Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, February 9, 2012

Opponents criticize latest abortion bill in Kansas Legislature

February 9, 2012

Advertisement

— Last year, five bills limiting abortion services and affordable contraception were passed by the Kansas Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Sam Brownback.

On Wednesday, a House committee started consideration of the first abortion bill of the current session that opponents say will create more limitations.

House Bill 2598 will require physicians to tell women that the risk of breast cancer is increased by abortion. It would also give a woman the opportunity to hear the fetal heartbeat before she consents to an abortion.

Additionally, the bill says that schools cannot contract with abortion service providers for sexual education.

Supporters of the bill, such as Kathy Ostrowski, the legislative director for Kansans for Life, said states have the right to promote childbirth.

“It actually helps put in protections for the babies and puts in protection for the parents,” Ostrowski said. “It helps parents understand the fetal development, to understand the risks (of abortions) ... ”

A coalition of nonprofit organizations, such as Mainstream Coalition, Planned Parenthood and Trust Women, criticized the measure.

Trust Women’s Virginia Phillips said the bill would infringe on women’s rights.

“This bill is an intrusive, far-reaching piece of legislation,” Phillips said. “It dictates what people can and cannot do.”

Hearings on the measure will continue today and Friday.

Comments

citizen1 2 years, 2 months ago

None of this would be necessary if women & men practiced self control & safe sex. Promiscuity is the issue.

With freedom of choice comes responsibility for the results of the choice. If the individuals will not accept their rightful responsibilities then government does as demanded by the populous.

0

verity 2 years, 2 months ago

Has anybody who supports this bill answered the question "Is is ok for your doctor to lie to you or withhold the truth from you?"

Unless you are willing to have your doctor lie to you about anything and everything then you are a total hypocrite for supporting this bill.

0

Katara 2 years, 2 months ago

What has been left out of this discussion so far is that this bill prevents wrongful death and wrongful life lawsuits.

Essentially the doctor is shielded from the consequences of withholding information or outright lying to the patient.

If a mother dies as a result of the doctor's actions, her family cannot sue. Women cannot sue for any injuries sustained as a result of withheld or deliberately misleading information. You cannot sue if anything happens to the fetus as a result as well.

This bill takes away a basic right - the right to redress grievances in a court of law.

0

its_just_math 2 years, 2 months ago

And as long as useful idiots are not paying attention like good little useful idiots do, the corrupt Obamamania lamestream liberal intellectually bankrupt agenda driven media (whew---mouthful) will continue to manipulate the news to satisfy their liberal cravings and keep their deep, deep slobberly love affair with The Anointed One alive.

0

its_just_math 2 years, 2 months ago

I'm glad to see the extremist left is OK with no separation of church and state. Took a couple centuries---give or take, but The Anointed One and Kathleen "Marie Antoinette let them eat cake" Sebelius and the entire extreme left wing of the Democratic Socialist Party are truly some change agents.

Funny, took hours for Komen to be splattered all over the news and strong-armed into reversing their KlanParenthood decision, but a couple of weeks for The Anointed One's b/c mandate to really hit the news.

When will America see this radical leftist fraud for he is? I'm thinking by November.

0

its_just_math 2 years, 2 months ago

Obama and his extemist left base will determine what is constitutional and what is not. They will determine what violates your rights and what does not.

Give it up until he's out.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 2 months ago

By the way, a new study just out shows teen pregnancy is at a thirty year low. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2011/02/teen_birth_decline_back_on_tra.html Why? Because of increased education and free access to cheap contraceptives. Oh my. What are pro-forced birthers/competitive breeders gonna do about this?

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 2 months ago

Hey, bluekansas and ivalueamerica, here's one of my favorite articles on the subject: http://new.exchristian.net/2012/01/righteous-abortion-how-conservative.html

0

Michael LoBurgio 2 years, 2 months ago

Contraception use reduces need for abortion, so you'd think anti-choicers would embrace it. But fact is, they just hate sex.

0

Michael LoBurgio 2 years, 2 months ago

The Biblical God is NOT pro-life, he advocates child murder, infanticide, child abuse and abortion:

http://www.evilbible.com/god%27s%20not%20pro-life.htm

0

ivalueamerica 2 years, 2 months ago

In Numbers 5, 11-31 God commands priests to provide abortions to adulterous women to rid them of that which is in their belly and to become infertile.

The Bible, of course, has NOTHING to do with US law, but the hypocritical lies of false Christians should be noted here.

0

FalseHopeNoChange 2 years, 2 months ago

Just give Liberal women what they want. They have enough to worry about without having to find the Liberal guy to pay for a baby.

Liberals will never vote for you Browny. So why do you want them to procreate?

0

ShePrecedes 2 years, 2 months ago

Brownback should have been aborted.

0

Agnostick 2 years, 2 months ago

It is a common tactic of the intentionally dishonest to back up their claims with "(from a source)".... or nothing at all.

0

Pastor_Bedtime 2 years, 2 months ago

Nanny-state Christians can't even keep their own houses in order, but they feel the need to micromanage your wombs and reproductive bits. Defend the unborn, my foot. It's time to defend our country and constitution against anti-American efforts of the Christian Taliban..

0

its_just_math 2 years, 2 months ago

Goodness Gracious!! So many abortion proponents here today. Supporting irresponsible behavior seems to be a liberal trait.

ir·re·spon·si·ble:  not capable of or qualified for responsibility, as due to age, circumstances, or a mental deficiency.

(from a source)

0

Michael LoBurgio 2 years, 2 months ago

The day ABORTION becomes an unquestionable right, is the day MEN become pregnant.

77% of anti - choice members are men, 100% of them will never get pregnant!

0

Agnostick 2 years, 2 months ago

Source: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage

"In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings can be found in the Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop."

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/ere-workshop-report

0

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 2 months ago

It is disappointing that the liberals on this site are so against informed consent and allowing women to have information. This bill will allow a woman to be informed of the results of multiple studies that have suggested there might be a link between breast cancer and abortion. We need to do everything we can to favor the birth of these little ones over their dismemberment and destruction. When we defend the unborn we speak for the "least of these" as Christ has commanded each Christian to do. Abortion is an abomination and those who favor it are supporting a philosophy of selfishness and hedonism.

0

Corb12 2 years, 2 months ago

Standing from a moral issue I strongly agree with this bill. But women should have the personal choice for what they want to do with their pregnancy. There should be more information at the disposal for the woman so she can make an educated choice for herself. Now the argument is that the infant can feel the abortion. The infant is still a human; this is not a scientific experiment. I would also hate to break it to the people that are Pro-Choice. Did you know that there is an emotional impact to the woman after the abortion. Some women struggle with negative emotions after they’ve had an abortion, a psychological responsecalled as Post-Abortion Stress. PAS can occur days or years after the abortion. Additionally, scarring or other injury may prevent a future pregnancy, or make it higher-risk. The risk of miscarriage is higher for those who have an abortion with their first pregnancy. Lastly, there is a link to breast cancer. The risk of breast cancer is higher for women who had an abortion before age 18 or after age 30. For women who have had no children and have had one or more abortions, their risk of breast cancer is 50 percent higher than their normal genetic risk. (National Cancer Institute, 1994) This is my personal belief on this issue.

0

HendrixMusician 2 years, 2 months ago

I strongly disagree with this bill. Just with my opinion being that if a women is in an abusive or untrustworthy relationship what control does she have over him poking holes in the condoms or not having consent for sex and then not wanting the child and it being rape. And then they want to make it seem like a bonus to get the chance to hear the fetal heartbeat? That doesn't make any sense at all. I understand that it might be wrong to have an abortion but what it boils down to is it is the woman's choice and it's also her choice to give anyone the reason as to why she is getting the abortion. Putting more limitations on trying to help this situation out seems pointless to me.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 2 months ago

In other states, it appears there's a fun new game making the rounds among female legislators; introducing amendments to these bills that are male oriented but equitable to the restriction being proposed. In Virginia, a female legislator introduced an amendment to a bill that would have required ultrasounds and listening to the fetal heartbeat before every abortion that stated that, before a man could receive Viagra, he had to have a full cardiac workup including blood pressure screening and a cardiac stress test. The bill was defeated. In Oklahoma, a "personhood" bill was introduced with an amendment added by a female legislator that stated that, if "personhood" is granted to a fetus then, by law, no man could deposit semen anywhere but in a vagina. Here's the actual amendment: “However, any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child.” I truly hope these keep coming.

0

Enlightenment 2 years, 2 months ago

Halt the presses! As upsetting as this is, it is simply a smoke screen by the Republicans to disguise their inability to be productive while they hold office. Take a look at the issues being moved forward in the House, all are moral issues or senseless topics that have no impact on improving our state or local economy, i.e. permitting guns on college campuses and public facilities and women's rights and abortion issues.

Republicans know the hot buttons in this state and nation and they use them to their advantage. Just wait and see, while the public is in an uproar over the abortion issue, the Republicans will be operating behind the scenes with ways to satisfy their real supporters, the big businesses and corporations.

0

ibroke 2 years, 2 months ago

I am glad you answered my question cait48 thank you

0

lunacydetector 2 years, 2 months ago

“This bill is an intrusive, far-reaching piece of legislation,” Phillips said. “It dictates what people can and cannot do.”

Obamacare threw out the First Amendment right to religious liberty. the military wouldn't let catholic chaplains discuss the government's planned intrusion on catholic institutions at their services. santorum wins minnesota, colorado, and missouri.

0

evilpenguin 2 years, 2 months ago

SB is a despicable pig of a man. If a foetus can't survive outside the womb on its own, it's not a person. By introducing all these forced childbirth measures, you are going to drive childbearing women from KS, increase the number of deaths of women due to homemade abortions and alienate a huge portion of the people of Kansas. Not everyone believes in God, why should we be forced to fulfill SB's idealist religious view of the world? Stop making stupid laws based on your own opinions, and start ACTUALLY representing people on useful issues

0

Barclay 2 years, 2 months ago

Proponents praise latest abortion bill in Kansas legislature. The goal is to save babies. The ultimate in wordsmithing- "Women's healthcare" synonymous with "the right to an abortion." What about the rights of healthcare for the unborn? This issue is emotional and complicated, but casually taking the life of an innocent unborn children for the convenience of it's mother seems incredibly selfish to me.

0

defenestrator 2 years, 2 months ago

I would like to sincerely thank cait48 for her insight and determination to fight. If only she could reach a larger audience.

She is absolutely right in saying "If this bill passes it will, by necessity, have to be defended in court at a cost of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars to the state; a state that (supposedly) is already so broke that it can't fund education, healthcare or even it's own retirement plans."

How can anyone argue with that? When are we going to tackle the real issues this state is facing and get rid of these red herrings?

By the way, here's a link to the committee that originated this bill (just so you can put some faces with it: http://kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/committees/ctte_h_fed_st_1/

0

ibroke 2 years, 2 months ago

will this bill keep a woman from having an abortion? I think it is a good thing to hear the heart beat of the baby uhhh blob of flesh

0

Joe Hyde 2 years, 2 months ago

Every voting age female citizen in Kansas needs to seriously contemplate the relentless personal rights violations being visited on her by these radical Republicans, and protect her options accordingly in all future elections.

0

kusp8 2 years, 2 months ago

Meh.... Planned Parenthood or any other myriad of organizations will get an emergency injunction against this from being put into effect. Thus the law will be overturned at the state level or the national level. I'm not too worried about it. Is it a bogus law, yes. Will I spam my congress people about it, yes. Do I think it'll help, probably not.

0

somedude20 2 years, 2 months ago

This goes out to the ladies, with all of these laws against you in this state, why do you stay or is this junk going to make you leave?

I curse you Brownback! I love women and if you chase them away like some kind of jesus rat, I will stop eating fish!

0

Kim Murphree 2 years, 2 months ago

Women are chattel to this Governor, and all his cronies. Did you expect anything less??? Those of you who voted for them? Guess you don't trust or even like women either.

0

2 years, 2 months ago

On another note, what do you bet this law is being put out there to take our attention away from important things The Guv has done:

Killed the Arts in Kansas Proposed a regressive tax plan favoring the 1% (per Koch's direction) Killing health care in Kansas Forcing Lawrence and several other cities to pay a ransom to keep an SRS office in town. Keeping up the roads so people needing SRS services will be able to get to Topeka or Kansas City

But again, it doesn't matter. The old men in the legislature will pass this law dictating control over a woman's body and The Guv will sign it simply because it's anti-abortion.

0

Armstrong 2 years, 2 months ago

if I remember correctly there are several states that border Kansas. I know, just took the fun out of the hysteria

0

Hooligan_016 2 years, 2 months ago

Getting sick of all the BS that's being slung around in the State legislature. You want to know why all the kids/young talent are leaving the state? Here's a great example.

0

gr 2 years, 2 months ago

Women's rights?

I hope everyone remembers that when it comes to forced vaccinations of cow pus and/or other foreign substances, that it's a woman's right do choose what they want to do with their bodies and babies....

0

ibroke 2 years, 2 months ago

these are good bills thanks brownback keep up the great work!

0

2 years, 2 months ago

The bill is intrusive and is simply another example of a bunch of old men dictating what a woman can and can't do to her body. The legislature is in fact useless and appears to want to establish little more than a theocentric government in KS wherein only the right kind of religious people have any rights. The sad thing is is that The Guv won't even read the bill. He'll be told it's anti-abortion (not-prolife) and he'll sign it right away. He's probably warming up his pen right now.

Go read the bill, cait48 provides a link to it.

Cait48 is correct, the bill doesn't afford the opportunity to hear a fetal heart beat, but essentially mandates it. Using a machine, a technician or physician will make the heartbeat loud enough to be heard. Let's see, the woman is on a gurney, with the machine next to her. How is she not going to hear the heartbeat? It's a given that she will.

Further, the bill defines a person from fertilization. In essence, this is the first step towards a personhood amendment to our state constitution. Tell me how a finally complete cell is a person? Medically, iIt isn't even an embryo until 4 to 5 weeks after conception.


KS: "If a female doesn't want the pregnancy, don't get pregnant. ... There are many options there, all legal." What are those options, and how many of them are being eroded away? You really appear to have no concept of the extent of this issue.


ijm: go sit in a corner and play with your numbers. You're just using this article as another blatant venue to rail against President Obama. We all know you hate him and his policies for a multitude of reasons, so why don't you say so at the beginning of all your posts and then say something substantive?

0

Michael LoBurgio 2 years, 2 months ago

Abortion is a relevant medical procedure, just ask Rick Santorum.

Roe v. Wade was a bipartisan ruling made by a conservative leaning Supreme Court.

0

Michael LoBurgio 2 years, 2 months ago

If abortion is murder, aren't condoms kidnapping?

0

Michael LoBurgio 2 years, 2 months ago

Dem state senator adds ‘Every sperm is sacred’ clause to ‘personhood’ bill

Sen. Johnson, who represents Oklahoma’s 48th District has introduced an amendment to the bill mandating that the same rights and benefits be granted to spermatozoa, writing, “However, any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child.”

This would outlaw masturbation by men, anal sex, sex with condoms, all forms of fellatio to completion, as well as numerous other acts. She later withdrew the measure, but stated that she had inserted it to highlight the absurdity and sexism inherent in the current bill.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/07/dem-state-senator-appends-every-sperm-is-sacred-clause-to-ok-personhood-bill/?utm_source=Raw+Story+Daily+Update&utm_campaign=c61c60e044-2_9_122_8_2012&utm_medium=email

0

Keith Richards 2 years, 2 months ago

Kansas-Where the government cares far more about your "life" before you are born than after you are born. Force someone to go through with an unwanted pregnancy and then deny food assistance, social services, quality education etc. to that child.

0

usnsnp 2 years, 2 months ago

So much for the argument of seperation of church and state, the abortion issue is not a civil problem , it is a religious problem. So with the concept of seperation of church and state, the state should not be passing any laws for or against abortion.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

Will doctors also be required to inform women of the potential dangers of childbirth?

0

Pastor_Bedtime 2 years, 2 months ago

So much for small, unintrusive government.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 2 months ago

"House Bill 2598 will require physicians to tell women that the risk of breast cancer is increased by abortion. It would also give a woman the opportunity to hear the fetal heartbeat before she consents to an abortion." 1. The supposed "link" between abortion and breast cancer has been disproven by no less than the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. 2. The bill will not offer women the "opportunity" to hear the fetal heartbeat but demand that she do so by law. The only way she can get out of it is to sign a legal waiver. This is not an "opportunity", it's a mandate. I'm really loving this slanted reporting. Not.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 2 months ago

This bill is far FAR more than what this writer states and is a shoddy piece of reporting. I have been writing about and discussing this bill for over two days at http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/cait48/2012/feb/6/the-war-on-women-redux/ (You will find links to the actual bill and it's committee history there.) Buried in the language of this bill is a provision that would permit a physician to deliberately lie to and/or withhold crucial health information from a pregnant woman that would seriously impact her health or hide serious fetal anomalies from her for the purposes of preventing her from aborting and protect that physician from being sued. The only exception would be if a woman died, in which case a wrongful death suit could be filed. This means a woman could have a stroke and be disabled for life from eclampsia and could not sue the doctor for withholding that information from her. Nor could she sue if, at birth, she found out she had a baby with anencephaly, Downs or any other myriad birth defects. This is NOT "pro-life". This is anti-abortion and pro-forced birth, no matter what the costs are to the woman. The fact that we have legislators that even think this way, much less actually consider such a thing says much about our state government.

0

Mike1949 2 years, 2 months ago

Of course it is intrusive! I can not tell you how many years we the people have heard from the republicans less government. But take a close look at states that have a republican majority. Year after year, the republicans pass more and more regulations that take away our freedom, increase government intrusion into our lives. They try again and again that we the people have to think like them. I don't know about you, but I have always accredited that to a dictatorship.

I am sick and tired of pompous people trying to tell me how to live!

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.