Advertisement

Kansas legislature

Kansas Legislature

Kansas Senate passes abortion bill, sending it to governor

May 2, 2012

Advertisement

— A bill giving more legal protection to Kansas health care providers who refuse to participate in abortions was on its way Wednesday to Gov. Sam Brownback, despite concerns it would limit access to birth control and allow some professionals to block life-saving care.

The Senate approved the “conscience” measure, 23-16. The House passed the bill last month, and Brownback, a Republican who strongly opposes abortion, is expected to sign it. The new law would take effect July 1.

Abortion opponents argued that the legislation merely updates decades-old state laws preventing doctors and hospitals from being forced to participate in abortions or sterilizations. They said changes are needed because women seeking abortions can now use drugs to induce them, and health care professionals who oppose abortion shouldn’t face the threat of losing their jobs or being sued if they follow their consciences.

“This is about respecting the rights to conscience and others’ beliefs,” said Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook, a Shawnee Republican who opposes abortion. “Let’s protect people’s beliefs.”

The measure extends “conscience” protections to clinics, doctor’s offices and other facilities other than hospitals. People are protected not only from being forced to participate in abortions but from referring patients for abortion services or participating in the prescription or administration of any drug that terminates a pregnancy.

The legal protections extend to any individual or institution that “reasonably believes” that the use of a drug terminates a pregnancy. Some critics said that provision will allow doctors and pharmacists to refuse to prescribe or dispense birth control.

They also said it could allow a doctor to refuse to provide chemotherapy to a pregnant cancer patient because it might end her pregnancy.

Furthermore, critics said, patients wouldn’t know about a provider’s moral objections until the provider refused to provide treatment or dispense a drug — and the provider wouldn’t have to refer the patient elsewhere.

“This is outrageous,” Sen. Kelly Kultala, a Kansas City Democrat, said after the vote.

Federal and state lawsuits are challenging Kansas laws enacted last year to impose health and safety rules specifically for abortion providers, restrict private health insurance coverage of elective abortions and prevent the state from paying Planned Parenthood to provide non-abortion services.

Those measures helped vault Kansas to the forefront of a national trend in which abortion foes capitalized on the election of new, sympathetic Republican governors like Brownback. Kansas lawmakers also tightened limits on late-term abortions and required parental consent in writing before a minor’s abortion.

Julie Burkhart, founder of the abortion-rights political action committee Trust Women, said the latest measure further erodes health care for women.

“Anti-family planning legislators insist on dictating to Kansas women how they will control their fertility,” she said in a statement after the vote.

The anti-abortion group Kansans for Life has said the latest measure is broad enough to cover birth control if a provider has moral objections or a reasonable belief that it would terminate pregnancies.

But Kathy Ostrowski, the group’s legislative director, said suggestions that the bill will prevent life-saving care or significantly limit access to birth control are unfounded. She said relatively few doctors or pharmacists are likely to opt out of birth control — and then only based on information about how medications work.

“We are at a brave new world that we weren’t (at) 40 years ago, of chemicals that have negative effects, and the ultimate being the termination of life,” Ostrowski said.

Comments

Mike1949 2 years, 9 months ago

This is why I am ashamed that I was born here. When people ask me where I am from, I just tell them that I am from La La land. This state is getting as bad if not worse than Arizona but for different reasons. This state has sure gone to hell! I feel like we are in the dark ages again. I thought the human race was past that!

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

I'm proud that our legislature will protect our conscience rights. No one should be forced to kill a child.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

No one is forcing anyone to do anything, KJH, other than permitting people to lie by omission and thus, forcing the person who wants the service into a course of action they don't want. Lying is lying and fraud is fraud and you've made it perfectly clear you're ok with deceiving people into pregnancy and forcing them into giving birth.

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

This legislation protects the right of health care professionals to have Christian values and not take part in immoral activities that drive the cultural decline of this country. Giving birth control to unmarried minors without parental consent, distributing abortion causing drugs, and other nefarious activities will no longer be forced on our medical community by the liberal left and Planned Parenthood types.

hujiko 2 years, 9 months ago

"cultural decline"

The effort to root out non-christian elements in the US is an exact decline in culture. If everyone is the patently the same there is no culture besides monoculture. Christian faith is not a prerequisite to being American, however I bet that concept is totally lost on you.

mom_of_three 2 years, 9 months ago

But I guess you are okay with the religious right and others forcing their attitudes on their unassuming patients.

asixbury 2 years, 9 months ago

They already had the right to opt-out of abortions and anything relating to that. That part of the law is to hide the real issue: the doctors can now lie to their patients if it prevents them from having an abortion. No doctor should ever have that right.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

Still waiting for you to emigrate, given your intense dislike of our current president.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

So, "rock", what are you going to do if the moving vans don't show up at the White House on 1-20-13?

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

Then so can anybody who's willing to wait until BB is gone.

I wouldn't be so sure of the results of the next election if I were you.

My point again, is that if you demand others "love it or leave it" when it comes to KS, then you should follow your own advice, and emigrate if you don't like the current president or his policies.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

I can't believe we're having to fight this BS all over again. Forget "1984". Welcome to 1612. Oh and by the way, "There is no 'War on Women' ". Yeah. Right. Maybe this is Sam Brownback's "jobs plan". Keep women barefoot and pregnant and out of the workforce, freeing up jobs for men.

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

thou doth protest to much. This is about protecting health care workers who do not wish to be part of the culture of death.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

No it isn't. This is about permitting people to force their beliefs on others and force them into a course of action they may not want. Just as no one has the right to force them into doing something against their beliefs, neither do they have the right, in turn, to force people into actions in which they may not believe. Sauce, goose, gander.

JayhawksandHerd 2 years, 9 months ago

Yes, because we're all aware of "the gays and lesbians" forcing their lifestyle on others at gunpoint. Please, what a stupid comment.

Liberty275 2 years, 9 months ago

Are they forcing them at gunpoint to go to bars that allow smoking too?

question4u 2 years, 9 months ago

"Furthermore, critics said, patients wouldn’t know about a provider’s moral objections until the provider refused to provide treatment or dispense a drug — and the provider wouldn’t have to refer the patient elsewhere."

That would be the worst kind of hypocrisy. If a doctor has a moral objection to providing certain forms of treatment, then he or she should be willing to say so. To do otherwise would be to practice deceit. I would hope that anyone who becomes a doctor would have more integrity than that. If your views cost you patients, that's the price of remaining firm in your convictions, whatever they might be. Morals are not something that you adhere to only when it's in your best interest.

It seems unlikely that any doctor would have such a flawed sense of morality. Members of the Kansas Legislature, that's another story.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

You think they care about "deceit"? HB 2598 would allow physicians to actively lie to their patients!

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

Just an FYI; here is the vote breakdown on this bill.

yeas: Abrams, Apple, Bruce, Donovan, Emler, Kelsey, King, Longbine, Love, Lynn, Masterson, McGinn, Merrick, Morris, Olson, Ostmeyer, Petersen, Pilcher-Cook, Pyle, A. Schmidt, Taddiken, Umbarger, Wagle.

nays: Brungardt, Faust-Goudeau, Francisco, Haley, Hensley, Holland, Huntington, Kelly, Kultala, Marshall, Owens, Reitz, V. Schmidt, Schodorf, Teichman, Vratil.

Steineger didn't vote

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

Shame on you Senator Holland...we will remember in November that you opposed the First Amendment rights of health care workers...no one should be forced to take part int he dismemberment of a child...no one!

mom_of_three 2 years, 9 months ago

But its okay to force their beliefs on others? And to not tell them or help them find someone provide the care that they want? HYPOCRITICAL>

Corey Williams 2 years, 9 months ago

I don't remember the part about "t he dismemberment of a child" in the first amendment. Wasn't it about speech?

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

Just a little note - this doesn't protect "beliefs", it protects "actions".

People can believe whatever they like, whether or not they dispense birth control, etc.

This distinction seems to often be lost on religious believers, who conflate their beliefs with their actions.

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

Yes--but no one should be forced to take immoral actions---abortion is the killing of an unborn baby and no one should be forced to participate in it if it violates their sincerely held religious beliefs. Thank God our legislators had the sense to enact this very important legislation.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

The problem is that morality is subjective, and different people have different versions of it.

And, how would we judge "sincerity" of belief? And, what difference does it make whether or not it's religious belief - if somebody has a sincere moral belief, wouldn't that count as well?

So, I have a sincere moral belief that inter-racial marriage is wrong (I don't, of course, it's just an example) - should I be allowed to deny housing to an inter-racial couple?

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

The point is that you cannot force health care workers to engage in an act of violence here. This issue has been settled for many years here the legislature is just further defining the conscience protections and updating the law. No one should be forced in America to take part in performing an abortion which they believe to be a brutal violation of human rights and the killing of a child!

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

If you're not even going to respond to my questions and statements, why should I continue to try to discuss things with you?

Liberty275 2 years, 9 months ago

I'm curious, which religion forbids interracial marriage?

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

I didn't say there was a religion that forbid it.

I said what if one had a "sincere moral belief" that it was wrong?

But it's conceivable that there are people who have religious objections to inter-racial marriage - people believe all sorts of odd things.

How about a religion that disapproves of interfaith marriages?

Liberty275 2 years, 9 months ago

"sincere moral belief" isn't mentioned in the constitution.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

That's correct, but it's mentioned in kjh's post.

"no one should be forced to take immoral actions"

An "immoral action" would be one that violates somebody's moral code, not necessarily their religious belief.

Mercy 2 years, 9 months ago

Great Bill!!! One person should not be able to force another person to participate in an action against their conscience or will. Our President and many in Washington as well as here in Lawrence do not agree with this. Come on freedom lovers, protectors of choice! To propose forcing someone to have to do something against their will is not just, not freedom, not a value that we should promote in our country or anywhere else. It is truly not being tolerant.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

No one says that someone must be forced to do an action that goes against their conscience, "Mercy" (what a misnomer!). What they object to is withholding that objection until the last possible second and not being forthcoming about that objection beforehand and refusing to to refer someone to a source for what they want. That is forcing their beliefs on that person and forcing them into a course of action in which they may not believe. Now, please explain to me, as this deals with somewhat critical healthcare decisions, how is that fair?

Liberty275 2 years, 9 months ago

"No one says that someone must be forced to do an action that goes against their conscience"

Like entering a bar that allows smoking?

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

It is immoral for a pro-life doctor to refer a patient for an abortion other than advising them that they have the same right as anyone else to look in the phone directory. That has nothing to do with this legislation at all it simply will protect a doctor or other medical or health care worker from being fired or reprimanded if they do not believe in abortion or other immoral medical procedures that violate their conscience.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

Well, you seem to be continually interested in expanding the scope there - first, not to perform the procedure, next to not have to tell people they won't, and then to not have to make a referral to a qualified medical professional that would perform it.

Why would it be immoral for a doctor who doesn't believe in abortion to refer a patient to a doctor who performs them?

Liberty275 2 years, 9 months ago

Given the general stance held by Christians that life begins at conception, in their philosophy referring a woman to another doctor that will kill the baby in her womb is analogous to a friend sending a man to "jimmy the knife" to murder his wife.

While I support abortion until the moment before birth, I also support people who refuse to become any part of the process of aborting a child or selling contraceptives because it runs counter to there religious beliefs, which are protected by the first amendment America added to the constitution.

If you need to kill your fetus, find someone like myself that won't be forced into a moral dilemma. Is that really too much to ask to preserve a person's constitutional rights?

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

Ok.

Except that doctors also have obligations to their patients as well, by virtue of their profession.

That has to balanced against their 1st amendment right to freedom of religion, I would think.

Liberty275 2 years, 9 months ago

"Except that doctors also have obligations to their patients"

No they don't.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

Umm, yes they do.

They take the Hippocratic Oath as part of becoming doctors, which outlines their obligations to their patients.

In addition, in order to be licensed as a doctor, I'm sure there is a code of conduct they're required to embody as well.

mom_of_three 2 years, 9 months ago

then i hope these doctors have their beliefs up on the wall so all new patients can see what "moral" beliefs they have and feel free to chose another doctor ahead of time in case they are raped or need birth control or god forbid, need an abortion. Don't wait until its too late to let your patients know that you will only provide "certain" care for them, and oh, have no obligation to tell them the truth about their health if it involves a fetus.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

Good point.

Patients have the right to know what their doctors believe about these things if they affect their care.

Then they can make an informed decision as a patient whether or not they want to see that doctor.

Doctors should be willing to lose patients if that's what happens.

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

Just ask him im sure he would be happy to share his views- our family always asks because we want a doc who respects life.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

I think they should post it in their office, rather than putting the burden on patients to ask them.

Why would any object to that?

JayhawksandHerd 2 years, 9 months ago

"Come on freedom lovers..."

Ironic poster is ironic.

Tonytiger11208 2 years, 9 months ago

Perhaps I have lived in la la land too long. I would hate to find myself in court because someone sued me for refusing to go against my personal conscience. It seems to me that many of these posters believe that there are only anti-abortion doctors, hospitals and pharmacies in Kansas and that there aren’t any alternatives. I know of no religion that puts the life of an unborn child before the life of the living mother (cancer patient). It seems the opposition is throwing out every unfounded scenario and looking to see if one will stick. And I agree that doctors should be up front with their objections to certain procedures, but to assume the doctor wouldn’t be forthcoming if you inquired at the time you requested an appointment or at check in, is just as unacceptable.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

Tony, all people are asking is that, say a pharmacy, put up a sign saying "This pharmacy doesn't dispense birth control." or something along the same lines. There is no provision in this law to force that kind of clarity and, believe me, there are anti-abortion believers out there who would practice that kind of deceit in the full belief that they are "protecting the unborn". As for "unfounded scenarios" , I am personally familiar with a case where a woman nearly died, hemorrhaging from an abruptio placenta, because the physician on call refused to take the (already dying) fetus and save the woman's life because the fetus still had a heartbeat. The only thing that saved the woman was a nurse (who actually could have gotten in trouble with her hospital for doing so), who called another physician who was not on call and, luckily, found her at home. That scenario could have had tragic consequences in, not just having a stillbirth, but the loss of the woman's life as well.

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

Bogus--you are not a doctor--in most such cases both lives can be saved. Very, very few cases require allowing a child to die...both patients are treated the doctor does everything he can to save both. In the extreme cases all of these laws make exception for the life of the mother....no the truth is as you have stated before you are in favor of abortion as a method of birth control...you will simply throw out every far fetched story you can to justify you "theology" of abortion.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

I feel like I'm caught in a twisted crossover of "Clueless" and "Dazed and Confused."

pace 2 years, 9 months ago

You are out of touch with reality to believe there are only extreme cases where the mother's health and often her life are not compromised. You are Listening and believing the heartfelt but lying zealots. Pregnancy and childbirth can be dangerous, to deny that is foolish.

David Reynolds 2 years, 9 months ago

None of this would ever come up if abortion was not used as a means of contraception versus abortion for real medical reasons.

The situation we find ourselves in is insane.

With the current mind set of promiscuous sex outside of marriage, and little to no regard for the life that is literally thrown away, some entity has to step in and protect those whom for whatever reason believe that an abortion is not the best solution in a given situation.

Just because Roe V Wade says abortions are legal does not mean a doctor or anyone else "must or can be forced to" perform an abortion.

Linda Endicott 2 years, 9 months ago

But you apparently think that any pregnant woman "must or can be forced to" carry a pregnancy to term...against her will...

No, doctors or nurses who do not want to perform abortions shouldn't have to...but if they work in a hospital or doctor's office that routinely provides this type of care, then they should also have to state those views clearly, ahead of time, and the hospital or office should have to make sure that other doctors or nurses, who don't object to abortions, are available to provide this type of care....

Does this apply to other areas of medical care? Should a doctor or a nurse who objects to giving vaccinations not have to do it? If they object to cosmetic surgery, should they not have to do it? If they object to circumcision, should they not have to do it? If they object to blood transfusions, should they not have to do it?

There are all sorts of beliefs, religious or otherwise, that could affect patient care...

Should this apply to other professions as well? If the trash collector thinks McDonald's is throwing away too much food a day, can they refuse to haul the garbage? If a mechanic thinks you drive too fast and put too many people in danger, can they refuse to fix your transmission? If the librarian doesn't approve of the book you want to check out, can they refuse to help you? If the gas station attendant thinks all people should only buy cleaner fuels, can they refuse to let anyone buy the other kinds?

Yes, in all those scenarios, people have other options...and so should pregnant women...

Oh, by the way, in all those other scenarios, I'm pretty sure the worker would be fired instantly...but that won't happen with doctors and nurses, will it?

mom_of_three 2 years, 9 months ago

Hate to tell you, but sex outside of marriage has been around for hundreds of years. And women have been trying to end unplanned pregnancies for that long.
In the colonial period, engaged couples would feel free to have sex because of that committment and get married while pregnant. Some religions and places would fine the couple for that same behavior and others just ignored it . It was common enough to be ignored.
Then other women would be charged with trying to poison themselves to get rid of the pregnancy or visit a healer to provide those type of herbs. Depending on the area, the healer or midwife could also be prosecuted.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

You should read more about Norma - she's hardly a great role model for your cause.

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

no one said she was a great role model...she was not a great role model and that is what got her into the position of having an abortion...however, she has had regrets and has changed her mind. She has also admitted that Roe was built on a false premise that she had been "gang" raped which she has informed the Court was a lie. McCorvey has also changed her mind on abortion and now supports the reveral of Roe.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

I read about her last time her name came up, and the current conservative view of her was flawed.

I don't have time or the inclination to do that research again right now, but I may later.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

Ok - I found some time.

Roe was not based on a claim of rape - that's simply incorrect. The claim of rape was made in TX in order to get a legal abortion there, since that was the only way (and incest) she could get one.

A not unsurprising outcome of making abortion so difficult to get.

She never did in fact get a single abortion.

For quite some time, she was a lesbian.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

  1. That's not what I said.
  2. For me, it makes no difference whatsoever - I support the right of people to choose their sexuality, if that's what they're doing.
  3. it's notable that you ignored the entire post except for one little comment.
  4. If being gay is a choice, so is being straight - when did you make that choice?

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

You do not take abortion nealy as seriously as those of us who oppose the purposeful dismemberment of children for birth control purposes!

JayhawksandHerd 2 years, 9 months ago

And I'm sure you oppose the death penalty as well as sending young men and women off to die in senseless wars as well.

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

They are in many communities being used as a method of birth control. Planned Parenthood certainly does not have a problem with abortion being used as back up birth control for many of it's clients!

asixbury 2 years, 9 months ago

How would you know this to be true? Proof?

JayhawksandHerd 2 years, 9 months ago

"Sounds like a victory for the unborn!"

Of course, should they be born with a disability, they'll still be implored to "get a job," as there shouldn't be any "free rides." Oh, and don't expect my tax dollars to pay for their health care; it's my money!

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

Thank you Kansas Legislature for voting to protect our first amendment rights of conscience! We applaud you efforts to protect the unborn from the knife of the abortionist and we look forward to more efforts in the future. Let's drive this killing industry out of our state forever!

lucky_guy 2 years, 9 months ago

Unlike everyone on this blog I have dispensed contraceptives, and Plan B. I have also had to turn down women wanting Plan B years ago when it was prescription only. I felt much worse about that than dispensing it. If you all know so much about physiology you know that unprotected sex only results in a fertilized egg rarely and then the zygote may not implant anyway so the pregnancy you think you are aborting is only theoretical in the first 72 hours possibly up to 120 hours which is when you dispense Plan B.
The decision to take an emergency contraceptive has been made when the women comes into the pharmacy. Unless you know the women and what is happening in her life then you can't know why she is in front of the counter and not at home dreaming about being pregnant and bring a new life into the world. As the other bloggers have stated if the provider doesn't want to dispense Plan B then put up a sign stating that and move on. But then if the provider's daughter needs Plan B then the provider should have to take on those consequences as well as the public at large.

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

This law just protects the conscience rights of medical providers each person in the medical community will determine how to implement this in their place of business but now no one will be subject to termination of employment because they oppose termination of the unborn baby.

Corey Williams 2 years, 9 months ago

If they are currently working at a place of business where abortions are performed or abortifacients are prescribed, couldn't they just have the freedom to gain employment in a place of business that doesn't provide abortions or abortifacients where they can be safe in their sincerely held beliefs? Isn't that freedom? Isn't that personal responsibility? Why do we have to make government bigger?

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

Hey, autie, would you please link me the article or source about the OR thing? The reason I ask is because of this: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/may/02/state-gets-custody-ex-doctors-abortion-files/?kansas_legislature

mom_of_three 2 years, 9 months ago

This state just keeps going backwards. Let the women choose their own healthcare needs. And if you don't want to perform abortions, then don't work somewhere that will want you to perform them.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

Just found it, autie. It was linked by a friend on Facebook. http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/03/3591319/abortion-clinic-opponents-trade.html These people obviously have no problem breaking the law, committing theft and fraud to further their agenda. Here is sincerely hoping the DOJ gets involved for potential HIPAA violations.

Katara 2 years, 9 months ago

“That’s not denying women’s rights. If a woman then wants birth control, go work somewhere else,” he said. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/feb/28/statehouse-live-brownback-voices-disapproval-obama/#c1974200

Seems to me that the same should apply to any medical professional that has moral objections to any part of their job. It certainly isn't denying medical professionals' rights. I recall several "conservatives" stating that no one has the right to employment and if that is true, then medical professionals who have moral objections to certain actions that are part of their job should seek more suitable employment elsewhere.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

But don't you know, Kat, that it's a "religious freedom" thing. Strange, isn't it, that the only people who truly get "religious freedoms" are the religious right and if you ask them to follow the same restrictions they place on others they immediately start screaming "Persecution!".

asixbury 2 years, 9 months ago

Why won't a single anti-choice person answer this simple question, which is the basis of every opponent of this bill?

Should a doctor be allowed to mislead or lie to their patient and not suffer consequences?

Think of it this way: how would you feel if your daughter, wife, mother, sister, what have you, goes to a doctor for her pregnancy. The doctor keeps vital information from her that, in turn, has a tragic affect on their life. You or the patient cannot sue said doctor due to this bill. What would your opinion be then?

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

HB 2598 is currently being debated. You can follow a live stream at http://www.kslegislature.org/li/ One of the things they are saying is that, to keep people from taking a tax credit, they will be prevented from claiming any service on their taxes that came from a facility or clinic that provides abortions. Therefore, if you go to a PP clinic for a mammogram (whether that clinic provides abortions or not) you cannot deduct that health care on your taxes. They also intend to charge sales taxes on abortion, whether that procedure was done to save the woman's life or not. Therefore, they will tax women for saving their own life. And there is no "War on Women". Yeah. Right.

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

The bottom line is that conscience rights should be protected, no one should be forced to be involved in abortion. It is not dishonest or deceptive to simply refuse to participate in the culture of death.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything, KJH. Conscience rights have been around forever. You just don't want to admit that this legislation is designed to let people not only refuse to participate but also to deceive women. Stop beating your drum for the "preborn" and start thinking about the "preschooler". Maybe people will actually start taking you seriously.

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

Pro-life citizens support both born and unborn. We support maximizing opportunity for all by building a culture of life.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

I wish that were in fact true.

But, it's really not.

Glenn Reed 2 years, 9 months ago

Sooo....

Pro-life people are for public schools? Pro-life people are for (post-born) healthcare? Pro-life people are for (pre-born) healthcare?

I mean, what you're saying is that you'd be for a bill that covers a mother's medical bills from the moment of conception and on to the point when she quits nursing?

You'd be for a bill that covers a child's medical bills from the moment of birth up 'till they hit the age of majority?

Because that's what you just said. Are you lying?

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

Sociallism does not build max opportunity for born or unborn.

Glenn Reed 2 years, 8 months ago

Sorry, that was flippant.

A more articulate answer would address a wider set of variables, which I simply don't have time for at the moment.

To say, "I support peoplez ..." and then follow that up with policies that are, frankly, vicious towards those you just said you support, is wrong.

asixbury 2 years, 8 months ago

Actually, socialism does keep the baby’s needs in mind. They actually care about the fetus after it's born. They take care of all their needs. Why is this a bad thing to you? Socialism is not a bad word. It is just a different concept than what Americans are used to.

asixbury 2 years, 8 months ago

To KansasJayhawk: please actually answer this and be the first of the anti-choice people to do it.

Why won't a single anti-choice person answer this simple question, which is the basis of every opponent of this bill?

Should a doctor be allowed to mislead or lie to their patient and not suffer consequences?

Think of it this way: how would you feel if your daughter, wife, mother, sister, what have you, goes to a doctor for her pregnancy. The doctor keeps vital information from her that, in turn, has a tragic affect on their life. You or the patient cannot sue said doctor due to this bill. What would your opinion be then?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.