Why This Abortion Law in Kansas is Getting So Much Attention

Posted in Politics
Wed, Apr 8 - 7:00 am EST | 3 years ago by
Comments: 28
Be Sociable, Share!
    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, a Republican who has drawn national attention for signing several landmark conservative bills into law in his state, has just passed an abortion bill that will restrict many second-trimester abortions. Although the vast majority of abortions are performed within the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, the law disallows doctors the use of the most common method of administering second-term abortions.

    Sam Brownback - Kansas Abortion LawKansas Governor Sam Brownback pictured in 2012 – Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images

    This new legislation will affect approximately one out of every ten Kansas women seeking abortions — those who have an abortion after the first trimester. During the first trimester, the fetus typically can be safely removed with the common vacuum technique. However, after the first trimester, abortions are usually done by dilation and evacuation, which is now illegal in Kansas.

    The outlawed technique, referred to as “dismemberment abortion” by pro-lifers, is an outpatient procedure that involves removing the fetus with forceps, a potentially gory process that could split the fetus into pieces during the removal.

    With the passage of this law, called The Unborn Child Protection From Dismemberment Abortion Act, Kansas becomes the state with the most restrictions involving abortion. A doctor who chooses to continue carrying out dilation and evacuation procedures risks a misdemeanor on the first offense and a felony on the second.

    Women in Kansas that want to get an abortion after the first trimester will still have options. However, these alternatives are often considered more dangerous, as they involve medications that may not affect every woman equally and safely. The lack of proven alternatives could pose a judicial issue for the law, as the Supreme Court has determined that women can have abortions up until their fetus could survive outside the womb.

    States are allowed to narrow abortion rights only to a certain extent, which means that banning the dilation and evacuation technique could ultimately be found unconstitutional. Given the passion on both sides of the abortion argument, it is almost inevitable that pro-choice forces will rally to sue the state over the law. Meanwhile, the pro-life movement has won a significant victory for its cause, one that could have a ripple effect into other states considering passing similar legislation.

    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    Be Sociable, Share!

      Related Posts

      • Bordeaux Vixen

        Oh look! another white guy taking power away from women everywhere! glorious day.

        • myintx

          So women gain “power” by having their unborn children ripped limb from limb? NO. Love is empowering, not killing.

        • Bordeaux Vixen

          no, women are born with power and have it systematically removed as their voices are silenced and their agency taken away. Love is about empowerment indeed, that’s my exactly argument. Killing? Come on. This is not about the life of an unborn baby, this is about men wanting power over everything, including the body of the women they bed.

        • myintx

          No one should have the ‘agency’ to kill another human being simply because they deem him or her to be inconvenient or unwanted – man or women. (Men cannot kill their unborn children, women shouldn’t be able to either).

          Abortion laws ARE about protecting the life of an unborn child. And many women are pro-life.I am one of them.

        • BCS

          Why are you trying to impose religious law on a secular nation?

        • myintx

          It doesn’t take religion to know that killing an unborn child is wrong – just logic and common sense. The logic (science) to know that an unborn child is a human being. The common sense to know that killing a human being that has done nothing wrong is WRONG.

        • BCS

          Sorry, it’s not a human being. It’s a POTENTIAL human being – unless of course it’s an ectopic pregnancy, catastrophically deformed, or something similar.
          Remember, rights are given in stages – a minor is (legally speaking) incomplete until they reach 21 in the USA, when they receive all legal rights.
          Conservatives are too taken with binary thinking – with us/against us, us/them, human/not human, American/foreign, etc.

        • myintx

          So, “it” changes from a ‘clump of cells’ to a human being magically on a trip down the birth canal? NO. A newborn is a human being, so is an unborn child one minute before birth, one minute before that etc – all the way back to when he or she was created – at fertilization.

          Science backs me up. Two examples (of many):

          Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, professor of pediatrics and
          obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania:

          “I have learned from my earliest medical education that
          human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that
          any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life…. I am no more prepared to say that these early stages of
          development in the womb represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

          Ward Kischer, Ph.D, Human Embryologist, University of Arizona: “Every human embryologist in the world knows that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilisation. It is not belief. It is scientific fact.”

          Rights are legal issues. The humanity of an unborn child is not legal, it’s science. Rights can be changed. Remember that slaves didn’t have full rights at one point in our history. Laws had to be changed to give slaves, and then black people the rights they deserve. Laws should be changed to give an unborn child a basic right to life.

        • BCS

          Wrong. It changes at viability. Before that, the full human (i.e the woman) takes priority. There’s a continuum of rights – Adults have more rights than children, children have more rights than infants, infants have more rights than fetuses, fetuses have more rights than blastocysts, and blastocysts have more rights than gametes.
          Abortion rights are a necessity to protect women as long as conservatives try to limit access to birth control and sex education. I’d be more conservative on the matter if conservatives weren’t so obsessed with Abstinence-Only education (which leads to poverty, teen pregnancy, divorce, AND more abortions).

        • myintx

          WRONG – where are your citations from doctors that an unborn child magically changes from a ‘clump of cells’ to a human being at viability? I gave 2 that say an unborn child is a human being from fertilization. All I see from you are your opinions.

          I know what the laws are and as I proved to you, laws can be CHANGED. Laws can and should be changed to give unborn children a right to life.

          No one should have the right to kill their unborn child (unless it’s absolutely necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman). The birth control and sex ed arguments are excuses. It’s like me blaming a car accident on the state because THEY didn’t teach me how to drive (“nothing is ever my fault” – typical liberal). Come on. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. A couple can do (gasp) their own research on contraceptives if they didn’t learn it in high school (duh!). And, no one is trying to take away every form of contraceptive – there are several forms available at just about every drug store in the country – yet about 1/2 of women who have abortions didn’t even use one form! That screams IRRESPONSIBLE to me on the part of a couple – not the government. Also, most abortions are done by women over 20 – women (and their partners) who should be mature enough to take responsibility for their own actions and quit blaming a lack of sex-ed for their problems.

          Can you really look at a 4D ultrasound of an unborn child at 16 or 20 weeks and say “I support a woman having that unborn child’s limbs ripped off for any reason under the sun”? I can’t.

        • Bordeaux Vixen

          we do things we don’t like all the time. having an abortion is another one of those things.

          a woman should be able to build a life she wants, not the one she was given. irresponsible or ill informed, she deserves the chance to build a life she can feel proud to live. things are so difficult already – why take away one of life’s mercies?

        • myintx

          An unborn child should have a chance at life – he or she shouldn’t be killed because he or she is inconvenient to his or her own MOTHER. A little COEXISTing for a few short months means the possibility of a full and productive life for a new human being – liberals are all about COEXISTing, aren’t they? The ultimate example of COEXISTence is a woman and her unborn child.

        • Bordeaux Vixen

          but see, that life isn’t necessarily going to be full and productive. An unwanted child won’t be loved the way it should, which certainly doesn’t set a person up for success.

        • myintx

          You don’t know if a child will be unwanted. If given up for adoption, a newborn will have a chance at a full and productive life. Does being unwanted justify killing a newborn? NO, and it shouldn’t justify killing an unborn child either.

        • Bordeaux Vixen

          Approximately 250,000 children are adopted annually, but…

          Each year 14, 505, 000 children grow up as orphans and age out of the system by age sixteen

          Each day 38,493 orphans age out

          Every 2.2 seconds another orphan ages out with no family to belong to and no place to call home

        • Bordeaux Vixen

          BOOM BITCH

        • myintx

          Most babies put up for adoption as newborns do get adopted. If a child gets put in the system at 15 and ages out how on earth does that justify killing an unborn child? It doesn’t. You can throw out numbers all you want – those numbers do NOT justify killing a human being. BOOM!

        • Bordeaux Vixen

          “most babies put up for adoption as newborns do get adopted.” herm…myintx ignores statistics…

        • Bordeaux Vixen

          tehehe

        • myintx

          And what stat that you provided said most babies put up for adoption as newborns don’t get adopted? Don’t see one.

          The fact that there are long waiting lists to adopt newborn babies disproves your claim. Also, the average amount of time the average amount of time a child is in the system before leaving is 23.9 months. If newborns stayed in the system for 18 years, that number would be a lot higher. The number 23.9 is already high, but that includes kids that aren’t up for adoption and older kids too.

          You didn’t answer my question either… How does a kid being in the system from 15 to aging out justify killing an unborn child?

        • Bordeaux Vixen

          Some pretty important things happen between 0 and 23.9 months in a child’s psychological development. too bad that time won’t be spent with people that love it completely.

        • myintx

          The stat didn’t say it was just newborns that stayed in the system that long. Obviously, younger children are more adoptable so newborns are in the system less than older children. If being in the system is no excuse to kill an unwanted born child it’s no excuse to kill an unwanted unborn child.

        • Bordeaux Vixen

          I think you hate women

        • myintx

          Do I hate men if I want them to pay child support? Do I hate men or women if I tell them they cannot kill their newborn born as a result of a botched abortion? Do I hate women if I tell them they cannot kill their unborn children after viability? Do I hate men if I tell them they cannot slip their girlfriend an abortificant to kill their unborn child? NO – it’s about protecting a tiny human being from being killed.

          It’s YOU that hates females – about 1/2 the victims of abortion are female.

        • Bordeaux Vixen

          people should have agency over their bodies. period. no one should force you to carry a baby in your womb you don’t want to if there is an alternative.

          true, some pro-lifers are women. its a sad story.

        • myintx

          There are many laws that tell us we don’t have full control over our bodies – e.g. post viability abortion laws and drug laws. Our right to do with our body what we want should END where another body begins – e.g. you can swing your arms around all you want, but if they hit someone else it’s wrong.

          There are (at least) 2 human beings involved in a pregnancy – both should have a right to life.

        • Bordeaux Vixen

          this isn’t about the life on the unborn – this is about the life of a fully formed women, walking about the planet and having sex. HER life. Her choices!

        • myintx

          The lives of ALL innocent human beings are important. Not just fully formed women. Ones convenience should NOT result in the death of another human being that has done nothing wrong

      Be Sociable, Share!