Hodes v. Schmidt
Since April 26, 2019 (Hodes & Nauser, MDs v. Schmidt), the Kansas Bill of Rights Section 1 has been interpreted by the Kansas Supreme Court as protecting a woman's right to have an abortion.
Here's what legislators could have done, but didn't. Legislators could have crafted other restrictions on abortion, so long as they weren't an undue burden prior to fetal viability. The language is vague, yes, but that's what the US Supreme Court said was the law in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Such regulations might have included regular inspections of facilities, continuing education, no (state) tax dollars used for abortion services, restrictions after 20–22 weeks (this cutoff is problematic as well, but I'll leave it alone for now), or (possibly, IANAL), restrictions regarding out-of-state patients. Legislators did not do that. They campaigned on this amendment, or something similar.
Value Them Both
The “Value Them Both” Coalition would like you to believe that, if the amendment to the Kansas Bill of Rights does not pass on August 2, you'll be signing up for the following:
- unsafe clinics where the doctors don't have to bother washing their hands or equipment
- doctors who aren't “qualified” to admit patients to a hospital
- women don't understand what abortion means
- tax dollars paying for abortions
- minors (children) getting abortions without parental consent
- promotion of the D&E procedure
- an unlimited right to unregulated abortion up to the moment of birth
All of these are untrue, or at least deceitful in one way or another. The text of the actual amendment is as follows:
Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.
What this effectively does is takes the first section of the Kansas Bill of Rights and change it to (insertions underlined)
Equal rights. All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Okay, it's not that cut-and-dry, but it's not far from it, because if/after this amendment passes, bills still have to be passed in the state legislature that restrict or ban abortion, but if you don't think these aren't already drafted and ready for introduction on January 9 at 2pm (are our legislators lazy?) then I don't feel that conflicted about calling you naïve.
Do you know what happened in the semi-famous case where a KCK abortion doctor was found sterilizing his equipment in a dishwasher? He lost his license to practice medicine. There were claims that officials ignored reports about his clinic for years before inspecting the facility. This appears to be untrue, and he was fined multiple times before ultimately losing his license.
Do you know how abortions can be safely performed in a carpeted office? Because most involve the patient ingesting a pill, something that I do on a carpeted surface two or more times a day (not that pill, but you get the idea). Also, surgical abortions are not performed on the floor.
Abortion doctors are doctors. Trained medical professionals. They must have a medical license. But do they need “admitting privileges” to a hospital? When 99+% of the time no hospital is needed? Your GP doesn't need such admitting privileges (and likely doesn't have them), nor does your dentist, or dietician, or most other medical professionals. You know what happens when an emergency happens at these other facilities? Someone calls 911 and the patient is transported in an ambulance to a hospital. No one needs admitting privileges for that.
In many states where “educational materials” are required reading, or where the doctors are required to read a statement about the consequences of abortion, they are required by law to lie to their patients, and the legislators call this “informed consent.” Abortion does not increase the likelihood of developing breast cancer. It does not produce solely negative emotional reactions (or cause depression or PTSD). Individuals should have access to information, but they should be allowed to make their own decisions.
Due to the federal Hyde amendment, your federal taxes cannot be used to pay for abortions. Due to a state law passed in 2013, your state taxes cannot be used to pay for abortions either.
I'm not up on any law or laws that may require parental notification of minors seeking abortions, but there are serious reasons why this isn't always the best course of action, and am opposed to requiring such notification.
D&E, discussed earlier, is a safe medical procedure, probably the safest past 13 weeks. Regardless, the procedure suggested by your trained medical doctor will likely be the safest approach, not one chosen because of the doctor's proclivity toward cannibalism or glee at dismemberment.
Again, the Kansas Supreme Court decision was that banning D&E was an undue burden, not that “anything goes”.
Did you know that 1 in 4 pregnancies end in natural miscarriages? Did you ever wonder why couples keep the news of a possible pregnancy “secret” for so long? How about the fact that somewhere between 30% and 60% of fertilized eggs do not implant on the uterine wall? If you believe in “personhood” from the moment of fertilization, might I suggest funding scientific research to deal with these numbers? Because otherwise this idea of personhood suggests that, “based on God's perfect will”, 30% to 52.5% of all fertilized eggs are destined to end in a dead person.
Did you know that individuals in the United States, even in locations where abortion is legal, have been arrested on murder charges for having a miscarriage?
Did you know that there are medical situations and conditions which, if a pregnant person is forced to attempt to carry the fetus to term, will result in the death of that pregnant person, the death of the fetus, the death of the delivered child, and/or the permanent sterilization of the pregnant person? And that many, if not most, of these conditions cannot be determined until a 20-week scan?
Did you know that rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, Crohn's disease, colitis, and some cancers are treated with methotrexate, one of the “abortion pills”? And that any poorly crafted legislation that bans this medicine can cause pharmacists to be prosecuted for filling such prescriptions? And that such laws are already on the books in some states? Even without such laws, if an individual with a functioning uterus has one of the above conditions, would they dare go to a pharmacy to get a prescription filled for fear of being charged with potential murder, even though they are just attempting to live their lives free of chronic pain?
Did you know that there were an estimated 631,832 children waiting for adoption in October 2020 (AFCARS Report #28) (a number which is actually going down)? If the ALL statistics are to be believed, and pregnant individuals are supposed to just put their child up for adoption, another 930,160 children would be added to this report per year. That is unsustainable and the system would collapse in no time.
The ultimate question is who is best fit to decide whether pregnant individuals can make the choice to carry their child to term: the individual themselves (with advice from their doctor), or a politician in Topeka?
More Resources and Articles