Advertisement

Archive for Friday, February 10, 2012

Proposed abortion ban blocked by abortion foe

February 10, 2012, 2:07 p.m. Updated February 10, 2012, 4:10 p.m.

Advertisement

— An influential anti-abortion legislator is blocking the push for a ban on abortion in the Kansas Constitution, highlighting a split among abortion opponents over tactics and frustrating the group advocating the "personhood" proposal Friday.

Chairman Lance Kinzer said he doesn't plan to have a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the proposed constitutional amendment, which is sponsored by 25 other House members. Kinzer is the leading supporter of a bill to add new requirements for abortion providers into state law and ensure that the state doesn't provide even indirect financing of abortions through income tax credits or deductions.

Kinzer, an Olathe Republican and attorney, said he doesn't believe the proposed constitutional amendment would withstand a court challenge and could lead to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that could hamper abortion opponents' attempts to enact new restrictions. Kansans for Life, the anti-abortion group with the most influence at the Statehouse, takes the same position.

But the Personhood Kansas Committee, the Wichita-area group promoting the proposed amendment, strongly disagrees, and Chairman Bruce Garren said he's surprised that Kinzer won't at least agree to a hearing, particularly because there's interest among Kinzer's colleagues.

"We have 25 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. You'd think that would be enough to get a hearing," Garren said. "It's really frustrating."

Both chambers would have to adopt the proposed amendment by two-thirds majorities — something that's likely in the House but uncertain in the Senate. If both did, the measure would go on the statewide ballot in the Aug. 7 primary election, where approval by a simple majority would add it to the Constitution.

Passage of a bill like the one Kinzer favors would require only simple majorities in both chambers and Brownback's signature.

Kinzer is pushing a 68-page bill to rewrite the state's "informed consent" law on abortion, requiring doctors to provide certain information before terminating a woman's pregnancy. Among other things, it would require doctors to allow their patients to hear a fetal heartbeat. The bill also would ensure there is no change to printed materials for patients, including one part that discusses alternatives to abortion and says, "What about adoption?"

Also, the bill would prohibit schools from incorporating materials for any group that provides abortion services into classes that deal with human sexuality or sexually transmitted diseases.

Kinzer said he's pursuing proposals that are likely to "maximizing the number of babies that we can save immediately" and trying to "push the boundaries" of restrictions allowed under federal court rulings.

"Neither of those goals really is advanced by the personhood amendment," Kinzer said.

Sarah Gillooly, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, which provides abortions, said many abortion opponents understand that pursuing the personhood amendment is risky.

If supporters succeeded in amending the Kansas Constitution, a court challenge is considered likely. In fact, supporters of the proposed amendment see it as a way to directly challenge Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court establishing a right to an abortion.

But Gillooly and fellow abortion rights advocates have suggested the Kansas proposal is written broadly enough to outlaw some common birth-control methods and argue that pursuing it could lead to a political backlash. In Mississippi, nearly 55 percent of the voters in the November election rejected the "personhood" ballot measure there. Colorado voters rejected similar proposals in 2008 and 2010.

"It's a little bit of a public relations disaster for the pro-life movement," Gillooly said.

The bill Kinzer favors is before the House Federal and State Committee, which had two days of hearings this week and could vote on it next week. The Federal and State Affairs Committee typically handles abortion legislation, but House Speaker Mike O'Neal, a Hutchinson Republican and abortion opponent, assigned the proposed personhood amendment to the Judiciary Committee, leaving its fate with Kinzer.

"That is one that is fraught with legal issues that Representative Kinzer knows all about," O'Neal said.

Garren said the Personhood Kansas Committee has collected more than 8,000 signatures on petitions advocating the amendment and said many Kansas want an opportunity to vote on banning abortion.

"They do see that the end goal is the end of abortion and the end of the taking of innocent human life," he said. "There are just a lot of people who think we've had plenty of opportunities to regulate it out of existence."

Comments

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 6 months ago

No matter what the chairman's personal opinion on this legislation is--and I agree with him that it might be an overreach--there is no excuse for not holding a hearing to consider the merits of the Personhood law. Let us discuss the humanity of the unborn child and let us educate our fellow citizens about the crime of abortion ( the killing of an unborn child).

0

jonas_opines 2 years, 6 months ago

Unborn fetuses fall well under the age of consent to marry, and so can't enter into a religious or civil union. If you think that is wrong, take it up with your senator or other representative.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Why is it that unborn fetuses have rights but born women don't?

0

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 6 months ago

Who is right God or the SCOTUS? Sometimes there is a higher law.

0

Jeff Zamrzla 2 years, 6 months ago

the flying spaghetti monster says it is okay

0

jonas_opines 2 years, 6 months ago

"Who is right God or the scotus?"

According to our Constitution: the Scotus.

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 6 months ago

Do you believe in Bigfoot? What if I told you you'll burn in hell if you don't?

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Not in this country, there isn't. We aren't a theocracy. And if you want to live in one there's a few Middle East countries I can point you to.

0

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 6 months ago

Yes--even in this country God's law overrides your opinion or evil laws--Christians work to make the law of our nation conform to God's law. God's law is the "perfect law of liberty" as the Bible says and would help bring freedom and liberty to each citizen. It also would protect the weak and defenseless among us by upholding the value of each life.

0

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

That's the problem.

You want to replace our system of Constitutionally based law with religiously based law.

That's called a theocracy.

0

evilpenguin 2 years, 6 months ago

Perhaps he won't hold the hearing because there ARE no merits to the personhood "law"

0

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 6 months ago

Perhaps we should allow the process to work and allow the proponents and opponents to speak and testify!

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Oh? Like they did last legislative session?

0

1029 2 years, 6 months ago

Oh, to force women who can't afford a baby and don't want a baby to have a baby, or to not force women who can't afford a baby and don't want a baby to have a baby. What a difficult question! Maybe these religious simpletons should focus on real problems that KS faces, rather than try to create more problems for society.

People drunk on religion can be so selfish are narrow-minded. Just mind your own business and stop trying to force your primitive religion on others. No good comes from more impoverished, unwanted children running wild on the streets of decaying neighborhoods. Silly rural Kansans don't understand the rest of the country.

0

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 6 months ago

How some people can believe that the dismemberment of an unborn child is somehow sophisticated or "modern" is beyond me. Silly rural Kansans? I guess you need to look at a roster of the Kansas legislature and you will find that many urban legislators all also opposed to abortion! The rejection of the Christian worldview is leading our nation back to the dark ages as we have stopped caring for each other and loving each other. Abortion is an act of violence against that unborn, the family, and against women. It is a direct attack upon the work of God in creating the unborn child in the womb. The "extremists" are those who oppose any restriction upon abortion and defend the killing fields continuing in these filthy clinics where parents rights are often ignored!

0

ksjayhawk74 2 years, 6 months ago

And so a 12 year-old girl who is impregnated by her father can not have an abortion, even in the first few days of pregnancy... Is that what you're saying?

This girl would have to go to school and be a mother at age 13 and always have to explain how it is that she has a child now?

I'm guessing that you're into the "make lemons into lemonade" mantra, where a woman would be devastated by being raped but she should look at the bright side of her rape: she gets to have a baby... And the rapist would have full parental rights in the state of Kansas...

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Honey, when it's the size of an acorn it's not "dismembered". You take an RU-486 pill and squirt it out like a regular period. Get over the histrionics. Nobody listens to you.

0

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 6 months ago

You have destroyed God's creation and you have committed a great sin against Him. There is no doubt that this issue shows the difference in the worldview between Christianity and hedonism.

0

mom_of_three 2 years, 6 months ago

It can't be an act of violence against women if she wants to have one. And if it is within a certain period of time, its a blob of tissue.
But how you can take the rights of an UNBORN person over the rights of a person in flesh and blood and force them to do something they don't want.
You accuse pro choice from taking the rights away from the unborn, while you are doing the same thing to the mother.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Give it up, mom. This person's head is so far up Troy Newman's nether parts they're deaf to anything else.

0

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 6 months ago

If the person was "forced" to become pregnant you might have a point.

0

mom_of_three 2 years, 6 months ago

And our nation was built on varying views - many founders were deists and dabbled in various religions. Stopped carrying and loving each other - I would agree with that, since gays can't marry, and the repubs want to overturn dont ask dont tell and prohibit gay marriage. How gay marriage will hurt the sanctity of marriage or family is beyond me. I think divorce hurts more than anything else. lets outlaw that and see what happens.

0

voevoda 2 years, 6 months ago

"The rejection of the Christian worldview is leading our nation back to the dark ages..." As I recall from my history courses, the "Dark Ages"--that is, the Middle Ages--is when the Christian worldview predominated in society. Interestingly enough, back then they knew better than to assume that termination of a pregnancy was the same thing as murdering a living human being. Both were sinful, under most but not all circumstances. But they certainly weren't equated.
Of course, in the US today, "Christian" worldviews aren't given priority over those of other religions; that's what the First Amendment and the ban on the establishment of any particular religion mean. The worldviews of other religions take a variety of different views on the morality of abortion, especially early abortion. Maybe kansanjayhawk would be happy to impose his views on his fellow-citizens of other religions, but that makes him a bad American. And a bad Christian.

0

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 6 months ago

The dark ages was a time when the Church and religion departed from the authority of the Bible and turned more and more toward the authority of the Church and pronouncements by the Church. Only in the reformation was the direction profoundly changed back to a more biblical Christianity.

0

kochmoney 2 years, 6 months ago

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21:22-25

If the baby is aborted, there's a cash compensation. If the mother is killed, burned, or loses a limb, you apply that same penalty to the perpetrator. If fetal demise were so grievous a sin, why doesn't it also carry the death penalty?

Leviticus 27:6 - babies only have a monetary value at 1 month old Numbers 3:15 - only one month olds count for the census

Interesting how they don't count pregnant women as two, isn't it?

Genesis 38:24-29 New International Version (NIV) 24 About three months later Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant.”

Judah said, “Bring her out and have her burned to death!”

She got a reprieve, but notice how being pregnant wasn't a disincentive to burning a prostitute?

0

esteshawk 2 years, 6 months ago

Rejection of the christian worldview is what brought us out of the dark ages, with thinkers like Galelio, Descartes, Newton, and Locke.

0

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 6 months ago

This is revisionist history...you need to read Francis Schaeffer's "How Shall we Then live" which gives a full review of this period of history.

0

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

Remember the Inquisition?

Or is that another thing you simply ignore in order to preserve your view?

0

Richard Heckler 2 years, 6 months ago

Better to leave it alone.

Brownback has loaded up the agenda beyond belief. The abortion thing never goes away and wastes a lot of time and money....

0

ksjayhawk74 2 years, 6 months ago

How much is a woman's rights over her own body worth? If some scumbag wants to have a baby and rapes a woman to make that happen, should the woman be obligated to have that baby?

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Well according to kansanjayhawk the answer would be yes. And she'd give the rapist parental rights, too!

0

dwendel 2 years, 6 months ago

Gotland asks, "How much is a human life worth?"

Apparently not much. We're told we can't afford the unwanted children (and adults) we already have. That's why our representatives are working so hard to take away pro-life programs and services such as:

Health care Mental health care Education Food stamps SRS

Get 'em born, then let 'em die.

0

hujiko 2 years, 6 months ago

But first they must be taxed and stripped of any rights over their own body and life.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Dissension in the ranks! Best possible thing that could happen. Although I find it ironic that these people are actually arguing about the best possible way to run the uteri of the women in this state. Hmmm.... Maybe we can distract them into arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

0

verity 2 years, 6 months ago

Damn, Cait, why didn't we think of that before? We could have them counting forever as they probably can't get past nine.

0

KU52 2 years, 6 months ago

They tell me that the Republicans want a less intrusive government. They preach about the need to respect human activities and decry government "interference." What then could be more intrusive than transferring selective religious dogma into state law and criminalizing a woman's choice? She has to make that choice, which willl probably be influenced by her health, her spiritual advisor's guidance (if she has one), her religious beliefs, her family situation, her doctor's advice and other quite personal factors. Her decision is no business of the State of Kansas. She needs to be at peace with her God; not with Crusader Brownback.

0

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 6 months ago

Abortion is the brutal dismemberment of an unborn child! It is by it's very definition a very violent act against the child and abusive to the woman as well. This violence and the evil of this killing is why pro-life Kansans seek to stop abortion!

0

Katara 2 years, 6 months ago

I don't have a lot of faith that my question will be answered because every time I have asked it, it is avoided.

There seems to be a premise that women who get pregnant that were not planning on being pregnant were being irresponsible and failed to use birth control.

What happens when the birth control fails through no fault of the woman?

http://tinyurl.com/75aqv5o

How is this irresponsibility on the woman's part?

0

voevoda 2 years, 6 months ago

Many abortions result from birth control failure. Many result from pressures from men, who don't want the responsibility of a child, and tell women to choose the baby or the husband. Other abortions result from dangerous pregnancies. People who haven't been in those difficult straits (and those, thanks to their sex, who can't be in those difficult straits) shouldn't be passing judgment and they certainly be passing laws. There may indeed be circumstances when abortion is immoral, but lots of things that are immoral but still are legal. Like greed. Like resenting the poor. Like blasphemy.

0

esteshawk 2 years, 6 months ago

Its not just math when you purposely use the phrase pro abortion instead of pro choice. Then it is pushing your worldview on others. One cannot think clearly about a subject when one abuses language; read your orwell.

0

kochmoney 2 years, 6 months ago

No. It's part of the laws of at least 28 states.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

In actuality, the majority of abortions are done for birth control failure. Seeking an abortion is a responsible act in and of itself to deal with the consequences of that failure. But to BAA and math, it's not really about abortion. It's about "purity" and the fact that women are engaging in (gasp) sexual activity. They don't object to it on "moral" grounds but on grounds of "irresponsibility" . BAA says, "The zealots who defend unrestricted abortion are really promoting promiscuous, irresponsible behavior.", without defining what is "irresponsible" about it, other than the fact that they, "OMG, had SEX!" This puts their heads up the hoohah's of women just as much as those of the religious right and I find it just as judgmental and repugnant as, in it's way, it's a form of rape; i.e. taking away from a woman control of her life and her body, including her sex life. Rape is not about sex, it's about control and this is just as much about control as rape.

0

Hong_Kong_Phooey 2 years, 6 months ago

Kinzer is right. Move on to something you can actually change, legislators.

0

JayhawkFan1985 2 years, 6 months ago

I thought the right wing nuts believed fervently that the government was over regulating them. I also thought they were opposed to wasteful government spending. The US supreme court settled this issue decades ago. These people are like the Taliban. They're just not smart enough to realize that. What's next, a total ban on birth control? Oh wait Rick Santorum is calling for that in his bid to be president. Maybe they will rescind the right to vote for women and "nonbelievers". Don't laugh. We are almost there...

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

I have to shake my head and laugh. These people could care less about "abortion". What they care about is controlling women, their "purity" and their sex lives. Isn't that just a bit more than puerile?

0

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 6 months ago

I disagree with you --those who are pro-life do care about women and abortion--they are not trying to control anyone just end the killing fields. Allow women to have information which Planned Parenthood hides from them so that they can make an educated decision and choose life!

0

ThePilgrim 2 years, 6 months ago

The Personhood amendment would indeed outlaw many forms of birth control.

And it would also make it difficult for a mother to have treatment for a tubal pregnancy. I was once told by a doctor in Wichita that they currently (already) have to be "creative" with diagnoses of tubal pregnancy because the Catholic monopolized Via Christi health system hospitals make it difficult to treat a woman with tubal pregnancy.

0

NY152 2 years, 6 months ago

A woman should have the right to do what is best for herself. Government and men should stay out of it.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

They aren't "their children" until they are born.

0

Jayhawk1958 2 years, 6 months ago

What bothers me is that the Anti-Abortion people are really pushing the envelop with talk about now not allowing abortions even in the case of rapes and illnesses of the mother. I don't like the procedure, but what right do I have as a man to tell a woman what she can or can't do?

0

Fred Whitehead Jr. 2 years, 6 months ago

What bothers me the very most is that some people use religious dogma to shape their thoughts. Religion in all forms is fantasy, it is concocted by those who do not understand, who cannot understand the circumstances of their lives and of our presence in the current age, and they need some sort of warm and fuzzy doctrine to protect them from their ignorance. The muslim faith has their sharia laws that are designed to keep the "faithful" in line, "Christians" use their "interpretation" of the"bible" to bash trash and oppose all those who do not fall in line with their "religious" fervor. It pains me a great deal to see a political party attempt to hijack the religious fervor of these unfortunate souls and use it to their devious agenda. They do not care about "personhood", they want control and to inflict punishment on those women unfortuante enough to discover an unwanted pregnancy.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

"They do not care about "personhood", they want control and to inflict punishment on those women unfortuante enough to discover an unwanted pregnancy." And to punish women for being "impure" and engaging in sexual activity for pleasure and not pro-creation.

0

verity 2 years, 6 months ago

Personally, I don't care why a woman wants an abortion. It's none of my business if she has been engaging in behavior that I think is inappropriate, immoral or irresponsible. That is not my call to make. Until viability (probably somewhere around 18 weeks, but I'm not going to argue about that here) there should be no restrictions. None.

0

verity 2 years, 6 months ago

I have to disagree with you on the definition of human, tange. In my opinion, until a fetus is viable, it is not human.

Usually I agree with you---when I understand you---and you often make me laugh, but on this one I fear we are not going to ever come to an agreement.

0

verity 2 years, 6 months ago

But the Easter Bunny's bringing a big surprise!

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.