Archive for Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Anti-abortion bill expected to win final approval this week

April 3, 2013


— The Kansas Senate approved new restrictions for abortion providers Tuesday, moving the state’s most-sweeping legislation on the issue this year close to final passage.

The vote was 29-11 on a measure blocking tax breaks for abortion providers and prohibiting them from furnishing materials or instructors for sex education classes in public schools. The measure also would prevent abortion patients from including abortion costs when deducting medical expenses on their state income taxes.

The bill spells out in greater detail what information doctors must provide to patients before performing abortions, including information about abortion and breast cancer. Scientists convened by the National Cancer Institute in 2003 concluded abortion did not raise the risk of breast cancer, but abortion opponents point to evidence that carrying a fetus to term can lessen the risk.

The measure also declares life begins “at fertilization” and that “unborn children” have interests “that should be protected.”

The House approved the legislation last month. Senators made technical changes, and House members must review the revisions before the measure can go to Gov. Sam Brownback. But supporters of the bill expect the House’s review to be a formality and the bill to win final legislative approval this week.

“I don’t have any immediate concerns about it,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lance Kinzer, an Olathe Republican and a leader among anti-abortion lawmakers.

Both chambers have solid anti-abortion majorities, and the Republican governor is a strong abortion opponent. Brownback has signed anti-abortion measures into law since taking office in January 2011.

Threat perceived

This year’s legislation is less restrictive than a new North Dakota law that bans abortions as early as the sixth week of pregnancy or a new Arkansas law prohibiting most abortions after the 12th week. But abortion-rights advocates still view the Kansas measure as a major threat to abortion access.

Both chambers rejected proposals to add specific exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest to all of the state’s abortion restrictions, and senators refused to add language supplementing existing legal protections for access to birth control.

Rep. Barbara Bollier, a Mission Hills Republican who supports abortion rights, said the bill not only injects abortion politics into tax policy but invades women’s privacy. Also, she said, it would create a hostile environment that discourages health care providers from performing even a few abortions in medical emergencies.

“We’re going into a whole different realm,” Bollier said. “It becomes a police state, where you’re afraid.”

‘Meaningful step’

Abortion opponents see such criticism as overheated but also believe the measure would continue a trend in which the state has seen abortions decline 37 percent during the past decade. Kansans for Life, the most influential anti-abortion group at the Statehouse, has urged legislators to avoid headline-grabbing initiatives likely to face court challenges in favor of incremental changes.

“I would call it a small but meaningful step forward,” Kinzer said.

The provisions dealing with tax breaks are designed to prevent the state from subsidizing abortions even indirectly. For example, an abortion provider could not claim the same exemption from the state sales tax on what it purchases that other health care providers receive.

Kinzer said he doubts providers claim many of the tax breaks that would be denied to them under the bill. He also acknowledged he doesn’t know of any recent examples of abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood being invited by public schools to participate in sex education classes.

But he said enacting restrictions in law would at least prevent such situations in the future.


Stephanie Anderson 1 year ago

scary. truly scary. If a woman goes to the ER because she's having a miscarriage, the police will be called to investigate whether or not there was intent by the woman in order to determine murder charges or not, and of a course a tox screen. unreal.


jackbinkelman 1 year ago

This is nothing, nothing compared to what is coming from this bunch.


gastrawn 1 year ago

cut and pasted from the bill "Nothing in this section shall be construed as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care."


Gandalf 1 year ago

Once this bill passes I hope every expectant mother claims an extra exemption and child on taxes and EIC. Everyone who is 20 years and 3 months should start buying booze and guns if they want.


Agnostick 1 year ago

No more "conservatives"... all have been "born again" as "American" neoconservatives!


jjt 1 year ago

Nearly 7 hours on and no one has seriously answered my question. Who should I ask?


Larry Sturm 1 year ago

What ever the govenor wants his sheep will follow.


Thomas Bryce 1 year ago

The sooner they Pass it, the sooner the courts will strike it down. Another "Jobs Bill" For the Legal Eagles. "Stupid is as Stupid Does". Thanks again, Kansas Legislature. The Hole is getting deeper by the day. Be careful you don't bury yourselves in your own Stupidity.


Greg Cooper 1 year ago

Unbelievable. Unreallystupidlywomanhatinglybelievable.


jayhaitch 1 year ago

Thank heaven they're about finished with this. Now they can devote full attention to the witch-burning statute.


jjt 1 year ago

I have asked before and will try again to see if any one can deal with the "life begins an fertilization" part. Not saying it does or does not, but if the law says it does what is the actual deal going to be with women who use IUDs or have used IUDs. One can joke about check points at the state borders and fly overs but will the law mean that a lady who has used an IUD is liable in law for something. I just wish someone who supports this bill would answer the question. I would like them to address the issue of a dead fetus or one with out a head rare I know but it happens and why a mother should be forced to carry til term for others religious reasons.


kernal 1 year ago

"All I have to say is that if I were a woman of child bearing age I would be taking immediate steps to leave the state." Ditto, cait!

Personally, abortion would not be my personal choice. My choice, no one else's and no one breathing down my back to do one or the other. Choice is one of the elements of (or should be) living in a free country. This Kansas legislature is an abomination and cares little for reality, truth or the people who it is supposed to represent. The conservative right only represent their own special interests and the corporations that own them and it will take decades to fix what they are breaking, just as it will for Florida, Wisconsin and Texas.


Paul R Getto 1 year ago

More work for attorneys....31% Sam's only jobs project.


JohnnyRaven 1 year ago

Your mothers should have aborted every last one of you.


Cait McKnelly 1 year ago

Here's some things to look for under this law.
1. All forms of contraception that do not actively block conception, such as IUDs, will be immediately outlawed. There is potential for hormonal contraception to be outlawed as well because, on the rare occasions that it fails, it can be detrimental to the zygote.
2. Any woman that knowingly or unknowingly exposes a zygote/embryo/fetus to an endangering situation will be liable for criminal charges. This will include (but not be limited to):
a. Being in a speeding car (as the driver or not).
b. Being in a car accident.(as the at fault driver or not).
c. Exposing the developing zygote to chemical substances; alcohol, illegal and legal drugs (including over the counter drugs), certain paints, cleaning products and other household products, etc..
d. Having any kind of accident; slips, falls, etc.
e. Attempting suicide.
f. Being in a physically abusive relationship.
3. Pregnant women can (and will be) incarcerated for the safety of the fetus until delivery at the discretion of the state (and possibly beyond for potential fetal endangerment).
4. All abortion will be outlawed, no exceptions, even to save the mother's life.

You think this can't happen here? Think again. Buried in this new law is the following language:
"(1) The life of each human being begins at fertilization;
(2) unborn children have interests in life, health and well-being that should be protected...
On and after July 1, 2013, the laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons, citizens and residents of this state,..."

All I have to say is that if I were a woman of child bearing age I would be taking immediate steps to leave the state.


just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year ago

"“I don’t have any immediate concerns about it,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lance Kinzer, an Olathe Republican and a leader among anti-abortion lawmakers."

Lance is much more interested in projecting his Talibanish morality into medical decisions that should be left to women and their doctors than in respecting their constitutional rights.


usesomesense 1 year ago

My main point of confusion is why eliminate sex education? Seems like that leads to more unplanned pregnancies to me!


poolside 1 year ago

The care for an endangered mother or a mother carrying a baby whose has passed on in utero, as of this bill, are all on her back to pay for-no matter her income level. I protest.


Commenting has been disabled for this item.