FROM THE GALLERY
Testimony on HB 2176
Mr. Chairman and Committee members:
Abortion: safe but rare. This statement reflects wishful thinking on the part of policy-makers and abortion proponents. Those who favor abortion rights often use this slogan as a shield to obscure the real facts. The facts are that women continue to die and suffer complications from abortions. Abortion is a surgical procedure that carries risks of perforating the uterus, infection, hemorrhage and other complications. The opportunity lies before you to do something about half of the slogan . . . to make abortion safer . . . to require the abortion industry to give credence to their motto by submitting to the same regulations as all other surgical care centers.
The legitimate function of government is to protect the health and safety of its citizens and that duty is being thwarted by a mentality that says any regulation of the abortion industry is tantamount to harassment; that abortion clinics are accurately self-reporting statistics about injuries and complications in the abortion procedures performed; and that the performance of abortions is sacrosanct and above regulation. The abortion industry made its case thirty-some years ago by claiming that �women were dying in back-alley abortions.� Women are still dying, being rendered sterile and suffering complications from abortions now. Because of a deficiency of reporting requirements, abortion deaths and complications are often not reported as such. In addition to the industry�s �immunity� from proper reporting, abortion complications are often under-reported because of lack of follow-up care; shame or anxiety on the part of the woman that someone will find out about her abortion. Millions of dollars flow through abortion clinics across this country; yet states are reluctant to regulate clinics because they are uniquely insulated by the abortion industry�s claim to the so-called Constitutional �right to choose.� Yet the Supreme Court has never put abortion clinics or providers outside of the State�s �legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.� [Planned Parenthood v Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 852 (1992) at 846] Another Court opinion, Greenville Women�s Clinic v. Bryant illustrates that the Constitution does permit health and safety regulation of abortion clinics and services. [Greenville Women�s Clinic, 222 F.3d 157 (4th Cir. 08/15/000), cert. den�d Feb 26, 2001] The regulations in question were to promote proper sanitation, housekeeping, maintenance, staff qualifications, emergency equipment and procedures to provide emergency care, medical records and reports, laboratory, procedure and recovery rooms, physical plant, quality assurance, infection control and information on and access to patient follow-up care necessary to keep women safer. To the ordinary person, these requirements seem like a no-brainer in light of the intense scrutiny given veterinarian clinics, beauty parlors, barbers and nail technicians. Most reasonable people see that a medical procedure such as abortion should be regulated and under scrutiny by the state to protect the health and safety of women, rather than trusting the industry to regulate itself. The South Carolina regulations largely codify accepted standards by the medical community. Even physicians challenging this law noted the regulations support appropriate standards of medical care.
As a women�s organization, we ask you to protect those women who choose abortion by requiring that abortion clinics follow safe medical practices; accurate and complete reporting; and proper protocol for ensuring emergency care should a serious complication arise.
Women deserve better than the words of a cleverly devised slogan. Women deserve to be protected.
End of Testimony
The Kansas Legislature is approaching �turn-around� which signals the second half of the Legislative session. So far, the session has been relatively quiet; the halls are less crowded, and the tone has been subdued. One has to wonder if it is the �quiet lull before the storm�, or the �eye of the hurricane�. Time will tell, but word has it there are eight gambling bills waiting in the wings, along with some budget clashes that may give the movie Gladiator a run for its money.
This week CWA brought written testimony to the House Federal and State Affairs Committee on HB 2176, a bill that would impose safety and sanitation regulations on abortion clinics. These regulations would be enforced by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) and would carry a misdemeanor penalty for failure to comply. Rep. Peggy Long (R-Madison) urged the committee to adopt rules that would create a �minimal standard of oversight� for abortion clinics. The bill is similar to legislation enacted in Arizona, Texas and South Carolina. These laws have been upheld in federal courts. (See testimony) Those who testified against the bill claimed the restrictions would drive up the costs of abortions and would limit access to abortions. George Tiller sent written testimony in opposition to the bill. If you think that abortion clinics should be required to be under scrutiny to maintain safe standards, report all abortions and complications, and to provide for emergency care if complications arise, contact your representatives. Members of the Federal and State Affairs Committee: Mason, Chairman, D. Williams, V. Chair: Brunk, Cox, Craft, Dahl, Edmonds, Freeborn, Hutchins, Huy, E. Johnson, Judy Morrison, Novascone, Ostmeyer, Siegfreid / Rehorn, Burroughs, Gilbert, Henderson, Logansbill, Peterson, Ruff, Wilson.
Capitol Switchboard: 785-296-0111
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was narrowly defeated on Thursday. This bill would make it easier for individuals and groups in court when they challenge state or local actions restricting religious freedom. If they conducted a successful challenge, their legal expenses would be covered. This act was patterned after a federal law that was struck down six years ago. The bill failed by a vote of 61-59; a majority in the 125-member chamber would have been 63.
Two bills requiring Internet filtering in public schools and public libraries to protect children from pornography have been introduced in the House. These bills have not yet been heard in committee. CWA supports filtering and is working to educate members on the dangers of pornography to children, not only because it desensitizes them but because pedophiles use it to lure children and desensitize them; it feeds the pedophile�s appetite and causes them to act on their desires and impulses.
The Kansas Sodomy laws are under attack by homosexuals, demonstrated by more than 100 protesters at the State Capitol on Saturday, February 15th. Some protesters held a poster of Matthew Limon, who is serving 17 years and two months for having sex as an 18-year-old with a 14-year-old in February 2000. The fourteen-year-old initially gave consent, and then changed his mind. Under the �Romeo and Juliet� provision of Kansas law which does not include homosexual sex, the penalty would have been one year and three months. This provision allows for �consensual� sex if the initiator is not more than three years older than the partner in the consensual agreement to have sex. Protesters held signs that read, �Proud to be a Sodomite� and �State of Kansas out of our bedrooms,� asking that the Kansas Statutes that ban anal and oral sex between gay persons be repealed. Proponents for eliminating the sodomy law call it �harsh� and unfair to homosexuals. The Kansas sodomy laws are considered constitutional based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick that the Constitution �does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.� The Supreme Court is going to revisit the issue in reviewing the Texas sodomy law soon. Consent of a minor to have sex is the question here; can a minor give informed consent when the consequences of sex place them at so much risk? An age difference of three years is a lot at this stage of maturity; can a fourteen or fifteen-year-old understand the consequences of sex with an older teen . . . or are they able to resist the advances of an older teen at that age?
Talking points on the sodomy issue can be found on CWA's web site.