Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Sweeping anti-abortion bill goes to Kansas gov.

Posted by   + Show Post
Friday, April 5, 2013, at the Statehouse, in Topeka, Kan.

By JOHN HANNAThe Associated PressTOPEKA, Kan. —

Kansas legislators gave final passage to a sweeping anti-abortion measure Friday night, sending Gov. Sam Brownback a bill that declares life begins "at fertilization" while blocking tax breaks for abortion providers and banning abortions performed solely because of the baby's sex.The House voted 90-30 for a compromise version of the bill reconciling differences between the two chambers, only hours after the Senate approved it, 28-10. The Republican governor is a strong abortion opponent, and supporters of the measure expect him to sign it into law so that the new restrictions take effect July 1.In addition to the bans on tax breaks and sex-selection abortions, the bill prohibits abortion providers from being involved in public school sex education classes and spells out in more detail what information doctors must provide to patients seeking abortions.The measure's language that life begins "at fertilization" had some abortion-rights supporters worrying that it could be used to legally harass providers. Abortion opponents call it a statement of principle and not an outright ban on terminating pregnancies."The human is a magnificent piece of work at all stages of development, wondrous in every regard, from the microscopic until full development," said Sen. Steve Fitzgerald, a Leavenworth Republican who supported the bill.Abortion opponents argue the full measure lessens the state's entanglement with terminating pregnancies, but abortion-rights advocates say it threatens access to abortion services.The declaration that life begins at fertilization is embodied in "personhood" measures in other states. Such measures are aimed at revising their constitutions to ban all abortions, and none have been enacted, though North Dakota voters will have one on the ballot in 2014.But Kansas lawmakers aren't trying to change the state constitution, and the measure notes that any rights suggested by the language are limited by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. It declared in its historic Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 that women have a right to obtain abortions in some circumstances, and has upheld that decision while allowing increasing restrictions by states.Thirteen states, including Missouri, have such language in their laws, according to the National Right to Life Committee.Sen. David Haley, a Kansas Democrat who opposed the bill, zeroed in on the statement, saying that supporters of the bill were pursuing a "Taliban-esque" course of letting religious views dictate policy limiting women's ability to make decisions about health care and whether they'll have children.And in the House, Rep. John Wilson, a Lawrence Democrat, complained that the bill was "about politics, not medicine.""It's the very definition of government intrusion in a woman's personal medical decisions," he said.Brownback has signed multiple anti-abortion measures into law, and the number of pregnancies terminated in the state has declined 11 percent since he took office in January 2011.The governor said he still has to review this year's bill thoroughly but added, "I am pro-life."This year's legislation is less restrictive than a new North Dakota law that bans abortions as early as the sixth week of pregnancy and a new Arkansas law prohibiting most abortions after the 12th week. But many abortion opponents still see it as a significant step."There is a clear statement from Kansas with respect to the judgment on the inherent value of human life," said Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee Chairwoman Mary Pilcher-Cook, a Shawnee Republican and leading advocate for the measure.The bill passed despite any solid data on how many sex-selection abortions are performed in Kansas. A 2008 study by two Columbia University economists suggested the practice of aborting female fetuses — widespread in some nations where parents traditionally prefer sons — is done in the U.S. on a limited basis.But legislators on both sides of the issue said the practice should be banned, however frequent it is.The bill also would require physicians to give women information that addresses breast cancer as a potential risk of abortion. Advocates on both sides acknowledge there's medical evidence that carrying a fetus to term can lower a woman's risk for breast cancer, but doctors convened by the National Cancer Institute a decade ago concluded that abortion does not raise the risk for developing the disease.The provisions dealing with tax breaks are designed to prevent the state from subsidizing abortions, even indirectly. For example, health care providers don't have the pay the state sales tax on items they purchase, but the bill would deny that break to abortion providers. Also, a woman could not include abortion costs if she deducts medical expenses on her income taxes."Every taxpayer will be able to know with certainty that their money is not being used for abortion," Pilcher-Cook said.But Jordan Goldberg, state advocacy counsel for the New York City-based Center for Reproductive Rights, called the tax provisions "appalling and discriminatory.""It's probably, if not definitely unconstitutional, and it's incredibly mean-spirited," she said.
___The anti-abortion legislation is HB 2253.___Associated Press Writer Maria Fisher in Kansas City, Mo., also contributed to this report. Follow John Hanna on Twitter at www.twitter.com/apjdhanna
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
by on Apr. 6, 2013 at 3:15 AM
Replies (21-30):
LauraKW
by "Dude!" on Apr. 6, 2013 at 10:13 AM
Would you force your daughter to incubate that child against her will? To what extent? Would you stay with her 24 hours a day to ensure she didn't harm it or herself? If she repeatedly threw herself on her abdomen, would you tie her down? These are horrible scenarios and I apologize for even asking these questions of you, but since you brought up the situation with your daughter I'm just following that path. Please understand I'm not personally attacking you or your daughter, and I wish nothing but the brightest future for your family.

Quoting RobinChristine:

You haven't thought this one out real well, have you?


Yes,I have. I do not have a DD but DH have talked this out,if she were raped she would carry the child and if she did not want to be mom,we would parent the child.


As for me same if  I were raped,I would carry and parent the child. If we had to make a choice abortion or my life,I would not abort. I would put my life in God's hands.


As for a special needs child,that is not a reason to abort,I am already a mom to a special needs son


As for other women as I said IMO abortion equates murder

Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
SEEKEROFSHELLS
by Platinum Member on Apr. 6, 2013 at 10:28 AM

 I am not forcing anyone to do anything. I also tend not to debate abortion. It's a damn shame that sex selection is a reason to end a human life. That's all. 


Quoting LauraKW:

If someone is so determined to not have a boy that they are willing to abort, why would "you" want to force them to have that child?

Quoting SEEKEROFSHELLS:

 I think abortion by sex selection is wrong. Abort a child because it's NOT a BOY? That is so wrong on so many levels. I agree with that section of the bill. However you and I know, if someone doesn't want a girl, they will go in and say they want an abortion, they won't even bring up the matter. They won't bring up the real reason for the abortion is that the baby is a mere girl. Sigh......



LauraKW
by "Dude!" on Apr. 6, 2013 at 10:38 AM
1 mom liked this
I apologize, I hit enter too soon and I'm getting for a funeral so I didn't come back to finish.

Quoting SEEKEROFSHELLS:

 I am not forcing anyone to do anything. I also tend not to debate abortion. It's a damn shame that sex selection is a reason to end a human life. That's all. 



Quoting LauraKW:

If someone is so determined to not have a boy that they are willing to abort, why would "you" want to force them to have that child?



Quoting SEEKEROFSHELLS:

 I think abortion by sex selection is wrong. Abort a child because it's NOT a BOY? That is so wrong on so many levels. I agree with that section of the bill. However you and I know, if someone doesn't want a girl, they will go in and say they want an abortion, they won't even bring up the matter. They won't bring up the real reason for the abortion is that the baby is a mere girl. Sigh......




Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
randi1978
by Bronze Member on Apr. 6, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Actually, there was a lawmaker who pushed this exact law as a counter to another's anti-abortion legislation.  Everyone cried foul and the anti-abortion bill was killed.

Quoting AdrianneHill:

It makes me sad that women are seen as so stupid and selfish that they don't deserve a choice.
I'm waiting for a time when men aren't allowed to whack off because it's the waste of half a potential most precious baby.


k_hall1784
by on Apr. 6, 2013 at 10:56 AM
1 mom liked this

No one is forcing them to a back alley. If that's the decision that they decide to make, then that's on them. I never understood this argument. There is a such thing as abstinence and birth control. It's 2013, there are many a way to PREVENT pregnancy. But, that's JMO.

Quoting AuntieL333:

I have news for some of you who think that by banning abortions we will end abortion, nothing can be further from the truth. What it will do is cause a lot of women to die needlessly by forcing them back into the hands of butchers playing doctors or try to do something about it herself. I do not understand people who want no exceptions to a ban and frankly the whole issue has become very pale, stale and male. Some on the far-right won't be happy until they push thru legislation stating that life begins at the erection.


SEEKEROFSHELLS
by Platinum Member on Apr. 6, 2013 at 10:57 AM

 Eh, I have hit enter too soon as well in the past. LOL Sorry you have to go to a funeral. Facing lose is never easy.


Quoting LauraKW:

I apologize, I hit enter too soon and I'm getting for a funeral so I didn't come back to finish.

Quoting SEEKEROFSHELLS:

 I am not forcing anyone to do anything. I also tend not to debate abortion. It's a damn shame that sex selection is a reason to end a human life. That's all. 



Quoting LauraKW:

If someone is so determined to not have a boy that they are willing to abort, why would "you" want to force them to have that child?



Quoting SEEKEROFSHELLS:

 I think abortion by sex selection is wrong. Abort a child because it's NOT a BOY? That is so wrong on so many levels. I agree with that section of the bill. However you and I know, if someone doesn't want a girl, they will go in and say they want an abortion, they won't even bring up the matter. They won't bring up the real reason for the abortion is that the baby is a mere girl. Sigh......






Veni.Vidi.Vici.
by on Apr. 6, 2013 at 11:00 AM

I suspect that Kansas legislature thinks that people who support this bill will pack their belongings and line up in droves to move to KS, in turn paying taxes and boosting its piss poor economy. Yeah right!

lifeforchrist
by on Apr. 6, 2013 at 11:02 AM
1 mom liked this

so happy! :)

RobinChristine
by on Apr. 6, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Would you force your daughter to incubate that child against her will? ...

I do not have a DD. If  I did   yes she would carry and deliver that baby. DH  and   I would stay with her 24/7 if necessary. I would get her counseling and  in  patient help if she  tried to harm herself or baby.

My only child  is a  special needs teen son. Many topics I see on here I talk with DH about as in a  what if situation

I wish you the best also.

 

romalove
by Roma on Apr. 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM


Quoting RobinChristine:

Would you force your daughter to incubate that child against her will? ...

I do not have a DD. If  I did   yes she would carry and deliver that baby. DH  and   I would stay with her 24/7 if necessary. I would get her counseling and  in  patient help if she  tried to harm herself or baby.

My only child  is a  special needs teen son. Many topics I see on here I talk with DH about as in a  what if situation

I wish you the best also.

 

What if a woman is in a situation where she needs life saving treatment that will kill her unborn child and she must abort if she is to save her own life?

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN