From the Gallery
State Legislation
Budget
The budget woes continue to deflate the Kansas Legislature. The Legislature is trying to deal with a huge shortfall; much has been cut in the past two years ... $6.1 billion to $5.4 billion. $4.6 billion of the budget goes to K-12-higher education and required social services. Everything else comes out of what is left. One of the ways to generate revenue is to tax sugar drinks such as soda and fruit or vegetable drinks containing less than 10 percent natural fruit or sugar. The tax would be equal to one cent per teaspoon of sugar and 10 cents on a 12 ounce can or bottle of soda. The tax would be placed at the distributer end of the distribution process, before it reaches the retailer. Of course the tax will be passed on to the consumer in the end. It is projected to raise approximately $90 million a year. The bottom line: If revenues do not increase significantly very tough decisions will have to be made by the Legislature and the agencies dependent upon tax dollars. Please continue to pray that the legislators will deal with this problem equitably and with good fiscal responsibility.
State Sovereignty
SCR 1615 passed the House and awaits final action. This resolution is a non-binding "sense of the Kansas Legislature" regarding state sovereignty. This bill was tabled last week, reinstated and passed the first hurdle.
A hearing was held last week on SCR 1626 (Health Care Freedom Amendment). This bill would, if ratifies by the people, amend the Kansas Constitution to provide the state with adequate protection from being forced to comply with health care mandates that the federal government might pass. If passed, it would help ensure that Kansans could choose the type of health care that works best for them; they would not be forced to participate in any health care system. They could still have the ability to participate in a federal program if they chose to do so. Several proponents spoke at the hearing including Kris Kobach, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. He testified that if such an amendment were put into place it could be "an important safeguard for Kansas residents." If the federal government did pass legislation that required all residents to purchase health insurance, he stated, "It (the amendment) does change the posture in a way that could be a significant advantage." He went on to state that if the federal government required all citizens to purchase health insurance, it would surely precipitate constitutionality questions. He stated, "Never before has Congress ever forced Americans to purchase anything. It is completely unprecedented." On the other hand, another conferee, Stephen McAllister, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Kansas stated that he was doubtful that the amendment would be anything more than a symbolic gesture. Another conferee, David Roland, public policy analyst for the Show-Me Institute stated, "It is my opinion that the Supreme Court is likely to find that an individual health insurance mandate violates the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The adoption of this amendment - and others like it in our sister states - would at a minimum offer the potential for a case that would test the boundaries of state sovereignty under our current constitutional system." ["Debate - Who decides supremacy of Health Care Freedom Amendment" Holly Smith, March 11, 2010 Kansas Liberty]
IVF (Women's Health and Embryo Monitoring Act)
This week SB 509 was heard in the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee. Several proponents and opponents testified in the hearing that dealt with practices in in vitro fertilization, including how these organizations purchase, sell or donate eggs. The bill requests what boundaries and guidelines have been established by the industry. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) would oversee and implement the bill's provisions. Fertility clinics within the state would be required to report the information that would be stored within the Women's Health and Embryo Monitoring Program.
One conferee, Alexandra Fraser, PhD, testified that while a student finishing her doctorate at Kansas University she sold her eggs to help fund her graduate studies. After going through the process which involved multi-stage screening focusing on her genetic fitness, sports and academic background and mental health, she was selected to be a donor for two recipient couples who would share the 28 eggs harvested from her ovaries. She received a stipend of $2750 for her time rather than for payment for the eggs. She underwent hyper-stimulation of her ovaries which would result in causing many ovarian follicles to mature. Over a period of several weeks she took drugs; this involved injecting herself. Prior to retrieval of the eggs, she began to experience swelling which she was told was normal. A week after the retrieval, she began to feel searing pain in her abdomen and was driven to the clinic and released with the advice from a nurse practitioner that it would go away and that it was a part of the process. After three more days, she was still very sick. When she finally saw the clinic doctor, he realized she was very sick, operated immediately, and removed her right ovary. She was admitted to the hospital and was hospitalized for over two weeks because of obstruction of her bowels.
After a while she did get better, got married and forgot the ordeal until five years later when she was diagnosed with breast cancer and had to undergo a double mastectomy at age 34. She states she cannot "prove" that the drugs used to stimulate her ovaries caused the cancer, but she states that she had always been healthy; there was no history of breast cancer in her family; most breast cancers are stimulated by hormones (the drugs used to stimulate the ovaries in egg donation); two doctors have told her anecdotally that they see more breast cancer in women who have undergone IVF or egg donation, and she did not have a subsequent pregnancy that would have produced hormones that often off-set the risks elevated by fertility drugs. She feels she is lucky to be alive, but worries about her own future children and whether she will have them ... all because she donated her eggs. She believes that payment of any kind for egg donation is risky, because women will take risks if there is money involved. She also feels that long-term tracking of egg donors and possible unintended consequences would give future donors more information in order to give "informed consent."
Others testified that this is an unregulated "industry" and there should be monitoring taking place so that women would be able to give full "informed consent" about the egg donor procedure. Opponents to the bill worried about patient privacy and fiscal considerations.
CWA of Kansas is monitoring this bill.
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
|