The Quiet Conservative May 4, 2008
The Forgotten Veto
Directly across the front pages of many newspapers in the last two days were the stories of the successful defeat of the
3.6 billion dollar expansion of the Holcomb power plants. Those stories were contrasted with the stories of legislators
worried about a budget deficit and declining revenues for future state programs. The irony wasn't funny, it was pathetic.
With the Sunflower coal fight dominating the news, a second and far more controversial veto passed by without much
notice or outrage. It was the Governor’s veto of CARA, The Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act. Below is her press
release on the act:
Veto Message for House Substitute for Senate Bill 389
Over the last several years, we have worked on lowering abortion rates in Kansas by focusing on adoption
incentives, extended health services for pregnant women, providing sex education and offering a variety of
support services for families.
Those efforts are having a positive impact; recently we learned that the abortion rate in Kansas continues to go
down.
For years, the people of Kansas have asked their elected officials to move beyond legislative debates on issues
like abortion and focus their attention on issues that can be solved in the Statehouse - stronger schools,
affordable health care and economic growth.
Kansans are proud of the progress we've made lowering the abortion rate and lifting our economy. It's time for
legislators to recognize that progress and focus on the things that continue to move us forward.
I am concerned about a number of provisions in SB 389. The United States Supreme Court decisions make clear
that any law regulating abortion must contain exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman’s life or
health. However, SB 389 allows a variety of individuals to seek a court order preventing a woman from obtaining
an abortion, even where it may be necessary to save her life. I am concerned that the bill is likely unconstitutional
or even worse, endangers the lives of women.
The bill contains unprecedented expansions of legal proceedings which would likely encourage extensive
litigation and also unnecessarily jeopardizes the privacy of Kansas women’s confidential medical records.
As Governor, nothing is more important to me than the safety, health and privacy rights of our citizens. I am
vetoing SB 389 because it endangers the health of women and is likely to be found in violation the United States
Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Kansas.
Therefore, pursuant to Article 2, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of Kansas, I veto House Substitute for
Senate Bill 389.
The above statement is deceptive. The reasoning is specious. The intent behind the veto is suspect. The abortion
industry is among the largest PAC donors to the Kansas Democratic Party. The abortion industry has spent millions on
electing Democratic officials. If we examine the Governor’s statement, and what the bill actually stated, we can see if the
money was well spent.
"Over the last several years, we have worked on lowering abortion rates in Kansas by focusing on adoption
incentives, extended health services for pregnant women, providing sex education and offering a variety of
support services for families.
Those efforts are having a positive impact; recently we learned that the abortion rate in Kansas continues to go
down."
The above lead in to the veto takes credit for the declining abortion rates in Kansas without a shred of proof. There is no
indication that abortion has been discouraged in any way shape or form by the Governor, who has consistently vetoed any
measure restricting abortion or regulating abortion providers. As for adoption incentives, health services for pregnant
women, sex education, and a variety of support services for families, all are good efforts in themselves but to claim them in
the name of reducing abortion is unfounded. As for the reduction in abortions, what statistics are showing that reduction
aren't provided. A quick search of the web brings any reduction to question. From www.johnstonsarchive.net the table
showing statewide abortions culled from the CDC numbers show no such reduction.
As often misrepresented in the press, abortion in Kansas was legal before Roe V. Wade. Individual states decided
what abortion laws would apply in their state. What Roe did was take that ability to set laws away from the states and
made up a new constitutional right where none existed. Roe imposed abortion nationwide. In 1972, the year before
Roe, there were 12,800 abortions in Kansas. The numbers have fluctuated over the years but for the last years on the
table: 2004, 2005, 2006 the total number of abortions on the table were 11, 357; 10,837; and 11,183 respectively.
What possible reduction is the Governor citing?
"For years, the people of Kansas have asked their elected officials to move beyond legislative debates on issues
like abortion and focus their attention on issues that can be solved in the Statehouse - stronger schools,
affordable health care and economic growth.
Kansans are proud of the progress we've made lowering the abortion rate and lifting our economy. It's time for
legislators to recognize that progress and focus on the things that continue to move us forward."
For years the people of Kansas have been asking for the abortion laws on the books to be enforced by an executive
branch that has refused to do so. Late term abortion provider Dr. Tiller has performed late term abortions with impunity,
and so notoriously that even the politicians he put in office couldn't cover all his alleged indiscretions. Still facing multiple
criminal counts, the state is dragging its feet on the case against Dr. Tiller while possibly trying to kill the charges originally
brought by Kline.
Far from wanting to move on, the people of Kansas forced the legislature to bring forward this House Substitute bill for
Senate Bill 389. In both Johnson County and Sedgwick County, citizen generated grand juries have attempted to restore
the rule of law when state officials have refused to act. There is a question of corruption about this refusal to act and
enforce laws that extends to the judiciary, the executive branch, and elected Democratic legislators. Kansans want this
trust restored, not misdirection to other issues.
"I am concerned about a number of provisions in SB 389. The United States Supreme Court decisions make clear
that any law regulating abortion must contain exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman’s life or
health. However, SB 389 allows a variety of individuals to seek a court order preventing a woman from obtaining
an abortion, even where it may be necessary to save her life. I am concerned that the bill is likely unconstitutional
or even worse, endangers the lives of women."
Two separate misdirections are going on here. The first is that the law is unconstitutional. There is a section of the bill,
which surely the Governor read, that stipulated any segment of the bill declared unconstitutional or found to be deficient
would not affect other portions of the bill. “g) If any provision of this section is held to be invalid or
unconstitutional, it shall be conclusively presumed that the legislature would have enacted the remainder of this
section without such invalid or unconstitutional provision.”
This means that anyone could challenge any portion of the bill in court and should that part of the bill be found deficient it
would be struck down, but allow the rest of the bill to remain. So the Governor’s fears are not only unfounded, they
show it is the bill itself, which would hold her biggest benefactors responsible under the law, which is apparently
objectionable.
The part "However, SB 389 allows a variety of individuals to seek a court order preventing a woman from
obtaining an abortion, even where it may be necessary to save her life. I am concerned that the bill is likely
unconstitutional or even worse, endangers the lives of women." mischaracterizes the nature of the potential court
order preventing a ‘woman’ from obtaining an abortion. It is section four of the vetoed bill and refers to the right of
individuals to seek a court order to prevent beforehand an abortion that would be already illegal under existing state
law!
"The bill contains unprecedented expansions of legal proceedings which would likely encourage extensive
litigation and also unnecessarily jeopardizes the privacy of Kansas women’s confidential medical records.
As Governor, nothing is more important to me than the safety, health and privacy rights of our citizens. I am
vetoing SB 389 because it endangers the health of women and is likely to be found in violation the United States
Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Kansas."
Complete nonsense. Unsupportable given the fact anyone can access the vetoed bill online. This is the power of the
Internet. The bill is found at: www.kslegislature.org/bills/2008/389.pdf What the bill does, or would have done, is force
state officials- benefactors of the abortion industry contributions- to enforce the existing laws. The bill is set up as follows:
Section 1: Mandatory reporting of sexual abuse victims, especially child sexual abuse victims up to and including the
death of a child.
Section 2: Mandatory record keeping to ensure lawful reporting. What the Governor objects to as: “Unnecessarily
jeopardizes the privacy of Kansas women’s confidential medical records.” in her veto, is actually written in the bill
as: “but the report shall not include the names of the persons whose pregnancies were so terminated.”
Section 3: Contains sanctions and criminal penalties for abortion providers who violate the law. This might be the section
that was truly unacceptable to the Governor. This would be the section most objectionable to her biggest financial
supporters. This section closes the loopholes that the late term abortion providers have used to virtually ignore the
existing state laws, and ignore them with the full complicity of the state.
Section 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 not legally or financially affiliated with the physician performing or inducing the abortion and
both physicians determine 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.” This destroys the Governor’s assertion: “I am vetoing SB 389 because it endangers the
health of women.”
Section 4 also allows the court injunction for abortions that would be illegal under the existing laws. Or, as the Governor
put it, “ The bill contains unprecedented expansions of legal proceedings which would likely encourage extensive
litigation.” Apparently stopping an illegal late term abortion beforehand is objectionable.
Before the cry of criminalizing abortion is raised about this section, it also states: “A woman upon whom an abortion is
performed shall not be prosecuted under this section for a conspiracy to violate this section pursuant to K.S.A. 21-
3302, and amendments thereto.” In plain language the section is placing the restrictions on the immensely profitable
abortion providers by requiring them to obey the law or be held accountable in court.
Section 5: This section was laid out to prevent sexual predators and abusers from bringing in their victims for coerced
abortions. It also provides clear counseling to minors on the impact of abortion and allows them full knowledge of their
options. It requires the abortion provider to prove they gave the minor those options and that an adult who accompanied
the minor is unconnected with the clinic and acting in the minor’s best interest.
Section 6: Parental or Guardian notification prior to the abortion. This section requires notification of the abortion by
unemancipated minors unless, after counseling, the minor objects to the notification. The minor can then go to court and, in
confidential proceedings, obtain a waiver of the notification. This removes any objection to a veto on the grounds the
person notified could be the abuser. This section also takes great care on patient confidentiality. The section is, once
again, mainly restricting the abortion provider to prevent illegal abortions or from failure to protect minors from sexual
abusers.
Section 7: This is the section on informed consent. This section requires the woman seeking an abortion to be fully
informed as to who is going to perform the abortion, the method to be used, and information as to what the abortion
actually does. The section also requires the following notice to be posted:
"Notice: It is against the law for anyone, regardless of their relationship to you, to force you to have an
abortion. By law, we cannot perform an abortion on you unless we have your freely given and voluntary consent.
It is against the law to perform an abortion on you against your will. You have the right to contact any local or
state law enforcement agency to receive protection from any actual or threatened physical abuse or violence. You
have the right to change your mind at any time prior to the actual abortion and request that the abortion
procedure cease."
These were the seven sections of the bill vetoed by Governor Sebelius. None placed more restrictions on a woman who
wished to have a “safe, legal, and rare” abortion. Instead, the bill was a list of safeguards to protect women and girls from
sexual predators, rapists, abusers, and unscrupulous abortion providers. The bill provided provisions to ensure women
had the full range of information on a decision that would greatly impact their lives. It allowed them more information on a
life altering decision. It protected their privacy.
By vetoing the bill the Governor did nothing to protect women. She did everything to protect abortion providers. Read
her veto. Read the bill. You can’t hide from facts.
It appears the abortion providers invested wisely in their PAC donations.