
FROM THE GALLERY State Legislation
After a short respite, the Kansas Legislature is back at work
with the legislative calendar quite busy for next week.
Legislators are working hard to hold hearings on bills that have
been passed on by the other house so the hearing schedule for
the next two weeks is quite full.
Alexa’s Law: There is supposed to be a hearing on
Alexa’s Law the week of March 12 in the Senate Judiciary
Committee. This only means that proponents and opponents
will have one more chance to submit testimony. It does not
mean that the senators will actually “work” the bill; that is, bring
it to a vote in committee. Often scheduling a hearing is merely
a side-show; the chair may already know that he/she is not
going to work the bill.
Action:
It is imperative that people continue to keep up the pressure to
give this bill a hearing and voting it out of committee for
debate by the whole Senate. If you have not done so already,
go the Alexa's Law Web
site to familiarize yourself with Alexa’s story and to sign the
petition.
There will be a press conference in Overland Park on Friday,
March 9, at 3:00 p.m. at the Overland Park Convention Center.
Alexa’s grandmother (Chelsea Brooks’ mother) will be
participating in the press conference.
Contact the Senate Judiciary Committee members by phone
(Capitol switchboard: 785-296-0111) or to e-mail, click on the
Senator's name.
John Vratil, Chairman
Terry Bruce, Vice-Chair
Barbara Allen
Leslie Donovan
Phillip Journey
Julia Lynn
Derek Schmidt
Dwayne Umbarger
Greta Goodwin
Donald Betts
David Haley
The opposition:
Those who oppose this bill argue that penalties are already
increased for pregnant women who suffer a violent attack.
However, if a woman is violently assaulted and loses her baby
and lives, there is no penalty for the loss of that child she has
chosen to bring into the world. In spite of the fact that
opponents say the bill is about abortion the bill specifically
excludes abortion. It also excludes medications and
therapies undertaken while a woman is pregnant.
HB 2200: This bill passed out of committee with only
one dissenting vote . . . Ann Mah (D-Topeka.) However, a
poison amendment was waiting for it on the House floor. An
amendment to add colleges and universities (excluded
community colleges and technical schools) successfully scuttled
the bill by a voice vote, sending it to the House Education
Committee for further consideration. The bill provided that
K-12 teachers would no longer have affirmative defense
(exemption) from presenting obscene materials to
schoolchildren. The bill would have allowed local prosecutors
to seek criminal charges against teachers who knowingly use
material that “appeals to the prurient interest.” The exemption
the state obscenity law provides teachers now gives them
discretion in selecting and using texts for classroom
exercises.
The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Lance Kinzer, (R-Olathe),
maintained in his testimony that this bill would hold teachers to
the same standards as everyone else in society with respect to
the crime of prompting criminal obscenity. He states, “It is
particularly frustrating because the bill received a full hearing
in the House Federal & State Affairs Committee and committee
members voted 22-1 to recommend passage of the bill.
There have been many misstatements made about this
bill. This bill would not have prohibited materials with serious
educational value from being shown to a K-12 class. Such
materials are by definition not obscene and fall outside the
scope of the criminal obscenity statute in Kansas.”
[Emphasis Added] Kinzer further states, “What this bill did
was clearly provide that if materials shown to a K-12 class did
in fact meet the criminal definition of obscenity, then the mere
fact the material was used in an approved course of curriculum
at the school would not be a defense in a prosecution for
promoting obscenity.”
Talking Points:
- HB 2200 merely holds educators to the same
standard as everyone else in society with respect to the crime of
prompting criminal obscenity.
- It is inconsistent to provide a special defense to K-12
teachers for promoting criminal obscenity when one of the
primary purposes justifying the prohibition against promoting
obscenity in the first place is the protection of children.
- In thinking about this issue it is important to keep in mind
that obscene material is not protected by the First
Amendment. The Supreme Court in Roth v. United
States, 354 U.S. 476 the Court held that a work or product
may be subject to state regulation using the three-step test:
- Whether the average person, using contemporary
community standards would find that the work, taken as a
whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
- Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the
applicable state law;
- Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value (Miller v. California,
413 U.S, 15). Kansas statutes generally follow the “Miller
test.”
- This bill does not delete the educational prong from the
definition of obscenity in Kansas.
- Local school boards should have flexibility when it comes
to matters of curriculum. There is no reason, however, that the
state should not establish outer boundaries on that
flexibility.
- This bill is not about lack of respect for teachers and the
wonderful job they do in educating our children; it just holds
that their conduct should be held to the same criminal statutes
as anyone else in the community.
The questions to ask ourselves: Do we really mean it when we
say we want to protect the children? Is it wise to give teachers
and educators limitless boundaries on materials they provide to
our children’s young minds?
Action:
Contact members of the House Education Committee,
especially Chairman Clay Aurand about your thoughts on this
issue.
Clay Aurand, Chairman
Deena Horst, Vice-Chairperson
Pat Colloton
Barbara Craft
Owen Donohoe
John Faber
Don Hill
Benjamin Hodge
Steve Huebert
Bill Otto
Ted Powers
Marc Rhoades
Sheryl Spalding
Bill Wolf
Sue Storm
Marti Crow
Geraldine Flaharty
Judith Loganbill
Ann Mah
Shirley Palmer
Eber Phelps
Ed Trimmer
Valdenia Winn
HB 2299 (Domestic Partnership): This bill will be
worked in committee this week in the House Federal & State
Affairs Committee. The bill prohibits cities and municipalities
from establishing domestic partnership registries, leaving the
oversight of these issues to the state government. In other
words, the people of the state have spoken out on marriage
when they approved the marriage amendment to the Kansas
Constitution by an over seventy percent margin; municipalities
and cities should not usurp the people’s clear statement by
enacting a hodge podge of ordinances.
Action: Contact members of the House Federal and
State Affairs Committee.
Arlen Siegfreid, Chairman
Steve Huebert, Vice-Chairman
Elaine Bowers
Anthony Brown
Steven Brunk
Richard Carlson
Owen Donohoe
Benjamin Hodge
Lance Kinzer
Forrest Knox
Judy Morrison
Rob Olson
Ted Powers
Dale Swenson
Michael Peterson
Nile Dillmore
Oletha Faust-Goudeau
Tom Hawk
Broderick Henderson
Judith Loganbill
Ann Mah
Melody McCray-Miller
Louis Ruiz
HB 2292 (Teen Protection Act): This bill relates to
performance of abortions on minors requiring the person who
accompanies a minor for an abortion present a valid form of
identification and declare their relationship to the child and to
the known or probable father of the unborn fetus. The minor
must also present a valid form of identification and verification
of the minor’s state of residence. This bill will have a hearing
in the House Health and Human Services Committee on
Tuesday, March 6, at 1:30 in Room 526-S. The bill will protect
teens from being taken for abortions by an adult who might not
have their best interests at heart. The bill also requires the
judge who is determining a judicial by-pass to report suspected
abuse.
Action: Contact members of this committee to support
this bill.
Brenda Landwehr, Chairperson
Peggy Mast, Vice-Chairperson
Jeff Colyer
David Crum
Don Hill
Mike Kiegerl
Ronnie Metsker
Jim Morrison
Bill Otto
Joe Patton
Marc Rhoades
Don Schroeder
Clark Shultz
Geraldine Flaharty
Delia Garcia
Tom Holland
Cindy Neighbor
Sue Storm
Annie Tietze
Ed Trimmer
Jim Ward
HB 2098 defines the terms of human cloning as
prescribed by the President’s Council on Bioethics, a non-
partisan, diverse group of scientists, ethicists, educators and
doctors. The terminology was derived from terms used by the
National Institutes of Health and the National Academy of
Science. The bill is neither for or against cloning; it is merely
defining the terms so that discussion will be on a level playing
field. Legislators opposed to this bill base their objections on
spurious notions that enacting the bills that place ethical
boundaries around science will somehow cripple Kansas’
attempts to attract the Federal Bio and Agro-terrorism Facility
from locating here. One legislator states in her newsletter to
her constituents that the President’s Council on Bioethics used
different definitions than the National Institutes of Health and
the National Academy of Science. She implies that the
definitions are not “credible.” For a comparison of crucial
definitions and a link to the resumes of the members of the
council see our Family Concerns on Cloning Definitions.
Action: Contact your Representative to express your
support for this bill.
HB 2255 is a bill that would prohibit the state from
supporting human cloning. To date no stem cells have been
derived from a human clone; only one documented incident is
recorded of a human being successfully cloned in England ...
the cloned embryo only lived for a few days. Human cloning,
whether for reproduction or to produce stem cells for harvesting
is unethical science. It is also very risky. The state should not
be spending taxpayer dollars on a risky and unethical
venture.
Action: Contact your Representative and express your
views.
HB 2266 (Umbilical Cord Donation Information Act)
also has a hearing this Thursday in the House Health and
Human Services Committee. This bill provides information
concerning umbilical cord collection to pregnant women. It
provides that health care providers providing health care
services to a pregnant woman during the last trimester of their
pregnancy advise that woman of her option to donate her
child’s umbilical cord following the deliver of her child.
Umbilical cords are rich sources of adult stem cells. Adult stem
cells to date have provided over 70 treatments, therapies and
cures of various diseases.
Update on mandating the HPV vaccine: Even though
the bill died a natural death in committee the backers of
mandated HPV vaccine persist in lobbying for this mandate in
spite of opposition to the mandate.
The CDC opposes mandating the vaccine, according a
Washington Times article dated February 27, 2007. Dr.
Jon Abramson, chairman of the CDC's advisory committee on
immunization practices said he and panel members told Merck
& Co. the maker of Gardasil that they should not lobby state
lawmakers to mandate the vaccine. He also stated,that HPV, a
sexually-transmitted disease is not a communicable disease
like measles. He states " The vaccines out there now are for
very communicable diseases. A child in school is not at an
increased risk for HPV like he is for measles." Merck, who has
been lobbying heavily for mandating the vaccine, dropped its
lobbying efforts recently because of pressure from parents who
were upset that their control over their own children's medical
decisions would be usurped.
A recent article from Reuters (February 27, 2007) states that
although one in four of American women have been infected
with HPV only 3.4% are affected by the two strains of HPV that
Gardasil covers. Admittedly the two strains are responsible for
70% of the cervical cancers reported, but this is a much smaller
number of affected women than most have been led to
believe. Gardasil DOES NOT protect against the strains that
cause the remaining 30% of the cancers. Gardasil is a very
expensive vaccine, requiring three shots at a minimum of $360
plus office calls.
Please contact your legislators and encourage them NOT to
mandate HPV vaccinations for sixth-grade girls. Mandating a
vaccine that has not had longitudinal studies for efficacy and
safety is not good government policy.
Keep in mind that this is not a "religious" issue as much as it is
a medical decision; you have the right to decide what is best
for your child.
--------------------
We know that there is a lot to think about in this update.
Please pray and ask God to give you wisdom and direction as
you consider these issues. Please follow through if He directs
you to contact your legislator or testify on a particular bill.
Those in the legislature that carry the bills we care about need
your support . . . they cannot do it alone. Keep that in mind as
you ask for His direction.
Concerned Women for America of Kansas P. O. Box 11233 Shawnee Mission, KS 66207 Phone/Fax: 913-491-1380 Email: director@kansas.cwfa.org Web site: kansas.cwfa.org
|