The Quiet Conservative April 18, 2010
The More Things Change, The More They Stay the Same.
Almost two years ago our former governor, Kathleen Sebelius, sold out young girls victimized by sexual
predators, women unsure of their options, and uncounted viable babies, by vetoing the Comprehensive
Abortion Reform Act (CARA). The Kansas state Democratic political machine, fueled by the millions
from Dr. Tiller, guaranteed their corrupt funding was untouchable. They did this by making sure
Kansas abortion laws would not be enforced. The CARA did not change access to abortion, what it did
was hold abortion providers accountable in their actions under state law. This the Kansas state
government would not allow. The travesty of this dishonest veto was detailed in the column "The
Forgotten Veto" which ran May 4, 2008.
Now, with Tiller murdered, you wonder why the same political machine would fight to have the same
corrupt practices safeguarded. Yet, here again the new Governor, Mark Parkinson, handpicked by the
last corrupt office holder, is faithfully following her villainy. Whether this is to attract a new late term
abortion sugar daddy to fill the Democratic coffers, or whether this is simply blood lust to slaughter
viable children on principle, remains to be seen. But in his short veto statement Parkinson is less
'excuse' than Sebelius was, and more in-your-face about his action:
Kansas' current law concerning abortion was passed more than a decade ago and strikes a
reasonable balance on a very difficult issue. I support the current law and believe that an annual
legislative battle over the issue is not in the public's best interest.
My view is that all abortions are tragedies, which is why I would encourage women who have
unwanted pregnancies to consult with their partners, families, doctors, and spiritual advisors. I
would not encourage women to consult with state legislators, as this is a private decision and
should not be dictated by public officials.
Therefore with respect to people on both sides of the issue, pursuant to Article 2, Section 14 of the
Constitution of the State of Kansas, I veto S. Sub HB 2115 (*bold type added)
What a punk. At least Sebelius wasn't holding Kansans in open contempt. She at least veiled it.
Before demolishing the above veto, it is important to cover what changes the current governor spiked.
By doing this, the true depths of his depravity can be illuminated. The legislation can be found at www.
kslegislature.org. Click on Full text of bills and in the space "enter bill number" type: 2115. This will
bring up the actual language of the bill the governor looked at when he decided to veto the legislation.
His veto, written above, is also found there.
The first change in the language of the bill was in the reporting section of 65-445. It was amended as
follows: Each report required by subsection(c)(4) of K.S.A. 65-6703, and amendments thereto, shall
specify the medical diagnosis and condition constituting a substantial and irreversible impairment of
a major bodily function or the medical diagnosis and condition which necessitated performance of
an abortion to preserve the life of the pregnant woman. Each report required by K.S.A. 65-6703, and
amendments thereto, shall include a sworn statement by the physician performing the abortion and
the referring physician that such physicians are not legally or financially affiliated.
This change was to close the loopholes by which Dr. Tiller performed hundreds, if not thousands of
illegal abortions. He was never held to any standard by the state medical board nor any of the state's
law enforcement. Having an actual reporting standard would be harder to lie about. So, obviously this
was a valid reason for a veto? It placed no restrictions on any woman seeking an abortion in Kansas
who already qualified to have one under existing state law. In fact, all the changes vetoed deal with the
abortion providers regulation, and not the restrictions by which women receive abortions. Tiller was
flagrant in his flouting of Kansas law and that notoriety has not faded with his untimely death. This is
why the legislature keeps coming back to the issue.
(f) The annual public report on abortions performed in Kansas issued by the secretary of health and
environment shall contain the information required to be reported by this section to the extent such
information is not deemed confidential pursuant to this section. The secretary of health and
environment shall adopt rules and regulations to implement this section. Such rules and regulations
shall prescribe, in detail, the information required to be kept by the physicians and hospitals and the
information required in the reports which must be submitted to the secretary.
Nothing onerous there. Simply standardizing the requirements for record keeping. Wasn't that one of
the national Democratic efforts? Accurate medical records? The next few changes deal with the
restrictions of licensing of abortion providers convicted of felonies and misdemeanors. That doesn't
seem objectionable. No reason for a veto. Ah, but then you get to the definitions part:
(k) ‘‘Viable’’ means that stage [of gestation when, in the best medical judgment of the attending
physician, the fetus is capable of sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of
extraordinary medical means] the bracketed section is now replaced with :"of fetal development when it
is the physician’s judgment, according to accepted obstetrical or neonatal standards of care and
practice applied by physicians in the same or similar circumstances, that there is a reasonable
probability that the life of the child can be continued indefinitely outside the mother’s womb with
natural or artificial life-supportive measures."
Replacing subjective opinion with an objective standard raises problems when one is engaged in a
criminal enterprise...it means you are leaving evidence behind. By forcing the abortionist to be
accountable to state law and a reviewable standard, less abortions can be provided in violation to that
law. The governor must have choked at this revision.
Sec. 4. K.S.A. 65-6703 is hereby amended to read as follows: 65-6703. (a) No person shall perform or
induce an abortion when the fetus is viable unless such person is a physician and has a documented
referral from another physician who is licensed to practice medicine in this state and who is not
legally or financially affiliated with the physician performing or inducing the abortion and both
physicians [determine] (bracketed portion removed.) provide a written determination, based upon a
medical judgment that would be made by a reasonably prudent physician, knowledgeable in the field,
and knowledgeable about the case and the treatment possibilities with respect to the conditions
involved, that: (1) The abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman; or (2) a
continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily
function of the pregnant woman.
(b) Except in the case of a medical emergency, a copy of the written documented referral and of the
abortion-performing physician’s written determination shall be provided to the pregnant woman no
less than 30 minutes prior to the initiation of the abortion. The written determination shall be time-
stamped at the time it is delivered to the pregnant woman.
Such determination shall specify:(1) If the fetus was determined to be nonviable and the medical
basis of such determination;(2) if the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant
woman and the medical basis of such determination, including the specific medical condition the
physician believes would cause the death of the pregnant woman; or (3) if a continuation of the
pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the
pregnant woman and the medical basis of such determination, including the specific medical
condition the physician believes would cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major
bodily function of the pregnant woman.
The changes go on, but they are all about holding the abortion provider accountable to objective
standards of medicine and ethical standards of behavior that any other segment of medicine would
recognize. However, since the Democratic administration has been used to safeguarding illegal
abortionists for so long, the true reason for the veto can only be guessed by the last addition to Kansas
abortion law:
(g) (1) A woman upon whom an abortion is performed in violation of this section, the father, if
married to the woman at the time she receives the abortion procedure, and the parents or custodial
guardian of the woman, if the woman has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion,
may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless, in a case where the plaintiff is not the woman
upon whom the abortion was performed, the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff’s criminal conduct.
(2) Such relief shall include: (A) Money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical,
occasioned by the violation of this section; (B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the
abortion; and (C) reasonable attorney fees.
Wow, the above section allows some rights to people other than the mother! What next, acknowledging
the abortion actually kills a baby? Where does that slippery slope end? What the section states is that
should a baby be aborted in violation of Kansas state law, the husband or parents of an underage girl
can sue the abortion doctor in civil court. There is no end to Democratic double-think when a baby is a
baby if the woman wants it, and a baby isn't a baby if the woman doesn't want it. The man, therefore,
or the parents, have no rights at all to protest a criminal act that kills a family member. This is no
restriction to a legal abortion, only allowing some civil redress to those affected by a criminal act.
Well, that's the major changes. Go to the Kansas government web site and see for yourself. Did you
notice any new restrictions on abortion? Anything that prevents a woman from getting a legal abortion
under the law the governor states he approves of? No? Well, then, let's just go over the veto again.
Kansas' current law concerning abortion was passed more than a decade ago and strikes a
reasonable balance on a very difficult issue. I support the current law and believe that an annual
legislative battle over the issue is not in the public's best interest.
What then, is the annual battle over, other than having abortion providers adhere to the state law? If
someone actually supported the current law, they would ensure that it is enforced honestly. The key
word is "actually."
My view is that all abortions are tragedies, which is why I would encourage women who have
unwanted pregnancies to consult with their partners, families, doctors, and spiritual advisors. I
would not encourage women to consult with state legislators, as this is a private decision and
should not be dictated by public officials. (*emphasis added)
Why are all abortions tragedies? Unless the act of killing an unborn baby is inherently wrong? It's great
the governor is encouraging women to talk to people. But why not their representatives? Because if
they did, would they discover the governor's veto had nothing to do with restricting abortion and
everything to do with allowing late term abortionists to violate the law? Does the governor want them
uninformed? This snarky little veto makes it sound like the governor is a champion of women's rights,
rather than a sordid conspirator angling to protect political donors from criminal prosecution.
With Tiller gone and Nebraska shutting down its late term baby abattoirs, Kansas, which has
discouraged every other business, is looking like it wants to stay the late term abortion capital of
America. Leroy Carhart, late term abortionist and onetime crony of Tiller, is looking for a new home.
Kansas, in the form of the governor, has given a clear signal that Carhart would be our kind of baby
killer. We could reopen the Democratic protection racket that was so abruptly shut off.
The veto from Governor Parkinson is indefensible on any grounds that it had anything to do with
abortion restrictions. You don't have to believe me. Go to the legislative site and read the changes for
yourself. He was no more honest than Sebelius was two years ago. But, he doesn't seem ashamed of
it. The veto comes across as smug. I'm embarrassed for him.
As far as Kansans getting an honest Kansas state government, the more things change, the more they
stay the same.