Advertisement

Archive for Friday, May 11, 2012

Backers of abortion bill still seek passage

May 11, 2012

Advertisement

— Abortion opponents in the Kansas Legislature aren't giving up on forcing a Senate vote on a bill designed to prevent the state from subsidizing abortions indirectly through tax breaks.

Among other things, the measure would prevent individual income tax filers from including abortion expenses when they take a deduction for their medical costs.

The bill has passed the House, and it's now before the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee.

Committee Chairman Pete Brungardt, a Salina Republican who supports abortion rights, said Thursday that he doesn't intend to consider the measure.

But House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lance Kinzer, an anti-abortion Olathe Republican, said supporters are discussing a possible attempt to pull the bill from the committee. Supporters would need 24 votes in the 40-member Senate to prevail.

Comments

lawslady 2 years, 9 months ago

Let's hope the majority of Senators realize that the bill, as written, has more problems than solutions and would no doubt end up costing the state millions of dollars to defend, as well as quite likely costing medical schools to lose valuable designations or even accreditation. Not to mention the provisions in it that would allow a Dr. to lie to patients (by not telling them certain things about their condition or medical options). Even pro-life advocates such as myself recognize that it will take more time, thought and carefully worded laws to accomplish the stated (and legal) goal of diminishing tax support for abortions without harming the state, tax payers and patient health. Slow down. Do it right or don't do it!

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

This law has been carefully crafted and we should not allow scare tactics to keep the State in the abortion subsidy business.

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

This has nothing to do with chuch subsidies.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

Oh but it does. You want to use the church to set social policy and influence law then the state has the right to charge the church taxes. "No representation without taxation." You want a theocracy? Then you can pay for it.

Katara 2 years, 9 months ago

You most certainly are and in this very thread.

kansanjayhawk (anonymous) replies… "The outrage over what has happened in this State as related to late term abortion should never end. The silent screams of those children should never be forgotten. The blood is upon all our hands and now we cry for redemption and healing-redemption through Christ and healing by changing the laws." http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/may/11/backers-abortion-bill-still-seek-passage/#c2041669

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

How does that imply theocracy? Re-read it.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

You have openly advocated a theocracy already, on other threads.

You clearly believe that the US should be a "Christian nation", and that those principles should guide legislation as well as our society.

Please don't try to pretend that's not the case.

The fact that there are people, like, you, who want such a thing is why there's such a backlash against it, and what creates what you call "anti-Christian bigotry".

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

There is a difference! Although I advocate for Christian principles to be included in legislation which is a proper function of the church I oppose a State religion which is a theocracy. Morality which comes from religion should be included in our law.The establishment of religion forbids a State church.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

Once you get Christianity (your version of it) to dominate politics and society, you have essentially created a theocracy, even if you don't establish a "state religion".

That's clearly your goal.

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

theocracy is not what you are talking about...if you mean simply religious values being brought to bear on public policy.

hujiko 2 years, 9 months ago

You'll never admit to it, but a christian theocracy is exactly what you want.

Katara 2 years, 9 months ago

Clearly you do not understand what a theocracy is or how it is different from a state religion.

England has a state religion - the Church of England. The Queen is the head of the Church of England. England is a secular country. It is not a theocracy.

"Theocracy Definition: A form of government which defers not to civil development of law, but to an interpretation of the will of a God as set out in religious scripture and authorities." http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/T/Theocracy.aspx

The above definition is exactly what you are advocating.

Ian Legler 2 years, 9 months ago

Fact of the matter is our constitution specifically outlines a separation of church and state. Law makers have no more right to dictate what we as Americans and Kansans can or cannot do based on their religious beliefs than you or I ...

And kansanjayhawk do not forget that Tiller was murdered in cold blood inside of a church because a zealot felt he deserved to die ... "Pro-Lifers" are no better than the abortion doctors and clinics that they fire bomb and attack. Fact of the matter is some women have medical conditions that require abortions, you would ask them to potentially kill themselves in the pursuit of righteousness?

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and values and there is nothing I cannot stand more than those who would impose them on others ....

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

Religion and God is the source of morality. No one supports a state religion and that was my point! However, religious values, religious views, and morality cannot be excluded from discussions of good government they are properly part of the debate as permitted by the first amendment to the constitution.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

You can talk about it all you like.

That doesn't mean that we should impose those values through legislation.

And, your first sentence is not a statement of fact, it's a belief. Many people have moral values and beliefs that don't come from religion.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to start. "Religion and God is the source of morality." Umm, no. Some of the most moral people I know are secular humanists who take their morality from a self imposed set of ethics that has nothing to do with any "God" or "religion" imposing it's morality on them from an outward source. "However, religious values, religious views, and morality cannot be excluded from discussions of good government they are properly part of the debate as permitted by the first amendment to the constitution." Again, not just no but hell no. The First Amendment is as much a guarantee from religion as it is a guarantee to religion. This is a concept that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. It has to be that way because we live in a country that has myriad religions and not all of them (gasp!) are Christian. For all citizens of this country to be fairly governed religion simply cannot enter into it. It was why this country was based on English Common Law. Despite the fact that England does have a state religion, their government isn't and never has been based on it. (Otherwise Henry VIII wouldn't have have told Rome to go get bent.)

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

Until the gavel falls on sine die of this legislature the women of Kansas will not be safe. Even then that safety will only last as long as it takes until the next convention of the legislature. Vote this November and vote wisely. Please.

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

Wow, listen to your own rhetoric! The fact is that the unborn women of Kansas are far safer now as we embrace a culture of life! No more Sebelius or Tiller and alot less pain and misery and death. The dismemberment of a child will never solve social problems!

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

Pity that the born "women to be" of this state aren't any safer than their mothers.

funkdog1 2 years, 9 months ago

"The dismemberment of a child will never solve social problems"? Have you ever been poor and pregnant?

kuguardgrl13 2 years, 9 months ago

Excuse me. The reason I support abortion rights is so that my unborn potential daughters live in a better world than me. A world where they can make informed decisions with sound advice from their doctors and support from their families. I don't want to see any woman in this country forced to use a clothes hanger in a back alley because she can't afford to feed and clothe a child. No child deserves a life like that. This state doesn't want to support welfare, yet you want to force women to carry children that they can't afford to feed and clothe. We're not a third world country, people. Not everyone needs to have lots of children anymore.

Hooligan_016 2 years, 9 months ago

Can't they just dial back the outrage a bit for just a little while? I don't know how they manage to keep the boiler running at max capacity every day, all the time..

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

"Revisionist history"? Pardon me while I wipe the iced coffee off of my computer screen. You know, sometimes I actually have to ask myself if you're for real. There are times that so much of what you say is so exaggerated and over the top I actually have to wonder if your screen name isn't the sock puppet of a performance artist who says the things you do just to get a reaction from (and secretly laugh) at people.

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

The outrage over what has happened in this State as related to late term abortion should never end. The silent screams of those children should never be forgotten. The blood is upon all our hands and now we cry for redemption and healing-redemption through Christ and healing by changing the laws.

Hooligan_016 2 years, 9 months ago

Sorry, I kind of zone out proselytizing after 2pm on a Friday. Catch me on Monday though!

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

Sorry you do not want to hear the truth.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

http://madmikesamerica.com/2012/05/bible-life-begins-at-first-breath/

If you truly followed your Bible you would have no problem. There is no mention of abortion in the Bible (except for instances that expressly order it to be done) other than the fact that if a man causes a woman to miscarry he has to pay a few shekels and gets a slap on the wrist. Why not try reading that book instead of just thumping it?

Mike1949 2 years, 9 months ago

Why are you against Freedom of Choice? I would say from your writings that without a doubt, you are anti-constitutional in your attitudes. Why are you always attacking women and their rights? What did they do to you? You want to limit their health care, now you want to attach people's personal income taxes.

Why do you want to dictate your beliefs on every Kansan? I don't believe what you believe, Yet you keep attacking me and the rest of Kansas by removing our choices and freedoms.

What part of separation of Government and Religion you don't understand? Even your handle is an insult to all Kansans that expect the Constitution to provide us with the guarantee of Freedom. Why are you anti Constitution of the United States?

Katara 2 years, 9 months ago

The problem is not ignorant Kansans. The problem is apathetic Kansans who don't come out to vote.

JayhawkFan1985 2 years, 9 months ago

I don't like the sloppy reporting. Everyone is an abortion opponent. Some people like me just believe that abortion is a choice a woman should be trusted to make on her own without government involvement.

Why are the media labeled pro life people also often supporters of the various wars and of executions? If life is sacred, then it shouldn't matter whose life...even a plant or animals life is sacred too under such a logical construct.

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

I guess you need to study canon law and just war theory. There is a difference between the issues you raise!

Katara 2 years, 9 months ago

I'm very certain you have studied neither.

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 9 months ago

The point is that circumstances like a murder make taking a life a severe punishment. Circumstances call for the defense of the family or nation! The situations involve people who have had due process or a legal process to assess guilt or legalities of the defenses. The fetus in abortion is innocent and does not receive due process

Katara 2 years, 9 months ago

The Bible does not define abortion as murder. The Bible does not recognize the unborn as a person.

In fact, there is lots of murder in the Bible and done by people who are considered to be "godly" people.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

Since when was the Bible (or the Roman Catholic Church, for that matter) ever concerned about "due process"? Why don't you try actually reading your Bible instead of using it as a piece of room decoration? Oh that's right, you let others read it for you and then swallow hook, line and sinker what they say it says.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

Pro-life is pro-life.

If human life is sacred, and thus deserving of protection, then that would apply to all humans.

A sacred being can't lose their "sacredness".

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

Yep.

It would be the principled "pro life" position, though.

jhawkinsf 2 years, 9 months ago

You're playing semantics. Would your pro-choice terminology expand to issues beyond a woman's right to choose to end her pregnancy?
I think we all know what pro-choice and pro-life mean in the context of a debate about abortion. Or shall we just go back to the previous terminology of pro-abortion and anti-abortion?

Katara 2 years, 9 months ago

Why wouldn't pro-choice terminology to issues beyond a women's right to choose to end her pregnancy?

It also extends to the woman who wishes to continue her pregnancy even though the outcome is not a live birth.

It also extends to the woman who wishes to continue her pregnancy even though the then baby would only live a few hours or require 24/7 lifetime care (which BTW is not fully covered by all insurance due to gaps and caps and is thus picked up by the taxpayers).

It extends to the woman who chooses to have lots of pregnancies regardless the risk to her and her fetuses' health (ala Duggar-style).

On the other end of the spectrum, It extends to the terminally ill person who wishes to choose the manner of their death.

Or the person who wishes to eschew modern treatments for their medical condition and prefers traditional home remedies.

jhawkinsf 2 years, 9 months ago

You see, you've extended it to various topics, while the previous posts extended it to war and the death penalty. In the absence of knowing what it will be extended to and how far the extension will be, I was simply calling for a clarity of what we were discussing.

Katara 2 years, 9 months ago

It is a logical extension.

If you wish to make the argument that life is sacred and that is why abortion should be outlawed, you cannot be selective about which life is sacred.

Further, war kills many innocent parties but many of the extremist pro-life movement are not concerned for those innocent parties (in particular those who are not of their flavor of Christianity). What about those in the wombs who are killed in war? Do they not count?

if you want to belief life is sacred, then be true to your beliefs. Support laws and programs that assist and take care of those who are less fortunate. This means not supporting cuts to social programs such as WIC, domestic violence programs, etc. Those lives are sacred too and no less deserving the protection the extremist pro-life movement claims to extend to the unborn.

jhawkinsf 2 years, 9 months ago

Is there not some irony in your statement that the logical extension of one's belief system should be consistent? Frequently, logic and one's beliefs are at odds with each other. Yet we rely on both. Frankly, I haven't a clue as to how a life is sacred, myself being a very non-religious person. That said, I do value some life more than others. A new born child deserves the ultimate protection. Bin Laden not so much. Is that inconsistent? I could care less. That's my beliefs and I'm entitled to them.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

That's fine.

You're not a religious "pro life" advocate.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

If that's for me, I'm not just playing semantics.

People who are truly pro-life, in a deep sense, would be opposed to the death penalty and war.

If they are instead "anti abortion" then they should use that terminology.

And, yes, pro choice advocates are in fact pro choice, not simply pro abortion - they believe in the right of women to decide whether or not they will give birth.

Perhaps the most precise terminology would be "anti abortion" and "pro choice".

jhawkinsf 2 years, 9 months ago

I'd say that the advocates on each side should choose for themselves the terminology they wish to use and then they get to define what that means.
Pro-choice advocates may use that term and define it any way they want, pro-life the same. I would not agree that pro-choice advocates then get to define what pro-life advocates should or should not believe. That simply gets too messy as should be obvious as it gets extended out to foreign policy (war), crime and punishment (death penalty) and social policy (support for social programs, WIC, etc., as mentioned by Katara). That was why I suggested the terms used be limited to the subject at hand, rather than trying to pigeon hole someone else into what you believe their philosophy ought to be.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

Well, maybe.

But I have the right to look at what people are saying, and form my own views on it, as well.

If pro life really just means anti abortion, then it's not pro life.

By the same token, if pro choice really means pro abortion, and advocates argue that all women should have abortions, or some such thing, then it's not really pro choice.

The first seems to be accurate - pro life advocates are often also pro death penalty and war, and opposed to social programs that help people once born.

The second doesn't seem to be - pro choice advocates aren't trying to tell women what choices to make.

So, my conclusion is that the best terms would be "anti abortion" and "pro choice" - they'd be more accurate.

jhawkinsf 2 years, 9 months ago

But as I suggested, no one has to have a consistent philosophy, so why try to call them out on being inconsistent. I may be pro-WIC but anti-bureaucracy within WIC, but what does that have to do with abortion? My opposition might not be to it's goals (WIC) but to how it is implemented. What does that have to do with abortion? I might be opposed to war in country A but if a genocide is happening in country B, I may support it. What does that have to do with abortion?
Please note that Katara's definitions are somewhat different than your own. Mine will be different still as will the next person's. Why go down that road? Because Katara says it's a logical conclusion, when we all know that logic may or may not have anything to do with one's overall system of beliefs?

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

You can have whatever views you like, however inconsistent they may be.

You're clearly not a religious "pro life" advocate, nor do you claim to be "pro life", so your views aren't inconsistent - you judge and value each situation according to what you see there.

I'm going to call them "anti abortion", because that seems like a more accurate description of them.

That's my right, isn't it? If I don't believe they operate in a "pro life" manner in any sort of consistent manner, I don't have to use that term for them, do I?

jhawkinsf 2 years, 9 months ago

Yes, Jafs, it is your right. And if they call you pro-cult of death, that is there right as well. How do you think the conversation will go from there? I predict it will go downhill from there. I'd rather avoid that.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

They already do that, as you well know. They call "pro choice" advocates "pro abortion" and many other things, like the ones you mentioned.

I generally try to have civil conversations, as you also know, but sometimes I like to call things as I see them as well.

In this case, the adoption of the "pro life' slogan combined with beliefs that aren't consistent with a "pro life" view bothers me enough that I'm not willing to just use that term for it, just because they want me to do so.

If pro choice folks were in fact pro abortion, I might use that term as well - when it looks to me as though feminists don't value all of women's choices, I challenge them on it.

Pastor_Bedtime 2 years, 9 months ago

The cycle of the Kansas Christian Supremacist: Step one: Proclaim state/nation as "Christian" and mandate absolute adherance to your faith. Step two: Label any negative reactions to step one as "anti-Christian bigotry." Step three: Enjoy church's tax-exempt status and carpetbag while complaining about private insurance companices funding abortion. Step four: Repeat until Supremacy is complete.

Patricia Davis 2 years, 9 months ago

Abortion is legal in this country. Why don't you super christians spend your time helping poor women and children?

JackMcKee 2 years, 9 months ago

can we just carve out a county in Kansas and let all of these wackos go set up their own little conservative heaven? It gets really tiring constantly listening to their stupidity.

hujiko 2 years, 9 months ago

Why don't you throw "anti-Christian bigotry" out there while you're at it.

Katara 2 years, 9 months ago

I don't think you understand what debate is.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.