purposes of government, and is a responsibility explicitly stated in the Constitution.

The question in this matter, is whether the laws as written place an undue burden on these facilities simply because they perform abortions. Given that abortion rights activists have argued for years that these are safe, reliable medical procedures, once the government proposed treating these facilities as medical clinics, they suddenly want to exempt themselves from this scrutiny.

ivalueamerica 6 years, 5 months ago

wow, your presumption starts out that since you do not agree with the Supreme court, that their clear and consistent rulings must be invalid. How totally absurd of you.

Then you follow up that extra sets of regulations that are social in nature, not medical and interfere with a woman's right to privacy are somehow exempt because you want to call it a business transaction is really a joke. Do you think I or anyone should take you seriously with your approach?

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 5 months ago

Maybe she should be called before the Legislative committees charged with oversight on these matters...

Cant_have_it_both_ways 6 years, 5 months ago

Another reason to have a looser pay system for law suits.

Cant_have_it_both_ways 6 years, 5 months ago

Agnostick, I asked you not to troll me. You are in violation of the terms of service. Should I report you?

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 5 months ago

Laws have been enacted elsewhere that call for regulation of abortion clinics and they have not been held to be unconstitutional! Kansas legislators were supporting the views of the citizens in their districts who do not agree with unlimited abortion on demand with no limits or restrictions. In the end these regulations will take effect and you will have to eat your words( just a prediction)!

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 5 months ago

you need to review laws passed and in force in PA and South Carolina among others. It is a fact and you need to review it for yourself!

mloburgio 6 years, 5 months ago

Unintended Pregnancies Cost Taxpayers $11 Billion A Year A new study by the Guttmacher Institute, a leading reproductive health research and advocacy group, estimates that unintended pregnancies cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $11.1 billion dollars a year. Nearly two-thirds of unintended pregnancies -- roughly a million births -- are publicly funded by Medicaid and other government programs, the report shows.

At the same time, the demand for abortions among low-income women has been on the rise since the recession. The abortion rate increased 18 percent among poor women between 2000 and 2008, according to another recent Guttmacher report, as a result of their inability to afford or access contraceptive services and their perceived inability to support a child.

“Anti-abortion restrictions and cuts to publicly funded family planning services disproportionately affect poor women, making it even more difficult for them to gain access to the contraceptive and abortion services they need," said study author Rachel K. Jones. "It certainly appears these women are being underserved."

Unreal 6 years, 5 months ago

Two points here no one has mentioned:

  1. Birth control (condoms, etc.) should be FREE to the public -- both men and women. And women should not have to have a prescription to get their birth control pills.

  2. Education is key here. Schools should be teaching kids about sex and birth control. There are many many parents out there who think if they just tell their kids no that they won't have sex. WRONG! Kids are having sex, and they need access to birth control and education about it. Also, women who live in low-income and poverty situations definitely need access to education and free birth control. Until we educate, abortions will continue to be needed. Now granted, there will always be a need for abortions in cases of rape and incest. But those situations which would require an abortion are rare and do not make up the majority of abortions happening. Education, education!!

Katara 6 years, 5 months ago

No, you should have a prescription to get birth control pills. They can have some very bad side effects for some (such as stroke, for example) and some have conditions in which they are not very effective (such as someone who is on a long-term low level course of antibiotics).

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 5 months ago

  1. Nothing is free-- someone has to pay for it-- and the taxpayer has been doing a great deal of heavy lifting lately!

2.- Parents should be the primary educators of their children about sex because they are the ones who can teach morals and values and about what God has to say in these situations. Liberal sex education can actually make matters worse because it cuts morality out of the equation!

Katara 6 years, 5 months ago

Sweden, Finland & Norway disprove your 2nd point.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 5 months ago

"1. Nothing is free-- someone has to pay for it-- and the taxpayer has been doing a great deal of heavy lifting lately!" You want a Republican to care about your child? Keep it in the womb!

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 5 months ago

We have very different visions about what is morally right. But asking the taxpayer to advocate for your view which is immoral to many of us is not correct to us and we will oppose it and cut off the funding if we have the votes!

pace 6 years, 5 months ago

The state has no business dictating to women if they should or should not use birth control or if they should or should not have an abortion. The should not stand between a woman and her doctor.

The state has real work, they should end the job killing tax cuts to the rich, they should regulate industry from polluting the public's air and water, They should regulate work place safety and maintain infrastructures.

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 5 months ago

The state has an interest in preserving human life. The state should not be advocating the use of birth control to minors without parental consent and the government should not be imposing immorality on the people by advocating a message that says immorality is o.k.

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 5 months ago

wow--lots of false assumptions--and more personal attacks! Why can't we just discuss and even disagree on issues without you resorting to this type of personal invective?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.