Kansas abortion bill is cruel and ignorant
Barb ShellyIt’s difficult to gauge whether the anti-abortion bill up before the Kansas House today is more notable for its cruelty or for its ignorance.
House Bill 2253 would continue to prevent almost all abortions after 22 weeks, even if a pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.
In debate on Tuesday, lawmakers glibly surmised that women surely know they are pregnant in the first trimester. But that’s not a given at all. A child or a young teenager who is the victim of rape or incest may not understand, or acknowledge, the physical changes resulting from a pregnancy until that pregnancy is well underway. Someone in that situation should have the option of terminating a late-term pregnancy. This is a case of legislators imposing their will and beliefs on people in the most dire of situations.
House Bill 2253 would require doctors to tell patients that abortion may increase the risk of breast cancer. This is false. An abortion-breast cancer link — basically wishful thinking on the part of anti-abortion crusaders — has been thoroughly debunked by large, reliable studies. Here’s a comprehensive look at the issue by Slate, which notes that “the most recent edition of Principles and Practice of Oncology, the “bible” of cancer medicine, does not list abortion as a risk factor. Still, anti-abortion groups press the association.”
Kansas Rep. Lance Kinzer, an Olathe Republican who is the driver of most of the Legislature’s anti-abortion legislation, actually said on the House floor that the Legislature has the authority to tell doctors what to tell patients, even if the face of doubt or conflicting studies.
What preposterous thinking. What gives Kinzer the idea that politicians have a right to order physicians to perpetuate bad science and a trumped-up scare tactic? And why would a talented young doctor want to practice in a state that requires such a thing? Kansas, lest we forget, has a shortage of physicians.
During the debate Tuesday, Barbara Bollier, a Republican from Mission Hills who is a retired anesthesiologist, proposed an amendment to remove language in the bill about a fetus failing pain at 22 weeks.
“I would like us to consider, reasonably, passing one amendment that supports science in this building,” she said.
Not a chance. Bollier’s amendment was shouted down on a voice vote.
The House approved the 90 to 31 on a preliminary vote, and will almost surely pass it on a second vote today. Prospects of the 70-page bill being stopped in the newly conservative Senate appear dim as well. The best that can be hoped is that Senators will show some compassion for young women facing the anguish of an unwanted, late-term pregnancy, and that they might foresee the negative consequences of requiring doctors to tell patients a falsehood.
(Update: As predicted, the House gave formal approval to the bill on a 92-31 vote late Wednesday morning. The Senate has pledged speedy consideration.)
JR Beillenhouser
2 months agoGosnell
Unfettered abortions result in horror. This is your legacy and your god libs.
Mark Hastert
2 months agoAnother instance of Sharia law imposed by religious zealots.
George Hunsucker
Northland
2 months agoso a woman, per lib medicine, now does not know if she is pregnant after THREE MONTHS….
sounds like another global warming like lib conclusion, but i am not a smart lib……
Kent Mueller
2 months agoInteresting comments…People who know me know that I am a conservative. Here is what I have to say.
Mark, I see you reference Sharia law as if it is a bad thing. Funny, I only see you use that reference when it doesn’t apply to Islam. Go figure.
George, how do you know what a woman may and may not know after three months of pregnancy? What basis do you have to say that every female would know? I have known women who were unaware they were pregnant well past the first trimester. That has nothing to do with what you call lib medicine. It has to do with reality.
It must be getting a little chilly in hell as I am agreeing with Barb.
The government needs to get out of the abortion discussion. However,we do need to work to decrease the need for abortions. The demand for abortions is ridiculously high. But the government needs to get away from being between a woman, her physician and any other counselor of her choosing. If nothing else, it is about personal liberty, which is a conservative ideal.
And when I say the government should not be involved, I also mean it should not be involved with funding abortions.
Mark Hastert
2 months ago“Mark, I see you reference Sharia law as if it is a bad thing. Funny, I only see you use that reference when it doesn’t apply to Islam.”
You’re right Kent, I use it as a device to point out the hypocrisy of those conservatives who’ll rail against imposing Islamic religious law but never acknowledge that many of these anti abortion laws have purely religious foundations and not even universally held by all Christians. It’s a complicated topic and all I ever read on both sides are simple minded solutions. I have strong Libertarian streak when it comes to issues like this and despite being characterized as a “smart lib” I’ve voted Republican many times. Until the last decade though myself to be and independent and I don’t think I’ve changed, conservatives have.
George Hunsucker
Northland
2 months agoKent, I would “assume” that a women who was raped would have a pregnancy test. Do you know of pregnancy tests from the THIRD MONTH that were false? Similarly, there is a memstrual cycle which also gives an indication that something has changed.
To say that a raped women doesn’t know after THREE months is simply not true……
Kent Mueller
2 months agoGeorge, of course a rape victim would have a pregnancy test. But we aren’t just talking about rapes.
As far as the menstrual cycle, not every woman has a period every month. It can be quite erratic for some women.
George Hunsucker
Northland
2 months agoNice try Kent….
ms. shelly said “even if a pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.” which is what I was talking about….
ANY THINIKING woman who has been raped would have a pregnancy test. This can be done within 3 months and she could then make a decision…..
JR Beillenhouser
2 months ago22 weeks is about 5 months.
“If nothing else, it is about personal liberty, which is a conservative ideal.”
But then so is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the child.
The same crowd that wants limits on guns, a right guaranteed by the constitution, wants none for abortion.
Barb - I hope you sons that went to Rockhurst learned more about morality than you possess.
Kent Mueller
2 months agoGeorge, when Barb said “even if a pregnancy..” she obviously meant that to be a small portion of those she was referencing. You only addressed pregnancies that are the result of rape. The majority of pregnancies are not the result of rape. Some of those women, due to irregular menstrual cycles, may not know they are pregnant as soon as other women.
Rather than arguing about the nuances of how a pregnancy occurred and when it was first known, we need to discuss the basics of the abortion debate.
Sadly, the two sides are quite intractable. If someone believes that abortion kills a human being and is therefore murder, then there is no room for any movement away from that position. Likewise, if someone refuses any restrictions on free abortions on demand, then there is no room for any movement there either.
I believe that the sad fact is that there will be a continuing demand for abortions under any circumstances. That demand will result from unhealthy fetuses, rape, incest, and also selfishness and irresponsibility. If we outlaw abortions, they will be performed anyway.
There is no “answer” to the problem. However, we need to stop the intractable arguing and work to reduce the demand for abortions. Even those who want unfettered access to abortion procedures should be agreeable to reducing the need for abortions.
Any resolution will be long, drawn out and filled with problems. I differentiate between the medically and rape driven abortions and those that result from selfishness (This just isn’t a good time for me to have a child) and irresponsibility (I really don’t like using contraceptives.). To reduce the latter will take an across the board improvement in personal responsibility. That also happens to be the root issue of many of our other problems (Literacy, obesity, crime, etc). That is where we need to start.
Matt Henry
2 months ago“Purely religious foundations.”
Oh, the irony.
Anti-abortion advocates can (and do) speak in volumes about genetic uniqueness, fetal viability, heart beats at 4 weeks, spines and brains clearly visible after 3, and on and on and on (you’ve heard the list a million times). Brain development, sleep cycles occurring, coordinated muscle movements, ability to feel and react to pain…
They point to the utter hypocrisy of late-term abortion, where a fully viable fetus that would have all the legal protections of any other citizen in about an hour is not worthy of those protections when everything but the head is out, but then it’s okay to sever the spinal cord with scissors and suck the brain out of the skull….
They point out the ridiculousness of the idea that fetuses that are “wanted” by their mothers and killed in car wrecks can lead to homicide prosecutions, but the same child could have been aborted the same day and in that case it was only a clump of cells with no rights…
And yet the pro-lifers are the ones who are religious fanatics? They are the ones who can’t think logically, can’t look at the facts, are “deniers” of the science, driven only by their ancient bigoted zealotry? Who seems more ideologically driven? Who has the unbreakable dogma? Who has the list of commandments that ye shall not break? Try attending the DNC with a pro-life position. You will get tossed out on your ear. Want the proof?
Pro-abortion folks have no choice but to absolutely either ignore or completely disregard the science of human reproduction while pro-life people point these things out left and right. I don’t agree with Mark, like, ever…but he has never struck me as a fool. But that position is foolish. Outright foolish.
Matt Henry
2 months agoOh, I forgot to mention the geniuses who demand abortion rights at all points in pregnancy but pitch a fit when I try to eat a chicken sandwich for lunch. What a bunch of scientifically driven, intellectual titans they are. No religious fundamentalism there, right?
JR Beillenhouser
2 months agoGood points Matt.
And Kent and a larger extent Barb. Shouldn’t there be some end date as to when an abortion should be at least heavily restricted. It can’t be a free for all until birth. As Matt note, there is no logic in this at all.
Look up Gosnell.
Hey Barb, how about an article about Gosnell. Take what ever position you want on it, but at least talk about it. Please prove me wrong, but I think you are too partisan, too close minded, to even discuss it. You’d rather it just go away. It’s funny how the media refuses to talk about things that go against their positions. When did they become such propagandists.
Barb, prove me wrong.
Mark Robertson
2 months agoActually Barb, there are numerous studies showing the abortion breast cancer link. The lead researcher on the 2003 study by the National Cancer Institute showing no link between between abortion and cancer has now changed her position and says that there is a link. Dr. Louise Brinton also led the effort to get the study funded as well. She and others have published a study showing the link.(Risk Factors for Triple Negative Breast Cancer in Women under the age of 45, by Dr. Louise Brinton and others, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 2009, 18(40): 1157-1166) Dr. Brinton pointed out that the risk of getting breast cancer increases by 40 percent for women who have had an abortion. When the 2003 study was conducted, 29 of 38 studies done worldwide over 40 years showed a link between abortion and breast cancer. Also, Dr. Joel Brind, President of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute was not allowed to be a part of the 2003 study team because of his support for the abortion breast cancer link. He has much info available on the subject. There is overwhelming evidence of the link between abortion and breast cancer. Thank you. Mark Robertson Independence
Kent Mueller
2 months agoJR….as for any restrictions late in the gestation period? Sure, I think there should be.
JR Beillenhouser
2 months agoThanks for proving my point Barb.