ProKanDo

A New Day for Women

2008-11-10T09:26:00.000-08:00

The election is over, Barack Hussein Obama will be our president, and already the silliness is running rampant. One first-grader came home from school to tell her mother that the new president will kill babies. Gun enthusiasts are lining up to stock their armories. “Values” voters are bemoaning the election of such an immoral person to the highest office in the land. Racists are…well, being racists.

It is heartening for those whose values include issues besides making abortion illegal and attacking gay rights to know that around the country people gathered in groups and burst spontaneously into the “Star Spangled Banner,” performances that are immortalized on YouTube. People around the world cheered and waved American flags, scenes reminiscent of the post-9-11 reaction, only this time joyous rather than elegiac.

Most importantly for women, women’s rights will once again be a priority. Vice-president Elect Joe Biden has been a co-sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act and will now be in a good position to push this bill through a Democratically-controlled Congress. Pay equity for women will have a chance with this Congress. And given that a President Obama will be able to appoint Supreme Court justices during his term, Roe v. Wade will likely be safe for years to come.

Those who bemoan this fact should give a thought to the fate of abortion rights during the long eight years of the Bush administration. Despite some setbacks to abortion rights around the world and in the United States, abortion is still legal, and therefore safe, in this country. One has to ask why the Republicans and Bush didn’t do more to make abortion illegal when they had the chance. It seems that without the issues of abortion and gay rights, right-wingers would lose their two biggest money-maker issues. It’s certainly the case that leaders of groups such as Operation Rescue and Focus on the Family make a bundle off their fundraising efforts aimed toward shutting down abortion clinics and denying equal rights to gays and lesbians.

Of course, these groups will now be able to rake in more dough than ever as they fight the "evil" Obama empire. Thankfully, though, women, even the religious, anti-choice women who make up a good percentage of those having abortions, will be able to look forward to an administration that trusts them to make choices. Those who have children may look forward to an administration that pays attention to their needs. Those who are in a situation in which they need to have an abortion may be confident that the procedure will continue to be legal and therefore safe.

It’s a new day and good day in America and around the world for women, a day that is long overdue.

The Disastrous Bush Family (Non)-Planning Policies

2008-10-09T13:03:00.000-07:00

Blog 10-09-08

Reading Nicolas Kristoff’s column in this morning’s New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/opinion/09kristof.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin, took me back to the 2004 March for Women’s Lives on the Washington Mall. I went to Washington as a volunteer to sign people up to go back to their hometowns to register people to vote. At one point, I ran out of steam, overwhelmed by the size of the task and by the size of the crowd, so I sat on a park bench to take a break.

A young Black woman was also sitting on the bench and we starting talking. She spoke with an accent, so I asked her where she was from. She said she was from Eritrea and was visiting relatives in the D.C. area. She came to the March, she said, because she said she was so angry at George Bush, her anger growing from the Bush administration policy of cutting off funding for any group giving birth control information that also mentioned abortion as an option. She related in graphic detail the story of one of her relatives who was severely maimed as the result of an illegal abortion. This illegal abortion was the direct result of the Bush administration family planning funding cuts.

As Kristoff points out in his OpEd column, denying funding to family groups only increases the danger for women who are trying to space their childbearing so that they will be able to provide good care to their children.

There’s something sick and evil in a mentality that dictates that women are good for only one thing, childbearing, and it’s even worse when these anti-choice types, mostly men, claim that women don’t want to have control over their childbearing.

Women around the world want control over the number and the timing of children that they give birth to. This is especially crucial in developing countries where women are often raped by their partners and are often the sole support of their families. When they are cut off from access to contraception and family planning information and from legal abortions, they and their families suffer the consequences. Voters should take this information to the polls when they cast their votes this November. We cannot afford the Religious Right agenda fueled by the zealots to continue. We must elect a president and other office holders who believe that women have the ability to figure out for themselves what to do about having and raising children. We need people in office who believe that government has business making these decisions for individuals.

Women Against Sarah Palin

2008-09-17T09:47:00.000-07:00

Recently several friends sent me the following URL for a web site titled “Women Against Sarah Palin.” http://www.womenagainstsarahpalin.blogspot.com/.
One friend expressed hesitation about going after Palin in such a way, saying that we should not stoop to the level of our opponents in this election. Another friend fears that the attacks on Palin will deter other women from running for high office. I, however, felt a sense of relief that at last I had found a place to express my dismay at this woman’s nomination for an office that puts her a heartbeat away from the most powerful position in the world. I oppose her not because she’s the mother of small children, but because of her anti-woman stands on issues. This woman, while posing as a feminist, has made statements espousing the most anti-feminist ideas possible. Being female does not confer the mantle of feminism on a person. What then does make a feminist?

According to The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “feminism” means, “The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes,” as well as “organized activities on behalf of women’s rights and activities.”

What this means in real life is that people, both women and men, are committed to full participation and equality for women. It means women take charge of their lives and decide their fates on a level playing field. This means, among other things, that women have the right to control their own reproduction, to decide if they want to be mothers, if they want to stay at home with their children, or if they want to enter the work force.

Both John McCain and Sarah Palin say they are opposed to Roe v. Wade as unconstitutional. Sen. McCain has voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and opposed renewal of The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Palin made Alaskan rape victims pay for their rape kites and wouldn’t allow abortion even for rape or incest. She also cut funding for teen mothers.

It is difficult to know in what way either of these candidates supports the feminist agenda. By contrast, the VAWA was drafted by aides in Sen. Joe Biden’s office and Barack Obama has made it clear that he trusts women to make their own reproductive decisions.

Of course, Gov. Palin is not the presidential candidate, but that fact has been obscured by the near-celebrity status accorded her by a cadre of adoring mainstream media figures. In fact, one has to marvel at McCain’s ability to take the attention off his weak candidacy by choosing Palin as his running mate.

Also obscured in the rush by some women to support Palin because she is a woman “just like them” is the fact that the McCain/Palin ticket would be the worst thing for women since George Bush—oh, wait. Even George Bush supported VAWA.

Gov. Palin, like many women of her generation, balances the demands of motherhood with the demands of her career. Does this balancing act automatically make a person a feminist? No. Palin’s opportunities as a woman make her the recipient, not the proponent of the benefits of the feminist movement, benefits she and McCain would likely undo if they were elected into office. That is the reason I added a comment to the Women Against Sarah Palin web site. Too many women and men have fought for too long to gain equal rights for women to have those gains undone by an administration avowedly against those rights.

If Issues Were Names....

2008-03-25T07:28:00.000-07:00

It’s an election year, which means the crazies are bound to come out of the woodwork. It seems like everyone and their dog thinks that if they could just get on the ballot, surely they’d win and do a better job than the yahoos in DC. Too bad a fair portion of those trying to get on the ballot are yahoos themselves. Take for example Marvin Richardson of Letha, Idaho. Marvin’s an organic strawberry farmer and active political junkie. Marvin’s also a stark raving lunatic. Not too long ago, he got the bright idea to change his middle name to “Pro-Life.” He wanted to make sure when he put his name on the ballot for governor of Idaho in 2006, everyone knew he was certifiable. But, Idaho state law barred ole Marvin from using his full name because it was also a slogan. Marvin wised up this year though, now his name is just “Pro-Life,” like Cher, or Bono, or the Unabomber. Can’t you hear the crazy cackling coming from a distant strawberry field right now?

Since Pro-Life is his full and only name, Idaho state officials have no choice but to allow just that to be printed on the ballot. Pro-Life has vowed to run for the highest office in the state every 2 years for the rest of his life while advocating murder charges for doctors who perform abortions and women who obtain them. Charming. This year, he’s going for Senator Larry Craig’s seat, another charming fellow, who if he ran again, could use the name Larry “Not Gay” Craig. Catchy, huh? Of course, that name probably would have been more useful before he stepped into that airport bathroom.

Crazy as Pro-Life is, the concept of a candidate changing his or her name to reflect their views may not be such a crazy idea. The whole process would probably be a lot easier if you had to choose between Tree-Hugger and War-Monger. Here’s to an entertaining election!

Brownback's Backdoor Anti-Abortion Bill?

2008-03-11T09:33:00.000-07:00

Senator Sam Brownback is not well-known outside the state of Kansas. You're likely scratching your head trying to figure out why you recognize his name. Think back to very early in the Republican race, when the debates were populated by 11 different candidates. The guy on the outer wings, the one who said that he didn't believe in evolution and that he'd like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, the one with the curly hair and the Kansas drawl, that's him.

Sen. Brownback is known for his extreme conservatism. It's not just fiscal restraint and state's rights with this guy. He has members of the far-right saying, "Wow, this guy is hard-core." Not surprisingly, Sen. Brownback is thoroughly anti-choice. He does not believe that there are any circumstances under which a termination of pregnancy is acceptable, not even in cases of rape or incest. So it's not a shock that he's introduced another bill regarding abortion. The knee-jerk reaction is to assume that any bill coming from Sen. Brownback regarding this issue is inherently flawed and a thinly veiled effort to undermine women's rights, which is why everyone who has read the bill or anything about it is finding themselves a little confused, because that's not what this bill is.

Here's what the bill does:

For women and families whose prenatal testing has indicated that the fetus has a genetic disorder, physicians will be required to provide "access to timely, scientific, and nondirective counseling about conditions being tested for and accuracy of such tests." Additionally, the bill would create a nation-wide list of families who are willing to adopt children with special needs and referral to support services, including a national clearinghouse of coping resources.

While he may be getting cheers from some, Sen. Brownback's efforts smack of an inability to grasp the difficulty of the heartbreaking choices some families must make. A diagnoses of Down Syndrome does not always mean that a family will give birth to a living child with Down's. What it can mean is that the disorder is such that their baby will die from Down's. The same is true for many genetic and chromosomal disorders. There are degrees of severity and some of them simply are not compatible with life.

The spirit of this bill is laudable; anything that allows women and families to make the decision that is best for them is a step in the right direction. But one step doesn't get you to a destination. If Sen. Brownback is serious about reducing abortion, then it's time to focus on the causes and impact of unplanned pregnancy. In fact, knowing Brownback's typical M.O., one has to wonder if this is an attempt to lull everyone into a false sense of security before tacking on a bunch of amendments that undermine a woman's right to choose.

Sen. Brownback says that this bill is an effort to promote the "culture of life." But the so-called "culture of life" has to be about more than preventing abortions, it must be about making it easier to access information, birth control and the resources parents need to raise children in today's world.

The fact is that the "culture of life" is not being promoted in this country, period. Families are not guaranteed paid medical leave, not all women can access the preventative health care necessary to decrease and detect birth defects, students are not given honest and thorough sex education, and when given the chance to cover low-income children for healthcare, the Congress (Sen. Brownback included) said "no."

What are we to make of a culture that focuses more on the pre-born than they do the pre-schooler? There must be a broad and sweeping overhaul in how this country deals with issues like poverty, health care and education before anything can be done to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions.

Julie Burkhart

Kansas Legislators Choose Their Own Morality Over Liberty

2008-03-11T09:30:00.000-07:00

Every legislative season the people of Kansas are forced to endure the same outrage: righteous legislators wasting the taxpayer’s time and money intruding upon women’s reproductive decisions.

The bills are endless: more reporting, more regulations, more rights for the fetus at the expense of the woman, more legislation targeting Dr. Tiller and just more burdens for women to bare in order to exercise their legal rights.

Brazen legislators are using their own families as examples of why their own private reproductive decisions must be the same choice required of everyone else. (This, from the men and women who talk about keeping the government out of our lives).

During recent testimony, several state legislators grilled a man for having the nerve to support his wife’s decision to come to Kansas for an abortion due to the terrible abnormalities of their unborn child. The man appeared stunned. To defend what should have been their own private decision and have it openly disputed in a legislative body as if they were monsters is just the worst example of government abusing citizens.

Legislators in turn gave their own pompous and cruel statements to the press about how they too had children with severe abnormalities and had rightly made a different decision.

Last year a female legislator divulged she had an abortion but later regretted her decision Thus, it was only reasonable to argue that her change of mind was some sort of rationale as to why no other woman should be able to make her own decision. This is the level of discourse and deep thinking by our legislative body. In a word: stupid.

The hypocrisy is enormous and self-evident but no one in Kansas should ever believe for a minute that this legislature holds an august body of stellar individuals working for the good of the state. Too many work for the good of their own morality and act prouder than a peacock when they pass a lame bill on license plates or work to deny women the dignity to make their own health care decisions.

In Plato’s Republic, one philosopher argues that “justice” is the “advantage of the stronger”. Clearly, in Kansas what is right is based on who has the power to abuse others, and if might continues to make right, there is little hope for women in their most vulnerable hour unless the public demands real justice to prevail. In Kansas, that could continue to take a long time when morality trumps liberty again and again.

Vickie Sandall Stangl

All Hail the Prince

2008-03-07T11:49:00.000-08:00

If you live in Kansas, even better, if you’ve ever sought reproductive health care services in Kansas, your medical records are likely the most talked about thing in the state Legislature. They just can’t get enough.

This tale of privacy violation goes back a few years, clear back to the election of Attorney General Phill Kline in 2002. It was clear from the beginning that Kline had a gift for sniffing out imaginary crime. He was convinced that if he could just rifle through the medical records of women who’d had abortions, surely he’d find some malfeasance to unearth: statutory rape, coercion, illegal late-term abortions. And thus began Kline’s crusade. The subpoenas went out, the records were confiscated and Kline, in all his noise and fury, never suspected that people may not agree with what he was doing. It never occurred to him that regardless of the personal views people had about abortion, hardly anyone thought he was justified in prying into private medical records. He was summoned a fairly loud and abrupt wake up call on Election Day 2006 when he was booted out office in what can only be called a mandate.

Kansans breathed a sigh of relief as we watched Phill and his clinic x-ray specs head out the door (only to have him set up shop as the Johnson County DA, but that’s another blog for another day.) Anyway, little did we know what was brewing in the Kansas state Legislature. The Legislature is full of busy bodies; legislators who can’t stop thinking, talking or writing bills about abortion or really anything that has anything to do with any action occurring below the belt. But the busy-bodies cannot function as an indefinable mass, they need a leader. Unfortunately for anyone who values privacy, they’ve crowned the new heir since Phill Kline’s departure. We have known thee Prince Panty-Sniffer, and thy name is Rep. Lance Kinzer!

Kinzer has quickly emerged as the new anti-choice pied piper. This year, the prince squatted down and dropped what we like to call the “Trail-Mix” abortion bill. There’s a little something for everyone in this 18-page whopper. One needs a fork lift to haul it around and the stamina of a marathoner to read the whole thing in a single sitting. The provisions in this bill make it sound as if Kinzer would only be mollified if he were allowed to personally supervise every abortion in the state of Kansas. Here are just a few choice nuggets from the 17 provisions:

If your second cousin twice removed feels that you were coerced into an abortion, she can take it upon herself to sue the doctor who performed the procedure on your behalf, sweet of her, isn’t it?

It gets better, if a local DA (say a de-throned AG withering away in Johnson County) wants access to a local clinic’s records, well heck, all he has to do is ask. For that matter if a group of 10 or more interested parties feel that they just aren’t getting enough data from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, they can compel the agency to hand over more information. Hm, I wonder who that one is for? Looks like Troy Newman at Operation Rescue and his goonies could get some serious jollies off with that particular provision.

But wait, there’s still more! Because women are too mentally feeble to know what they’re doing, great big signs need to be posted in every reproductive health care facility alerting them to the fact that they should feel free to leave the building that they’ve already entered of their own volition and free will. Obviously they’re not smart enough to act on changing their minds without a reminder from our friendly legislature. Following that logic, someone should post similar signs at JC Penny whenever they have a door buster sale for those who feel that they can’t leave the store until they’ve purchased a couple armfuls of merchandise at 40% off. “You don’t have to buy the pencil skirt! You can walk away!” Think of how many cases of buyer’s remorse could be prevented!

The thing goes on and on and on this way. If we gave you a snarky bit about every provision, this blog would end up roughly the same length as Dostoevsky’s “The Idiot” and just as appropriately named.

Will the bill go anywhere? That remains to be seen. The legislature is still in session and really, if Dorothy can click her heels to come home, then just about anything is possible in Kansas.

Abortion Issue more than just numbers

2008-02-07T09:22:00.000-08:00

In light of many studies and a recent AP article, if people were truly interested in significantly reducing the number of abortions being performed, they would first look at the demographics of those receiving abortion services and specifically, the conditions in which unintended pregnancies and resulting abortions are more likely to occur.

A common misconception is that most abortions are had by unwed teens or ‘loose’ women, and it’s usually due to the ‘immorality’ of these women. Mass media plays a major role in forming this image, with stories and movies that portray unintended, teen pregnancy in such light terms.

However, the facts show this just isn’t true. Of women who terminate their pregnancies, only about 17% are teens, half are 25 or older with even more than that having already had at least one child. In spite of these readily available statistics, much legislative energy is still being spent trying to enact parental notification laws across the United States. New Hampshire is an example of a state, looking to pass bills related to these laws.

An unintended pregnancy can create quite an economic strain, and all too often, women who are getting abortions are acting in the interests of the children they already have. Looking around, we can see that ignorance and misperceptions are all too common regarding who has abortions and why.

Of course, most people don’t trouble themselves with the use of demographic analyses of various social phenomena, especially abortions. Most see or imagine one specific situation, and can’t seem to imagine the many other factors that may affect a woman’s situation. While this doesn’t preclude opinions on the subject, it definitely reduces the number of those that can be considered valid. Like many other social issues, abortion has many factors, many elements that rule out any single ‘solution’, for it has too many complexities to be pushed into the realm of either/or, or all right or all wrong.

Julie Burkhart
CEO, ProKanDo

New Requirements for Businesses Against Abortions

2008-01-28T08:25:00.000-08:00

It was an odd encounter but in Wichita these odd moments are not that unusual. Wichita is a place where people are so adamant that women have babies against their will that conducting business becomes impossible without someone forcing their anti-choice point of view into a transaction. Man, it’s a real turnoff and accomplishes N O T H I N G.

When I am trying to purchase something in a store or do business with a company, I do not expect employees or even the owner to start lecturing me about the evils of abortion. I just want to buy the product or look at the merchandise and leave. I’m not there to hold a debate or even presume to first ask them if they harass Dr. Tiller and the women who seek his medical help.

It’s clear to me that I have incorrectly assumed that decent people will act responsibly in public especially in a work environment, but this is not the case in Wichita. Frankly, I’m tired of being sideswiped by righteous individuals whose views I don’t share in the least.

Don’t get me wrong. I wouldn’t mind doing business with people who disagree with me if we stick to business and the product I want is something they can offer. However, I certainly want to avoid places that turn their public place into a private zone of moralizing to me. Most of us would never ever force our private views on others in a public place but again, let’s be clear; in Wichita, don’t count on any bubble zone of decency to protect you from these fanatical views. The “Visioneering Committee” might want to think about what a turnoff this is to new citizens of Wichita as well as the natives.

Therefore, it might make sense to propose that the Wichita City Council pass legislation requiring businesses who can’t control their workers or owners from statements that make it clear they are against a woman having the fundamental right to make her own choices about reproduction, to place signs up announcing their opposition. The sign could state: “Pregnant women are required by the Christian Fundamentalists of Wichita and their god to give birth regardless of whether the woman agrees or follows our beliefs. Have a nice day.”

And while the City Council is at, by all means, allow these businesses to put up their crosses, the Ten Commandments, opposition to same sex couples, and pictures of aborted fetuses so that it should be very, very clear we are dealing with people who live in a world that rejects an individual’s personal liberties and would transform our republic into a theocracy in a minute if they could.

A “buyer beware” warning sign should be visible to the consumer since we enter these businesses for no other reason than to make a purchase, and then find ourselves accosted by pronouncements against abortions. I would really appreciate the heads up that the business I am about to encounter is either going to respect me or use the opportunity to get on their soapbox that I’m a baby killer and have no morals compared to their glorious morals.

It must be nice to view life in only black and white terms and to have all the right answers to other people’s lives. I wouldn’t know. I’m just trying to do the best I can and when a young girl or older woman feels that her pregnancy is not a good thing, I’m taking her word for it, and wouldn’t presume to do otherwise.

Vickie Sandell Stangl

The Anti-Choice Witch Hunt

2008-01-24T09:52:00.000-08:00

Currently in Kansas, a grand jury is investigating Dr. George Tiller, one of only a handful of late-term abortion providers in the U.S. The petitioners are convinced that the Dr. has violated state regulations pertaining to late termination of pregnancy. This is the second time in as many years the doctor has been thusly investigated as he is a top target of such anti-choice organizations like Kansans for Life (like the rest of Kansans are for death?), and Operation Rescue (they aren’t interested in rescuing ‘born’ children from anything). The citizen petition, which was the impetus for the grand jury, was organized by Operation Rescue & Kansans for Life, and only required about 4,100 signatures. As advocacy groups go, these two are about as biased as they come, with long-standing goals of not only shutting down Tiller’s clinic, which serves several thousand patients per year, (only a small percentage of these are late-term); but to make all abortion illegal in Kansas, as well as across the nation. The citizen-petitioned grand jury dates back to the late 1800’s when it was enacted to help fight political corruption during the railroad boom.

Historically, this citizen’s grand jury has rarely been invoked and never, until recently, to advance a social or moral agenda. This old law, had its use in fighting political corruption to be sure; but in this case it is a tool in active vigilantism. A small minority of people with an agenda, forcing a criminal investigation, definitely usurps the executive power of government. A government populated with persons elected by the majority of voters by the way. But Operation Rescue & Kansans for Life (KFL) have long claimed that prosecutors are too soft on abortion; thus, the witch hunt they’ve orchestrated.

Last Friday, jurors heard testimony from KFL director David Gittrich (“inspired by God to use the grand jury”), and Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, (why are these organizations always headed up by men?). While the testimony is secret in these proceedings, the jurors did receive binders from Operation Rescue that included the citizen petition, a failed criminal complaint from 2006, and photos of several pregnant women entering the clinic during this last fall. These busybodies regularly take pictures of those entering and exiting the clinic, from their protest “camps” just outside the gates and over the fence of the clinic. Of course these photos prove nothing, they are being used in the group’s building of circumstantial “evidence” and of course, to intimidate and shame the women who are often in the midst difficult circumstances.

Additionally, Operation Rescue has indicated that they cannot have prosecution of late-term abortion without subpoenaing private medical records – Doctor/patient privacy and HIPPA be damned, they’re at it again! This taxpayer-funded investigation amounts to little more than religious and moral zealots preaching against women’s right to reproductive freedom.

Juno and Liberal Hollywood

2008-01-14T08:36:00.000-08:00

“Liberal Hollywood” is a phony phrase when it comes to young girls and pregnancy.

I just returned from the seeing the movie Juno (as in the Roman Goddess and wife of Zeus, associated with bringing forth life) and the adorable name of the sixteen year old who discovers what we have known since the dawn of time: lying down or sitting in a chair while engaging in sex can lead to pregnancy. That was the most important and accurate message of the entire movie. Unfortunately, the movie quickly turns into the old theme of grownups yearning for their youth and kids showing grownups a thing or two about life-especially Juno.

I was impressed with the young actress who plays Juno but I found the subject of an unplanned pregnancy treated a bit too flippant. Teen pregnancy is no laughing matter and Juno for the most part is a very funny movie. Granted this is fiction and it is far more entertaining to watch a precocious actress be funny and quirky as she reveals her confusion and regret for her sexual tryst BUT, and this is a big BUT, it is disappointing how the subject of an unplanned pregnancy is always a comedy or some warm, feel good, movie about a girl who of course, elects to have her baby.

Whether the movie is “Knocked Up”, “Home Fries” or “Waitress”, Hollywood doesn’t want to address teen pregnancy or any unwanted pregnancy in a different storyline other than humor and a happy, happy ending which means of course, the woman has her baby and life is going to work out just dandy.

How about a real movie where the young woman decides she can’t handle a baby, does not believe she can give a baby up for adoption, or just does not want to take the risk on her health and opts for an abortion? I’m sure it could be done in a respectful and honest manner to illustrate that when it comes to unplanned pregnancies, women should be respected no matter what choice they make. I’m dreaming I know, so bear with me as we enter the world of writer Diablo Cody.

The scene where Juno goes into a women’s clinic to have an abortion is just bogus if not pretentious. I challenge anyone to find a woman’s clinic where the receptionist is a seventeen-year-old “Goth” girl with piercings in her lip, and nose and acts as if she is bored to tears handing out forms for Juno’s scheduled abortion procedure. The appointment becomes even weirder when the same receptionist offers Juno a flavored condom. Honest. Juno quips that it is a little late now for this helpful gift. It’s not only a little too late, it is the screenwriter trying to be cute but it just comes off as silly.

Obviously the screenwriter is making a statement that abortion is not only a mistake but these clinics are abortion mills staffed by uncaring, goofy, irresponsible people so run as fast as you can for the exist and save your baby!

There is one teenage protester outside the clinic who softly and gently urges Juno to save her baby. This alone is pure fiction since protesters are rarely meek but are extremely angry and pushy as young girls try to get passed their obnoxious screaming but we don’t want to have the audience angry with the heroic protester. Juno is determined to go in and proceed but the protester makes a remark that Juno cannot stop thinking about: “Did she know that her baby had fingernails already?” This shocking revelation causes Juno to sit in the office obsessing on the fact to the point that she leaves and decides an abortion is not right for her. Now, there is nothing wrong with this and in fact it is good that Juno has decided to do what she believes is best for her in this situation. She realizes she has to be comfortable with her choice and decides that fingernails represent a future she believes should have a chance regardless of her lapse in judgment. In the end, a baby finds a happy home, Juno and her boyfriend pick up where they left off, her parents still adore her and the track team keeps working out with the change of the seasons

Now, the important lesson here is choice. No one forced Juno to get an abortion. She makes her own choice to have the baby and give it up for adoption. It is as if Juno wants to do something good for others out of her mistake. Maybe it makes her feel better too, and who can blame any woman for wanting to have absolution in a world that makes an unplanned pregnancy a crime? Again the writer ignores some important realities facing most girls in the same situation: not every teenage girl has supportive parents like Juno, not every teenager has the mental and physical well being to carry a baby to term, and not every teenager has sophisticated intellect of Juno to cope with motherhood. These are important variables that make choice absolutely essential for every young woman facing an unplanned pregnancy.

Juno bravely gives up her baby to the point that you wonder if she really knows what she has given up which of course, is another theme skipped over; babies having babies is never a good idea. Bottom line, all women deserve to make their own reproductive decisions. Unfortunately the writer chose to make it appear that the choice Juno made was “right” and therefore right for all girls in the same situation.

That’s called a political statement hidden in a charming comedy. Just once I’d like to see a sweet, funny film explore a teenager who chooses an abortion and she lives happily ever after because it happens and it’s not some fictional story like Juno.

Vickie Sandell Stangl

Where is the Outrage For Women By Women?

2007-12-06T12:54:00.000-08:00

Are American women the biggest fools on the planet?

American women courageously and proudly join the military leaving behind their children and families to risk being killed in the service of their country. Sadly, they do this without understanding it is for a nation that can’t even cough up an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to unequivocally give women equal protection under the laws.

Far more remarkable and outrageous is that American women go to war for a nation that has consistently failed to protect and uphold their right to make their own reproductive decisions. A nation that cannot honor a woman’s most important medical decisions should not expect such a sacrifice.

The ERA is unimportant to a nation that has come to rely upon massive amounts of money to buy justice instead of relying on just laws. Of course, women do not always have money or corporations to defend the issues important to them, and there is the rub, but where is the outrage? There is plenty to feel angry about these last eight years under George Bush & Co.

Least we forget, the Bush Administration arbitrarily prohibited the dissemination of information about abortions in healthcare services for women in other nations, and signed into law a ban on late term abortions in America. In Kansas, the assault against women has been a constant battle from sanctimonious state legislators determined to delay and sabotage a woman’s constitutional right to privacy. More glaring have been the religious fanatics manipulating the laws to smear the healthcare professionals devoted to providing comprehensive and compassionate medical care to women in Kansas.

The paradoxes regarding women and their position in American life is staggering: we have come to expect admission to the finest universities and to have the opportunity of pursuing any career imaginable, and yet women are still victims to an ideology that undeniably teaches biology is destiny. If a woman does possess financial independence and can overcome her little biological handicap of getting pregnant, a good many women spend their lives holding their sisters down while lecturing why it is for their own good. Since the Reagan years, one woman in particular stands out in this effort.

Phyllis Schlafly is the mistress of hypocrisy. She has made a career standing for what she did not practice in her own life. She had a career outside of motherhood and was not always obedient to male superiors. Schlafly earned her MA degree in government, ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 1952 and later earned a law degree. She was not the darling of the media or the Republican Party until discovering what so many TV ministers have discovered; there is money and fame to be earned in telling people whom to hate, and how to make your own prejudices against others’ beliefs appear to be violating God’s word.

Why are women not outraged and standing up for reproductive choice? Most just don’t care because it doesn’t matter in their own private world. They are busy with raising their children, dealing with husbands and careers to think about the possibility that their own daughters might someday lose the freedoms they take for granted. A minority of women oppose choice claiming it is all about saving babies. If they truly cared about children they would protest against the priests who sexually abuse children and volunteer to help those abused and neglected. Instead, they park their butts out in front of Dr. Tiller’s clinic as if they are doing something important. Why? Because they hate to the very core of their being the idea that women would have more power than God. Choice challenges their religious dogma that demands procreation and subservience to men and God.

There is no question anti-choice supporters think GOD IS MALE but let’s face it, most other religions do, too. God wants women to wrap themselves up like mummies and squeeze out as many kids until it kills them because Eve brought sin and death into the world. What woman still believes this nonsense? What kind of woman still believes women are so insignificant and inferior that pregnancy and the use of contraceptives is an issue for the states and judges, but not the individual woman?

How free are women in America if they lose their access to contraceptives? Today there are physicians and pharmacists denying women their prescriptions because they personally object to women having sex and cheating pregnancy. Seriously! This “moral” stance by physicians and pharmacists is rampant sexism endorsed by the AMA. The American Medical Association has magnanimously given physicians a pass not to treat women they find morally repugnant for having sex. Where is the outrage by women against this Taliban behavior?

The message American women send out to men is obvious; we will fight for our men, our country and some other woman’s fetus, but not for our own well being or political rights. That would be selfish and emulate that naughty, naughty Eve. If there is one thing women do well, even in America, it’s to obey men and their male God.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton was the founding mother of the suffrage movement and women’s rights in America. For years, men in power promised to help support women’s efforts to obtain the right to vote but of course, they lied. Stanton finally came to the realization that it was up to women to fight for themselves if they were to ever earn a seat at the table as full persons under the laws.

It’s a lesson women must embrace to secure the right to privacy or we can rest assured there will be plenty of foolish women around more than willing to support men in their efforts to strip vulnerable women of their right to decide when or even if they will give birth.

Speaking of foolish women, if TIME Magazine gave an award each year for the group most retarding American democracy, my nomination would be for all the women in America who have failed to be outraged for women and speak out for choice, as well as all the conservative women who have shamelessly used their religion as an excuse to war against their sisters.

Vickie Sandell Stangl

Taking away women’s rights one egg at a time!

2007-11-26T12:55:00.000-08:00

Colorado Initiative #36. Remember that number. Remember that number as a catalyst for not only trying to take away women’s rights, but for restrictions on birth control, and the can of worms it will open in 2008. The initiative calls for changing the definition of ‘person’ in the Colorado Constitution to include any human being from the moment of fertilization; giving fertilized eggs specific rights. There are certainly a number of problems with the initiative itself, including its wording, intentions and repercussions. For the Colorado Supreme Court to allow this initiative to continue is a disaster waiting to happen.

The initiative states, “Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term ‘person’ to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as ‘person’ is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law?” It is a sad day when the Colorado Court cannot decipher that the initiative clearly has three separate subjects and that Colorado for Equal Rights co-founders Kristine Burton and Mark Meuser, who proposed the initiative, have violated the single subject requirement of the Colorado Constitution.

One certainly would not categorize inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law under the same Constitutional section; they are clearly very different rights. Burton and Meuser argue that because all three of these rights deal with “persons” the initiative does not violate the single subject requirement; ergo there should be one bill as opposed to three separate bills. If Burton and Meuser were so passionate about this cause of fertilized egg rights, they should take the time to defend the three rights separately. Rather, they choose to argue the rights as a whole because all three work together nicely in claiming abortion is illegal. Which they will undoubtly use later to further chip away at women’s rights.

Burton and Meuser have stated that their intent is to just establish a constitutional principle, and that any laws or legislation that come from it are hypothetical. Yet, Burton has made it clear that her mission in life is to make abortion illegal, specifically in the state of Colorado. Doesn’t anyone else think it’s a coincidence that she would be proposing a bill to give fertilized eggs rights? Claiming that this bill would have no effect on abortion rights is ridiculous. In fact, this initiative would have a direct correlation to many reproductive rights.

Kathryn Wittneben, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, said, “The impact of this initiative will extend far beyond the legality of abortion. If fertilized eggs have the legal right to access Colorado’s courts – which is one of the rights that would be granted by this initiative – what does this really mean for Coloradans?” She mentions that if this initiative moves forward, fertilized eggs can petition courts to make it illegal to use effective forms of birth control, and sue pregnant women if they miscarry.

Just imagine the circus of lawsuits waiting to happen in 2008! And who will be the defender of these eggs? Our guess is a right-wing fanatic who is committed to taking away women’s rights, one fertilized egg at a time.

Julie Burkhart
ProKanDo, CEO

A New Political Day Dawning in Kansas

2007-11-12T14:14:00.000-08:00

It’s desperation time when the best the anti-choice, conservative legislators can do is whine before the media about Kansas’s judges refusing to bend to their righteous will. The legislators met at a lodge at Lake Afton to discuss their conservative agenda for the upcoming session including no doubt how to concoct more bills to restrict as much as possible a woman’s freedom to choose.

State Senator Peggy Palmer from Augusta who attended the meeting was quoted in a recent Wichita Eagle article that most “Kansans oppose partial birth, late-term abortions.” What she and her friends do not seem to understand is that most Kansans are far more offended by the anti-choice’s strong armed and “buttinski” tactics, than being offended by a woman’s right to seek medical attention for a difficult pregnancy. Kansans are realists and understand not every pregnancy can be carried to term.

A new day has dawned in Kansas and the conservatives seem unwillingly to acknowledge this important shift towards progressive politics among Kansans. Conservative legislators and anti-choice leaders appear astonished that the Kansas judicial system refuses to be manipulated by agenda driven ideologues. Someone should clue them in that Phill Kline is the poster boy for slimy politicians using their public office to push their anti-choice politics. The conservatives are dangerously out of touch with a growing number of voters in Kansas who are disgusted with this sort of nonsense.

By golly what’s a religious fanatic to do when bullying public officials, filing nuisance lawsuits, and claiming that a few thousand signatures on a petition is a mandate to take the state back to the Dark Ages with a grand inquisitor, and it’s just not getting any traction?

And speaking of nuisance lawsuits, Mark Gietzen is certainly not going to win a place in heaven for his disingenuous statement that he is bringing a lawsuit against Dr. Tiller to “protect other protesters.” This man’s nose must be growing longer than Pinocchio’s! Here’s a free legal tip Mr.Gietzen: jumping in front of someone’s car does not give you the right to seek damages from the driver.

As for the other protesters who routinely block the entrance to the Clinic, the situation has long been an accident waiting to happen. (If I were driving a car I would hit the accelerator instead of braking for the protesters who use that moment to pounce on the car or shove their pamphlets in the window.) Wichita has refused to acknowledge this potentially dangerous situation because city leaders have been an anti-choice conclave for decades. Protesters have been allowed to hold their wild partying, baby-stepping shenanigans in front of the Clinic with impunity and block the entrance (once the police leave) for years! So much for the city upholding the law known as the FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) Act.

For readers who do not realize just what takes place in front of Dr.Tiller’s Clinic, allow me to explain. The best comparison to be made is with the Phelps family. Yes, the infamous Phelps family who protest at funerals of fallen soldiers. Just as the Phelps should be prevented from interfering and violating another family’s right to grieve privately for their child, anti-choice protesters should also be prevented from interfering and violating a woman’s privacy to enter a clinic. The city should move the protesters further away from the Clinic to avoid the harassment and screaming loonies that confront these women who have every right to seek medical services. They have the power under FACE to create a bubble zone around the Clinic to allow women the freedom to safely enter but of course, the city has failed to apply this protection to Dr. Tiller’s Clinic.

Protesting at funerals may be curbed due to a bill passed last session in the Kansas Legislature if it survives a fight in the courts. Of course, no lawsuit or bills in the Kansas Legislature will be forthcoming to ensure women the same dignity to attend to their own medical needs without facing ugly protesters.
In Wichita, the anti-choice protesters will once again occupy the narrow strip in front of Dr. Tiller’s clinic and do everything in their power to annoy, harass, bully and be visible with their crosses, graphic fetus signs, loud music and other tactics to make a mockery of a woman’s constitutional right to privacy. The difference is more and more Kansans are no longer sympathetic to these perverted protests and want the long war against women who seek abortion services to end.

Vickie Sandell Stangl

“Calling Dr. Unbiased, Calling Dr. Independent, your patient is waiting”

2007-11-05T13:05:00.000-08:00

When it comes to Roe v. Wade, there is no end to the mischief legislators, anti-abortion groups, and judges will do to dilute and nullify the most basic and fundamental right a citizen has to the right to privacy.

Today we learned some of the arguments reached by Attorney General Morrison in supporting his 19 misdemeanor counts against Dr. Tiller and his Clinic. The transparency of those arguments can be reduced very easily to the follow:

1. State Legislators are purposively trying to make the process of obtaining an abortion a burden.

It is a sham to state that the numerous anti-abortion bills enacted by the Kansas Legislature has been for the “good of the women”. It is all about doing everything possible to resist Roe v. Wade while pretending the intent is for the medical safety of women and girls. Where were these noble sentiments when women were dying in back alley abortions? How was society protecting the welfare and health of women by forcing them to butcher themselves instead of seeking skilled physicians in excellent clinics operating in the light of day?

2.Morrison himself makes the above case by arguing that the “Kansas legislature through statute, expressed a strong interest in protecting potential life.”

Not only is this a rather pompous statement about Kansas’s legislators, but clearly denotes the intent is to discourage abortions. Every new law is intentionally inching up to the line of the right to privacy to place burdens not only on the young women seeking medical attention, but burdens upon the medical community. The “intent” of the law is to dry up any desire by the medical profession to “deal” with the moralizing, police state, in this line of work. The continuing harassment and legal battles brought against Dr. Tiller serve as a clear warning to all new doctors: working in a women’s health clinic means you too can be hounded to the edge of hell.

3. The most important question is whether or not the requirement for a second “unbiased opinion”(an interesting legal term a politician wouldn’t know if it bit him where the sun don’t shine) is constitutional, and not an undue restriction or burden on the woman.

The answer to that of course, is that without question, initiating the requirement of a second unbiased opinion is an open statement that we do not trust these kinds of doctors to follow the laws regarding abortions. These physicians are shifty, secretive and in an odious business therefore, we must hold them to multiple standards of oversight. Really? This might be news to the Kansas Board of Healing Arts who approves those who can practice in the state.

Who decides which doctor is unbiased in this scenario? Must we find a physician who is openly anti-abortion as the only one who can sign on with Dr. Tiller to approve a woman’s late term abortion? Is that the intent of the law? It’s a slippery slope.

4. Morrison also cites the recent Supreme Court decision regarding upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act as another indicator that restrictions on abortions in general are constitutional. Of course, what Morrison does not state is the obvious: President Bush packed the Supreme Court with men whose religious beliefs color their opinion about abortion. Due to that newly seated Court, we now have in place a group of five men who have no problem restricting a woman’s reproductive freedoms and this explains why the Court upheld the new law passed by Congress.
The more serious issue of why a government, a state, has the right to ever intervene when it comes to a woman’s health has never been adequately explored. It is a philosophical puzzle: does everyone have the right to be born even if it destroys a woman’s own life, her health and her own future as a separate individual?

Do we expect women to martyr themselves for a baby? Is that a double standard? Do fathers have to become martyrs for a new baby? Of course not, and yet we have no problem shifting the burden of life on women and then holding our noses in disgust when a woman does not want that burden or risk to her health. Clearly, the state should never intervene in abortion issues except for expecting medical standards to be ethical and safe as in any other medical facility. We have moved far beyond this simple and sensible formula.

Let me just state the obvious: a second unbiased opinion was not codified by the Kansas Legislature for medical reasons, but done so for highly biased and political reasons.

Vickie Sandell Stangl

Anti-Woman Bills from the Anti-Choice Brigade

2007-11-02T12:11:00.000-07:00

Even before most legislative sessions have started, the anti-choice brigade continues to push for absurd legislation that takes away women’s rights. They are drafting bills and drawing up plans to push during the next legislative session. Will nothing stop these people from throwing women’s rights out the window? And just what exactly are they up to? Here are snippets from just a few states.

Colorado

The Colorado Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision later this month that would give fertilized eggs the same constitutional rights as minors and adults. Their obvious intent is to prevent abortions because legal rights would be given from the moment of fertilization, according to NARAL Colorado.

The consequences of this bill would not only affect a woman’s right to choose, but would prohibit birth control, and restricts in-vitro fertilization. The 2008 ballot initiative is not for “equal rights of eggs,” but rather its purpose is to strip away women’s rights, and restrict them from making their own choices when it comes to their health care.

Arizona

In Arizona anti-choice opponents are looking for tougher restrictions on abortion clinics. They hope to mirror Missouri laws that would have medical regulations similar to outpatient surgical facilities. Anti-choice lawmakers say the requirements, which include larger hallways, emergency resuscitation equipment and high ceilings, are for the protection of women, because the clinics would be up to standard health facility standards. Other requirements include changing the staffing and record-keeping procedures.

Bridget Daly, the spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Central Arizona, says that clinics already abide by State laws and always put patient safety first. So what’s with all the laws? Anti-choice opponents are only interested in pushing their own personal agenda, not really about the safety of women. This law is another installment of restrictions on women’s rights.

Missouri

Governor Matt Blunt has put together a task force to examine how abortions affect women. The kicker? All the members, including Mr. Blunt himself, are anti-choice. Seems a little fishy to us. What’s worse is that they are using taxpayers’ money to fund this group. The Governor’s Task Force on the Impact of Abortion on Women is not a wide-open question to Blunt. He hopes to find information that will lower the number of abortions, and somehow benefit the anti-choice supporters. In other words, the task force is unlikely to conclude that having an abortion can be beneficial for a woman’s health.

The group’s main goal is to investigate the physical, social, emotional and economic effects of abortion. So how is the group going to report this “truthful, honest information?” We have a feeling the task force is going to turn the other cheek when they find that valid scientific studies have already documented that abortion is safe and does not affect a woman’s long-term psychological health. What the anti-choice zealots do not understand is that not having access to safe and legal abortions may cause worse effects on women’s health.

Ohio

The Ohio anti-choice brigade is looking to pass laws that would force women to look at sonograms before choosing to have an abortion. Many clinics already have this option, including the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Ohio, which says they are remaining neutral on the bill because it is “already telling clinics to do what they do already.” The anti-choice people hope this law will help women change their minds. Richard Land, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commissioner, who popularized the plan, said that “people would be much more reticent to abort babies because they would be forced to confront the evident humanity of the baby from very early gestation onward. Pregnant mothers who see their babies on sonograms are far more likely to carry their babies to term.”

This proposition assumes that most women have no idea what they are going to do when they go into an abortion clinic. Not only does it infantilize women, but it also makes women feel guilty when they are already in a tough situation. If the law makes it mandatory for women to have sonograms before their abortion, it makes it worse for those women. Just like abortion, viewing a sonogram should be a choice made by the woman and her physician, not the government.

It may be hard to believe, but anti-choice opponents are coming up with even more absurd laws to push back women’s rights. As the upcoming legislative sessions start across the county, we need to prepare to fight against these bills that could hinder our right to choose.

The Question

2007-10-29T12:34:00.000-07:00

Andrew Sullivan, the conservative blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, and author of the book “The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It and How To Get It Back” apparently pondered an interesting question for the GOP presidential candidates that was mentioned by Bill Maher on his show, “Reel Time”. The question is worth repeating and thinking about.

The question Sullivan wanted to pose went something like this: “If you could go back in time and abort Osama bin Laden, would you do it?" What if the candidates answer, “no” all fetuses have the right to be born, even those who kill thousands and disrupt our world, as we know it; it’s still life and it is precious? Would you, the voter, agree that there could never be exceptions to complicated issues about life in general and pregnancies in particular?

Is it not reasonable or even logical to postulate further that perhaps it is erroneous to assume every pregnancy will in turn result in a wonderful gift to the world and enrich all our lives and the planet? Of course this is exactly the reality that Operation Knuckleheads ignore just as they ignore all the valid and important reasons why women should control their own reproductive decisions.

Perhaps some people’s God might teach the fetus of Osama Bin Laden is just as worthy as any other fetus, but others could logically argue that it is impossible to determine what a new life will bring to the world. It might be a Nobel Prize winner or a serial killer like BTK. No one can knows for sure and it is dishonest to act as if all pregnancies are created equal and wonderful.

When Operation Knuckleheads use their propaganda to state that “all life is precious” they are ignoring the reality that not every child born into this world is mentally whole or grows up to be productive, loved, and well schooled enough to be a good citizen of the world. If all life were precious, there would be no war and there would certainly be no toleration for abused and neglected children in society. Children would all have healthcare and wonderful schools without whining from the taxpayer about paying for public schools. We know in reality, only “some lives are precious.”

I’m not advocating that women abort their fetus because they might be growing something like Rosemary’s Baby inside their womb, but merely to explain Sullivan’s question. He raises the dilemma that if we assume every abortion is killing the next Einstein we must also consider its opposite: abortion might be killing the next Frankenstein. When the anti-abortion crew stands on their soapbox about the sanctity of life, Sullivan’s question should haunt their certainty.

It is pompous and arrogant to assume that all pregnancies are a joyful gift from heaven when you consider such circumstances as rape or incest. There is little joy carrying a fetus to term with severe abnormalities causing permanent health issues for either mother or child. Joy is not a word to describe what most girls and women feel in these cases. Operation Knuckleheads do not care about these realities but continue the mantra “all life is precious”.

As a society we have to ask ourselves what do we value more? The rationale decision to control our destiny’s as much as possible, or to hope lady luck is on our side as we give parenthood a whirl on the Wheel of Fortune?

Being pro-choice means you support women in all their choices; including the decision to carry a baby to term under all the circumstances listed above or the decision not to do so.

In a perfect world we would like all babies to be born brilliant, and pregnant women to be capable and healthy for motherhood, but conditions are not always in the cards to produce such outcomes.

Whose to say that the woman who has made the choice to end her pregnancy has just saved the world from a monster? If that sounds ridiculous, it is just as ridiculous to assume the pregnancy ended was the end of a potential Saint.

Vickie Sandell Stangl

Goodbye Mr. Kline

2007-10-22T12:40:00.000-07:00

Once again boys and girls, Phill Kline is on the trail of the dastardly Overland Park clinic known as Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri. What is this clinic doing that 107 charges have been drawn up against it by Kline? Doing exactly what it has a right to do: counseling pregnant women, providing contraceptive information and abortion services as allowed under the standards mandated by the law.

Kline and his pal Troy Newman, just can’t stomach these clinics to operate and thus conspire together to close them down for their buddy, God. The formula is simple: use taxpayer money to harrass clinics with grand jury investigations, file numerous criminal charges that carry heavy fines and prison terms, use intimidation tactics with nutty groups like Operation Rescue, and then hold press conferences on the taxpayers dime to pontificate about “doing one’s duty” until the clinics are bled dry with legal expenses and are forced to close their doors.

Peter Brownlie, president of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, is not about to let these two charlatans get away with their manipulation of the law and the system to deny women their right to privacy as afforded under the constitution. Closing these clinics is not an option and the people of Kansas are beyond tired of Kline’s efforts.

A stranger to Kansas would have to wonder why in the world this District Attorney of Johnson County, is not summarily tossed out on his glutius maximus for abusing his important public office. Courageous Kansans fighting to uphold a woman’s right to privacy know the answer to this conundrum: the Kansas electorate was fed up with Kline in 2006, and soundly voted him out of the State Attorney General office only to see the anti-abortion republican hacks snub the will of the people, and hand Kline his current job to continue his assault on women seeking important medical services

Kline is a man obsessed with forcing his religious beliefs on all Kansans. It might even be suggested he has a bit of a “Messiah” complex as he fights for his male, Christian, fundamentalist God who abhors abortions. Of course, Kline’s God doesn’t seem very angry about Iraqis being killed, but is livid that women have the right in America to decide their own reproductive choices. One would think God could take care of this Himself instead of sending the Phill Kline or Troy Newman to do the dirty work. (Frankly, I think God is hanging with the wrong crowd.)

It seems clear now that we need the Kansas State Legislature to pass a law prohibiting ideological/hate groups from harassing businesses and private citizens with their nuisance petitions to convene grand juries in Kansas. It is a gross manipulation of a democratic tool in the interest of one narrow group and mocks the entire system of justice.

One of the most fundamental right citizens have is to make medical decisions they deem best for their physical welfare. No person is truly free without this most basic right, and Kline knows this is true, but that is exactly the point; Kline doesn’t believe women should be “that” free. They must atone for Eve’s sin and forcing women to give birth is God’s command, right? God didn’t say, “Enjoy your apple, and control your pregnancies”. Kline won’t say this in so many words but it is what he believes. He is working for God to save babies because women are not to get off scott-free from having sex and for sinning first!

From a legal basis, Kline’s attempt to shred a citizen’s right to privacy is certainly in violation of Griswold v Connecticut, 1965 and Roe v.Wade,1973. His actions make the Supreme Court’s bland phrase regarding restrictions that should not cause “an undue burden” ring even more hollow for women who now face the undue burden of an out of control District Attorney in Johnson County.

Kline is not only violating the constitution with his actions, but in violation of the most important principles the founders bequeathed to future generations: a secular government allowing all people to freely worship their God, but also a government which bars religion from making laws based upon their doctrines. Kline flunked this most basic civic lesson.

Let me state this one more time: Upholding reproductive choice for women might offend someone’s religious beliefs, but the American government is not based upon writing laws that support a religious viewpoint. Good government must pass laws based upon the rights of the citizenry, and this may come as a shock to Kline and others, but women are citizens who have autonomy over their own bodies. To do anything less is to make a mockery of our own democratic republic, free of religious entanglements. The world is scarred and damaged enough by religious dogma dictating public policy without doing the same in America.

Kline should resign if he cannot curb his addiction to upholding the bible instead of the law. We all know the answer to that dilemma. Goodbye Mr. Kline.

Vickie Sandell Stangl

Snoop Dog Kline is at it again!

2007-10-19T12:26:00.000-07:00

What’s the saying, “Old habits die hard?” Well that’s exactly what Phill Kline’s motto should be as District Attorney of Johnson County, Kansas. He can’t seem to stop harassing women and doctors, and snooping around for information regarding women’s medical records. He is clearly and unequivocally sticking his nose in a place where it does not belong. Some people across the state even question his authority as DA to file such a complaint in his home county.

Phill Kline’s charges against Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri in Overland Park, Kansas are part of another attack on women’s rights. On Wednesday, October 17, Kline filed 23 felony and 84 misdemeanor counts. They range anywhere from accusations of providing false information to failure to maintain medical records to providing unlawful late-termination of pregnancy. This should not come as a surprise to anyone who knows about Kline’s previous track record as an anti-choice zealot.

Kline’s crusade to shut down abortion providers and harass women began back in October of 2003, when sealed subpoenas showed up at Women’s Health Care Services and at Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood. That was four long years ago. Due to the gag order on the subpoenas, the general public and the press did not learn about his fishing expedition until early winter of 2004. In those subpoenas, Kline asserted that the clinics were guilty of wrong doing, which lead to numerous years of litigation. Unfortunately, this is an extension of that case, only with Kline now as the District Attorney of Johnson County instead of as the Attorney General of the State of Kansas.

Initially, Kline spun his zealotry as protection of children from child rapists, even though the vast majority of the records that he sought were for adult women who had had abortion procedures. It did not take long for the media to see through this politically motivated ploy. However, the case raged on, with the real threat of women’s privacy being violated.

It became clear that the only way Kline was ever going to stop his trolling for women’s medical records was for him to lose his AG seat. Due to his blatant misuse of his governmental office and extravagant expenditures, he lost his position to Paul Morrison by a 16 point margin, which was remarkable given the Republican vs. Democratic registration in this state, and given early polling numbers in the race. These numbers showed just how fed up and tired Kansans are with his one-issue-ax-to-grind-agenda.

And now, less than a year later, Kline is at it again, prosecuting as Johnson County DA. Taxpayers should wonder if Kline’s charges hold any value, or if the attack is purely for political purposes. When in reality, most of Kline’s time is spent on his battle to shut down abortion clinics, and to take away your right to choose.

Peter Brownlie, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri told the Associated Press that the clinic did not perform any abortions past the 22nd week of pregnancy and that they always provide high-quality care for their patients. Clinics, including Dr. Tiller’s clinic in Wichita, have been under attack since 2002 when Kline was elected attorney general. Since Kline opposes abortion, he is abusing his position to keep women from having access to it. With these charges, Kline is attempting to shut down these clinics and limit women’s right to choose. He is further pushing women into becoming second-class citizens.

The first hearing is scheduled for November 16, but one has to wonder if Kline’s charges will even hold up in court. A spokeswoman for Attorney General Morrison said he had reviewed the current accusations, and found no crimes or misconducts, and questioned Kline’s political influence behind the charges.

With anti-choice zealots like Kline in office, we cannot let our focus or our efforts wane. We must be diligent when protecting women’s rights, as women are not truly free and equal in our society until we have the autonomous decision-making power regarding our reproductive lives. If there is no equity when it comes to reproduction, there is no equity in education, jobs or relationships.

As a state and as a country, politicians have undervalued women’s rights, especially reproductive rights, for too long. We cannot stand by and allow our elected officials to decide what is right and moral for the women of this nation.

By Julie Burkhart
CEO, ProKanDo

Nicaragua’s Abortion Ban

2007-10-18T14:03:00.001-07:00

Nicaragua’s abortion ban, implemented a year ago, is hurting women a lot more than it is doing anything else. The ban calls for imprisonment of women, and the people who help them (including doctors) when they have an abortion, even in the case of saving the woman’s life. It is among Central America’s most restrictive abortion laws that limits women, and puts their lives in danger.

The ban, which has resulted around 80 deaths so far (according to the International Herald Tribune) has put women at a standstill. The law says that the country will prosecute anybody who has an abortion, but what about the women who are facing pregnancy complications that could lead to death? Are they supposed to pick between going to jail or dying? The high rate of deaths because of illegal abortions in that country is astonishing as well.

The recent release of the Human Rights Watch report on the blanket ban has shed some light into how it has evolved. Women do not want to go get public medical help during their pregnancies in case they have a miscarriage, and are sent to jail. Doctors are also worried about “assisting” in these miscarriages and some are even denying women of medical help.

The fact that the government refuses rights to these women is appalling, and are in affect sentencing these women to die, whether from pregnancy complications or botched abortions. How does the Nicaraguan government ignore these facts? Do they stick to their beliefs that they are only trying to save the fetuses lives when in fact, they are sentencing these women to death? How much longer will this law be butchering women?

The fight to get rid of the ban though, mainly because of the strong, religious background of the people, but the Nicaraguan Feminist Movement and several other groups have already filed petitions to declare the ban unconstitutional. Since the courts have yet to rule, the battle wages on as many human rights groups and activists continue to show the fallout of this horrible ban, especially in the U.S.

Nicaragua’s blanket ban on abortion, and its consequences, should be a reminder to all how imperative women’s reproductive rights are, especially when right-wing legislators are working to chip away these rights everyday. According to a recent New York Times article, a global study has shown that outlawing abortions still does not reduce the number of them happening. If anything, it increases the number of deaths among women who do choose to have an abortion.

The situation reaches all women, and as we work towards fighting for all women’s rights, we should remember the words of Lucy Stone, “Now all we need is to continue to speak the truth fearlessly, and we shall add to our number those who will turn the scale to the side of equal and full justice in all things.”

Julie Burkhart
CEO, ProKanDo

Bearing Flase Witness

2007-10-10T14:19:00.000-07:00

Who is Paul McHugh and why would the anti-abortion camp invite him to give his "expert" opinion regarding late term abortions before Kansas Legislators?
First, he is not an expert in the study of late term abortions, but is the Chair of the Psychiatry Department at Johns Hopkins University. His bio is impressive and it is clear that he is highly regard by his former students. He is also admired by others for challenging established ideas or accepted practices in his field.

Among his peers he has raised a bit of a dust up over his scorn for doctors who perform sex-change surgeries on patients who feel trapped in a bodies that belie their real sexual identify. McHugh has called sex-change operations a form of a "frontal lobotomy." It is clear that this is a man who thinks God does not make mistakes. Any deviance can be cured with religion and right morals. Therefore, stem-cell is evil, sex change operations mess with God's handiwork, and abortions are of course, taking the lives God has created.

McHugh is entitled to his religious beliefs, but not to use his religious beliefs to bear false witness against women or Dr. Tiller. His credentials as an academician are solid, but it cannot hide the fact that he has an agenda, an ideology, a dogma called Catholicism that warps his testimony and yet it is exactly why he was called as a witness.

The professor has a history of coming to the witness table as a biased expert quite unencumbered by his personal feelings or beliefs. As Erica Goode explained in a New York Times article, McHugh served as a lay member on a panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church investigating accusations of sexual abuse by priests against young boys. Victims protested McHugh's appointment due to the simple fact that he had frequently testified in court on behalf of molesters or accused molesters; McHugh disputed the repressed memories of those molested.

McHugh was also appointed to President Bush's Council on Bioethics, an 18 member group annoited to study such medical advancements as embryonic stem cell research and "assisted reproduction." Many of the appointees are directly tied to the religious magazine, "First Things" with the purpose of incorporating the teachings and dogma of religion into public policy decisions, especially issues regarding women's health and welfare. Thus, McHugh was naturally a perfect candidate to serve as a witness to defame and belittle women who seek late term abortions in Kansas.

As a practicing Catholic McHugh has the right to oppose abortions of course, but it is self-serving and a sham for the professor to bear witness and leave out these rather important elements to his impressive resume. Therefore, it was hardly surprising or a stretch for McHugh to testify that "there is no psychological condition for which abortion is the cure," when discussing late term abortions for women.

Such arrogance should not shock any of us today, but it is shocking to reread these lines and not be struck by the fact that this man might as well be on Mars when it comes to understanding the conditions that make late term abortions necessary. One can hear in this remark the belief that women are having late term abortions because they are having a bad day and believe aborting their fetus will make the world all perfect again.

If McHugh could suddenly become pregnant with a child that is terribly deformed or draining his life away, he might see late term abortions as a gift from God. That's right, a gift from God where men and women with compassion have harnessed their intellect and free will to save women and spare more suffering of the fetus.

Late term abortions are no small matter entered into lightly. Most Kansans and most Americans, understand this fact. Women who make this difficult choice do so for real medical problems that cannot be ignored or wished away. Women are forced for their own good health to make tough decisions the anti-abortion camp willy/nilly condemns as "murder" or "selfishness."

These slings and arrows surely do not help the mental health of women. McHugh does not appear too concerned by this obvious fact since he no doubt believes in his own religious righteousness.
In the eyes of the anti-abortion camp and their expert witness Paul McHugh, once a pregnant woman, always a pregnant woman, even if the cure is death for the woman.

Oh, well..................la,la,la,la,la ,la,la,

Vickie Sandell Stangl

Your Tax Dollars at Work

2007-09-18T14:15:00.000-07:00

Today, sex education in the public schools is laughable. Perhaps even more laughable are the "facts" coming from abstinence "educators," gems like this:

"Many of the products left over from abortions, you girls wear them on your faces. Do you know they sell them to makeup companies? Did you know that, friends? The base of most of the lipstick sold in our stores comes from aborted babies."

To hear the quote and many more, check out the video here.

See You at the Carnival

2007-08-22T10:53:00.000-07:00

It's always a bit like walking around a county carnival in Wichita, Kansas to see what the Anti-abortion group will do next; dress up like cockroaches, grandstand at Dr. Tiller's place of worship, to flooding a clinic in desperation to prevent women from their legal right to reproductive choices.

The real kick however, is reading the Letters to the Editor in the Wichita Eagle to see how this group of carnies tries to connect everything under the sun to the abomination of abortion. Below are just some of my all time favorite apple/oranges squeezed together to illustrate how abortions are the Alpha and Omega of all activity on earth:

* The Jewish Holocaust was due to abortion supporters
* The Slave Trade was not as horrible as abortions
* 9/11 was caused by hedonistic abortion loving U.S. women
* Katrina was God's wrath against Dr. Tiller's Clinic in Wichita
* Abortion in Wichita is due to the gambling industry trying to infiltrate the good community
* Iraq is the direct result of Roe v. Wade
* Darfur would never have happened if America did not kill the babies

In the spirit of being totally inaccurate and ridiculous like the Anti-abortion camp, I'd like to offer my own list:

* Global Warming is due to the baby killers across America
* Planting trees leads to abortions
* The Space Shuttle is a a flying abortionist clinic
* Texas is big because Americans support abortions
* Coal Miners lose their lives because women have abortions
* Bob Barker left the "Price is Right" due to abortions
* Airplane disasters happen for allowing abortion supporters to fly
* Bubblegum gets in my hair because I am prochoice
* Gun control leads to abortions
* The Bush Administration could not find the WMDs because the abortionists hid them
* Wild West World in Kansas is history due to those elitist, abortion loving, easterners

And, as the summer draws to a close, look for this new line in the Wichita Eagle: If the "Surge" in Iraq fails, it's Dr. Tiller's fault!

-Vickie Sandell Stangl

Anti-Choice Legislator = Anti-Choice Judge??????

2007-08-13T10:20:00.000-07:00

That foul stench Wichitans awoke to this morning was the death of impartiality and justice for Dr. George Tiller.

Judge Tony Powell, the very judge assigned by Criminal Court Judge Greg Waller, to rule over the bogus law Dr. Tiller is now being charged with violating, wrote the law in 1998 when he was a Kansas State legislator! Talk about a kangaroo court!

Have the anti-abortion people risen up and declared this would be unfair to Dr. Tiller's case the same way they screamed and rolled around on the sidewalk in front of the Wichita Eagle about Nola Foulston and Attorney General Morrison as being bias in determining the law? That would be a big NO. High standards of conduct and impartiality of the law are expected of the other side, not of the anti-abortion camp.

The anti-abortion camp believes they do not have to follow the law the way ordinary mortals like Dr. Tiller are required to do but they can use the law to manipulate and harass people in order to achieve their ends.

The perfect storm has finally formed over Kansas: the anti-abortion proponents were able to slide their boys and girls into the Kansas State legislature and craft the most offensive, restrictive laws against a woman's access to reproductive choices in the state. The next step was to take over the judges of the land who were to determine the constitutionality of those bogus laws. They finally have a former representative in place who can serve like the biblical judges of the Old Testament to rule "impartially" against Dr. Tiller. God Bless America!

In Kansas, it is as if Roe v. Wade never existed under the law. What Supreme Court Justice Blackmun crafted so carefully and thoughtfully in 1973 has been nit-picked, stabbed and pulled more times than taffy so that today Roe is barely recognizable through the piles of state laws intentionally written to make reproductive choice rare and difficult.

Roe did not stipulate the cumbersome and foolish requirement that a doctor who performs late term abortions must have another doctor sign off on that abortion and better not have any connections to the other doctor such as breathing the same air.

Now, via Attorney General Morrison's attempt to follow "the letter of the bad laws" cooked up by former anti-abortion legislator Tony Powell-Dr. Tiller is in "violation" of said law. (Of course, lawyers and law makers do not seem too concerned about following the letter of the law when it comes to Roe.)

The rotting of justice and the killing of Roe can't be masked by the odor of leather chairs and polished furniture in a courtroom in Wichita. Dr Tiller better have good lawyers because the law has been written to sink him.

Vickie Sandell Stangl

Watch "Libertyville Anti-Choice Protesters"

2007-08-03T10:39:00.000-07:00

Watch "Libertyville Anti-Choice Protesters"

Description: Anti-Choice protesters are asked if abortion should be illegal, and then if women obtaining them should be prosecuted.

Target: Reproductive Rights

2007-08-02T19:49:00.000-07:00

The U.S. House approved a new initiative last week, which is a shift away from the common Democratic approach to reproductive rights. The new initiative is aimed at discouraging women from getting abortions by providing them with new sets of government support. This won’t make abortion illegal, but rather, is aimed at helping women with health, economic, and educational assistance. The new proposal will grant $647 million for these resources.

This initiative was composed using research done in Kansas during the years 2000 to 2004. The report, released by Catholics United for the Common Good, found a direct correlation between abortion rates and the availability of jobs, health insurance, and Head Start centers. It stated: “Increasing employment opportunities for families, access to education for children, and health insurance for working families can and will decrease the number of abortions.” The report also found that Kansas counties with abortion clinics were actually much less likely to use that healthcare alternative than those who live in counties without clinics, and said: “This suggests that restricting access to abortion clinics does not reduce the incidence of abortion.”

The proposal includes:
• Counseling young women on adoption.
• Launch an ad campaign to inform women that they can receive healthcare and other resources if they are “preparing for birth.”
• Expanding parenting education.
• Providing medical services for pregnant women, in some cases sending nurses to their homes.
• Offer day care services at federal job-training centers to help new mothers become self-sufficient.

These steps towards better equipping women with the necessities such as pre-natal care and birthing rights are just pure common sense. However, it’s important that this proposal doesn’t limit reproductive rights, but rather helps families in need. ProKanDo has been a long time supporter of these plans that aid families. This could be a great opportunity for women to gain assurance that they will not be thrown under the bus by the government, but given new opportunities not only to them, but also their children.

While these are great steps forward, we must remember to not sweep reproductive rights under the rug. This plan will work 100% of the time in an ideal world, but realistically, unintended pregnancies will occur, and we must be willing to provide women who need reproductive healthcare services the care that they need and deserve. We must work towards destigmatizing women’s reproductive health care. This initiative is something we must work into a system we’ve already created, not a substitution for women’s rights like many social-conservatives would like to see happen. This plan, unequivocally, cannot equate sacrificing reproductive rights.

This recent initiative is one that has been needed in our country for decades. It’s about time that this be adopted. It isn’t hard to see the broad range of positive effects of health care for women; providing children with a stronger education that is more accessible; and creating day-care at job training centers. This would help fuel the economy in multiple ways and provide a better future for all those involved.

Other ideas that have yet to be approved are funding maternity and day-care centers on college campuses to allow women an alternative to having to drop out in order to take care of their children. In addition, offering access to contraceptives and comprehensive sex education would be a substantial step forward in preventing unintended pregnancies.

Ensuring women’s equal rights has been overlooked far too long in this country. This could be a step towards gaining the equality women have long-fought to achieve. Let’s not forget along the way, however, to provide access to the full range of reproductive healthcare services, which is also a component of women’s equality.

Brownback Girl

2007-08-02T09:58:00.001-07:00

"The Year they closed the courts"

2007-07-18T12:39:00.000-07:00

The newly established Supreme Court has recently made a series of rulings that should make every pro-choice supporter shudder. While we all knew this would be a conservative Supreme Court, we didn’t know to what extent until recently. This should become a time when anyone who has ever cared about women’s reproductive rights should be up in arms fighting to make sure previous cases are not overturned. For years now, many have believed cases like Roe. Vs. Wade were untouchable. But now the Conservative revolution has begun in the United States.

States that already severely limit a woman’s right to choose will become battle grounds for the conservatives trying to force their morals and faiths unto others. “The court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in a 5-to-4 decision that was a reversal of course and a reframing of the abortion issue. The decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, No. 05-380, was the first time the court had upheld a prohibition on a specific method of abortion. The law, enacted in 2003, subjects doctors to fines and prison terms.” We must also be there fighting to keep freedoms alive if we hope to never see Roe Vs. Wade overturned.
Justice Roberts has played his cards in a way to keep citizens unsuspecting of what may be to come by limiting what the Court did this last term. “Other precedents were left standing, at least for the time being, by decisions that avoided direct overrulings while providing a roadmap for future challenges. In several cases, a frustrated Justice Scalia prodded Chief Justice Roberts to move further and faster to overturn precedents that both men clearly dislike.” The court heard the fewest cases since 1953 this term, overturning three previous heard cases, trampling free speech rights and making businesses jump for joy.

In this time we must be aware of the take over of the Supreme Court, a court so conservative that only Texas federal and state courts remain to the right of it. Justice Breyer summed everything up when he declared: “It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much.” Rights that we have worked tirelessly for are now in danger of being overturned. This court has already upheld partial anti-abortion laws, which are the first anti-choice rulings since 1973. We must work to ensure that it does not persist. If you want to help the cause, click here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/washington/01scotus.html?ei=5070&en=2838a521304bff85&ex=1184904000&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1184785932-FzR4Y5s27LETwIC3MRVX9g

Was Ronald Reagan pro-choice?

2007-07-13T13:34:00.000-07:00

Fred Thompson was supposed to be the next great Republican politician; some even called him the “New Ronald Reagan.” This prompts the question: Was Ronald Reagan pro-choice? Republicans were led to believe that Thompson could be the next great leader of this country and mobilize citizens much like Reagan did. Until last week that is. News broke that Thompson started working as an abortion rights lobbyist in 1991, just years before becoming a Senator. If this is true, what could it mean for the GOP? If this has been kept under the rug for so long, how do we know Reagan wasn’t pro-choice? He never passed one act against abortion – so, how do we know? Maybe the GOP is a party built upon lies and cover-ups. Could it also be possible that this anti-choice stance Thompson has now is nothing more than poor acting, quite possibly the same poor acting we saw out of both Thompson and Reagan? While this may seem to be the makings of an episode of “Law and Order” we must keep it mind, this is our lives.

The most important question out of all of this still remains: Why would Fred Thompson do such a thing? Did he believe in women’s rights? Is this just a left-wing conspiracy? Is his anti-choice agenda a poor act?

Or maybe it was just for the money.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CNN_profiles_Fred_Thompsons_abortion_woes_0710.html

Pro-Choice Position Bad For Democrats?

2007-06-22T12:28:00.000-07:00

Tell us what you think of this op-ed from The New York Times.

June 22, 2007

Op-Ed Contributor

Why Pro-Choice Is a Bad Choice for Democrats

By MELINDA HENNEBERGER

Washington

I KEEP reading about a universe in which social conservatives are warming to Rudy Giuliani. But this would have to be a place where his estranged children and three wives and multiple appearances in fishnets were irrelevant to the Republican base. Where the nice gay couple he moved in with between marriages would be asked to appear in the film montage at the nominating convention in St. Paul.

Even in the real world, a pro-choice Republican nominee would be a gift to the Democrats, because the Republican Party wins over so many swing voters on abortion alone. Which is why Fred Thompson, who is against abortion rights, is getting so much grateful attention from his party now. And why, despite wide opposition to the war in Iraq, Democrats must still win back such voters to take the White House next year.

Over 18 months, I traveled to 20 states listening to women of all ages, races, tax brackets and points of view speak at length on the issues they care about heading into ’08. They convinced me that the conventional wisdom was wrong about the last presidential contest, that Democrats did not lose support among women because “security moms” saw President Bush as the better protector against terrorism. What first-time defectors mentioned most often was abortion.

Why would that be, given that Roe v. Wade was decided almost 35 years ago? Opponents of abortion rights saw 2004 as the chance of a lifetime to overturn Roe, with a movement favorite already in the Oval Office and several spots on the Supreme Court likely to open up. A handful of Catholic bishops spoke out more plainly than in any previous election season and moved the Catholic swing vote that Al Gore had won in 2000 to Mr. Bush.

The standard response from Democratic leaders has been that anyone lost to them over this issue is not coming back — and that regrettable as that might be, there is nothing to be done. But that is not what I heard from these voters.

Many of them, Catholic women in particular, are liberal, deep-in-their-heart Democrats who support social spending, who opposed the war from the start and who cross their arms over their chests reflexively when they say the word “Republican.” Some could fairly be described as desperate to find a way home. And if the party they’d prefer doesn’t send a car for them, with a really polite driver, it will have only itself to blame.

What would it take to win them back? Respect, for starters — and not only on the night of the candidate forum on faith. As it turns out, you cannot call people extremists and expect them to vote for you. But real respect would require an understanding that what supporters of abortion rights genuinely see as a hard-earned freedom, opponents genuinely see as a self-inflicted wound and — though I can feel some of you tensing as you read this — a human rights issue comparable to slavery.

Again and again, these voters said Democrats are too unwilling to tolerate dissent on abortion. It is a point of orthodoxy no more open to debate within the party than the ordination of women is in Rome.

Democratic Party leaders should also stop pushing the perception that Republicans are natural defenders of the faithful. For years, they have done just that by tirelessly portraying our current president as this committed — indeed, obsessed — pro-lifer who would stop at nothing to see Roe overturned. Karl Rove couldn’t have said it better himself; this was better advertising than hard money could buy.

Today, in a similarly oblivious way, the leading Democratic presidential contenders are condemning the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold a ban on the procedure known as partial-birth abortion. An overwhelming majority of Americans, polls show, support a ban. Legal scholars have underscored the narrowness of the ruling in the partial-birth case, Gonzales v. Carhart, which does not even outlaw all late-term abortions. Yet the leading Democratic candidates, all of whom are lawyers, choose to overstate its impact.

Hillary Clinton called the decision “a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that ... recognized the importance of women’s health.” Barack Obama echoed that it “dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women.” Though John Edwards was one of only two United States senators who did not cast a vote on the bill in 2003, he, too, found the decision to uphold that law “ill-considered and sweeping,” and “a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election.”

Actually, it is a stark reminder of how fully capable they all are of losing it. A Democratic senator I spoke with recently did not see the disconnect between public opinion and the party’s position on Carhart as any reason to worry: “Make no mistake; this is a pro-choice country, period.”
But in a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 41 percent of respondents favored stricter limits on abortion, with an additional 23 percent saying it should not be permitted at all.

What are we to make of all this? Surely at a minimum that our enduring reluctance to acknowledge the complexity of the abortion issue has only prolonged and hardened the debate.
Most Americans fall somewhere between the extremes of “never” and “no problem” when it comes to abortion.

What polling can’t capture and politicians won’t hear is the voice of the nun I interviewed who considers herself pro-choice — and has been disciplined by her diocese as a result — because she does not think abortion is wrong for rape victims. Or the voices of the many women I spoke to who hold far more expansive views yet call themselves pro-life. Most people differentiate between a fetus in the early weeks of development and at nearly full term, and draw the line at a procedure that Democratic Senator Pat Moynihan regarded as infanticide.

Would Democrats who hate Carhart really switch parties or stay home on Election Day if their leaders began to acknowledge such distinctions? After the last seven years, I don’t think so. Yes, the abortion-rights lobby has raised a lot of money since the ban, but the statements of the

Democratic candidates will cost them, too. This issue has been very, very good to the Republican Party — and there is plenty more where that came from.

Melinda Henneberger is the author of “If They Only Listened to Us: What Women Voters Want Politicians to Hear.”

In the News

2007-06-21T13:02:00.000-07:00

Kansas, home on the range, the land of Oz, the sunflower state, and home-sweet-home to the most incompetent bumbler to ever seek and hold elected office and the most irritating columnist ever to lend word to thought. Two articles, one post, could your day get any better??

Like a creepy stalker, Phill Kline just never goes away. I give you, courtesy of The Pitch, “The Dimwit DA”, enjoy!

And perhaps not as enjoyable, here’s the latest in moral high horse-back riding from Wichita Eagle columnist, Brent Castillo. Go ahead and read it. Just like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer, it’ll feel really good when you stop.

They say the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If you’d like to help cut off the oil supply to these guys, stop by the ProKanDo website today and find out how you can help. www.prokando.org.

The Ugly Just Gets Uglier

2007-06-14T14:30:00.000-07:00

Bill O'Reilly and his minions are at it again.

So what's got O'Reilly fired up now? The statements of Dr. McHugh, an "expert" witness in the "case" against Dr. George Tiller. In reality, he was a hired-gun witness for former AG Phill Kline. In that position, he had access to and reviewed late-term abortion records seized by Kline. Recently, McHugh has publicly stated that, in his opinion, none of the late-term abortions were medically justified. Of course, as a paid witness for Kline, he's totally credible and unbiased, right?

Wrong!

Needless to say, speaking publicly about private and sensitive medical records poses both ethical and legal questions. Current AG Paul Morrison quickly gave McHugh a judicial slap-down with a "cease and desist" order. McHugh has so far agreed to abide by the order and make no further comments regarding the medical records.

Of course, all of this has left Mr. O'Reilly foaming at the mouth. Hence, he and his team of crack journalists have evolved from raving commentators into lurking stalkers. Just this week, a member of Team O'Reilly traveled to Wichita to corner and question Dr. George Tiller at a convenience store. You can see the video by clicking here. Or, you can read the transcript here.

Once again, O'Reilly is calling on his viewers to contact and denounce Governor Kathleen Sebelius and as an added bonus, he'd like them to give AG Paul Morrison a buzz as well. It only seems fair that Mr. O' Reilly be visited with the same kindness. If you'd like to contact Bill O'Reilly and tell him what you think, please click here.

In other news, the National Right to Life Committee is holding their national convention this week in Kansas City. So it's no coincidence that O'Reilly is focusing his anti-choice lasers on the great state of Kansas with more fury than usual. The convention and coverage of goings on here in Kansas have even made it to the international press. To read the article from the International Herald Tribune, please click here.

Spy vs. Spy

2007-05-11T12:43:00.000-07:00

Headlines in Kansas, that’s something ProKanDo is used to. Making our way to the Wall Street Journal Online, that’s new. Here’s the beef:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Antichoice Double Agent

Kansas has a new law making it a crime to harm an unborn child, the Wichita Eagle reports.

"Alexa's Law" was a response to the murder of 14-year-old Chelsea Brooks, who was pregnant with a girl she intended to name Alexa. Brooks's boyfriend is now charged with murder for hire.

But as the Eagle notes, "not everyone approved of the governor's actions" in signing Alexa's Law:

The abortion-rights group ProKanDo and others opposed to Alexa's Law had lobbied for a measure that would increase penalties for harming a pregnant woman while not defining the fetus as a separate person.

They say laws like Alexa's Law have done little to protect women in the states where they are already on the books.

"What we need are laws that will place value on the lives of the women who give life," said Julie Burkhart, director of the abortion-rights group ProKanDo.

Huh? 'The women who give life'? What does 'life' have to do with the right to choose? Is Julie Burkhart secretly in the employ of the antichoice Christianist fanatics?”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is insanity, people! Why on earth would a group who favors a woman’s right to reproductive health also want to respect her entire well-being?? Oh wait…now that I’ve typed it out, it actually does make sense.

But seriously folks….

Julie Burkhart as a double agent? Let’s just file that one under “Things that only happen in an alternate universe.”

Governor Sebelius Signs UVVA

2007-05-10T12:57:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Governor Kathleen Sebelius signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA) into law, despite hopes that she would veto it. Obviously, we am very concerned about the implications this law will have for pregnant women in the state of Kansas.

Below, you will see ProKanDo's official statement regarding this issue.

"We are sadly disappointed that Governor Sebelius has chosen to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA) into law. The bill contains no provisions to protect pregnant women in the state of Kansas against violence," said Julie Burkhart, Director, ProKanDo. "In fact, more than 30 states have laws similar to UVVA, and violence against pregnant women in those states has not stopped or even been minimized. Similarly, this law will not help pregnant women in Kansas escape the perils of violent behavior, either."

Burkhart continued, "After Chelsea Brooks' tragic murder, we had hoped that the legislature would focus on legislation that would actually protect pregnant women and their children. Chelsea Brooks was murdered in spite of a protection order. What we need is a full and honest conversation about the rate of male violence against women. What we need are laws that will place value on the lives of the women who give life."

It is with your support that we will continue to fight anti-woman legislation and work to improve laws like UVVA. If you would like to help us with the work that lies ahead, please consider a contribution to ProKanDo. We appreciate all of your support.

To contribute, follow the link below:
http://www.prokando.org/contribute.asp

One Last Chance to Defeat UVVA!

2007-04-27T10:00:00.000-07:00

HB 2062, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), has been approved the by the Kansas House of Representatives. It is now on its way to Governor Kathleen Sebelius' desk for final approval. But, you have one last chance to help defeat this anti-woman bill.

I strongly urge you to contact Governor Sebelius and encourage her to VETO HB 2062. She can reached at her office, 785-296-3232 or you can call toll free at 1-877-579-6757. You can also send her a message by clicking here.

HB 2062 is a bad bill for many reasons. Here are a few things you can tell the Governor:

The Kansas legislature has a responsibility to punish those whose violent actions interfere with a woman's fundamental right to have a child. Existing Motherhood Protection laws (K.S.A. 21-3440 and K.S.A. 21-3441) recognize the particularly heinous nature of crimes against pregnant women by providing separate criminal charges for those who interrupt a pregnancy in the commission of a crime. HB 2062 actually strikes Motherhood Protection Laws.

HB 2062 will have unintended consequences for pregnant women. In South Carolina, a similar law has been used approximately 3 times against actual perpetrators since its inception in 1984. It has been used over 70 times, however, to prosecute women who suffered stillbirths. A similar trend has appeared in other states as well, even though the laws specifically exempt pregnant women just as HB 2062 does.

HB 2062 does nothing to address violence against pregnant women, but functions solely by defining fetuses as people in the Kansas criminal code. Motherhood Protection Laws, on the other hand, keep the focus where it should be - on the victims of these horrible crimes.
UVVA is intentionally vague and overbroad. Motherhood Protection Laws have a specific goal: to punish those who intentionally harm pregnant women. By repealing these acts, it would ignore the harm that is directly done to a pregnant woman and her right to have a baby.

HB 2062 is controversial because for the first time ever, it would define fetuses, from the moment of conception, as full people in Kansas law.

Motherhood Protection Laws address violence against pregnant women without dragging abortion into the debate.

Please ask the Governor to VETO HB 2062. Ask her NOT to repeal existing Motherhood Protection Laws K.S.A. 21-3440 and K.S.A. 21-3441.

Commentary from the peanut gallery...

2007-04-24T13:40:00.000-07:00

The right wing, basking in the ecstasy of a Supreme Court boondoggle, had a few choice nuggets for the world. This is just a sampling of the fortune cookie wisdom coming from the anti-choicers:

Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue: "The court has now said it's OK to ban procedures. We can do more than just put hurdles in front of women seeking abortions - we can put roadblocks in front of them." (Associated Press, 4/19/07)

Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America: "It is just a matter of time before the infamous Roe v. Wade...will also be struck down by the court." (USA Today, 4/19/07)

Leslee Unruh, an anti-choice activist in South Dakota who helped lead the abortion ban in that state: "I'm ecstatic.... It's like someone gave me $1 million and told me, 'Leslee, go shopping.' That's how I feel." (Los Angeles Times, 4/19/07)

Senator Sam Brownback, Republican Presidential Candidate: "I applaud the Court for finding that the Constitution 'expresses respect for the dignity of human life,' and hope that this decision signals the Court's willingness to revisit and reverse Roe v. Wade." (Press release, Brownback for President 4/18/07)

Urgent Legislative Alert!

2007-04-19T08:16:00.000-07:00

House Bill 2062, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), is coming up for a final vote very soon. This is a piece of anti-woman legislation will even effect women who want to have their babies.

HB 2062 will have unintended consequences for pregnant women. In South Carolina, a similar law has been used only three times against an actual perpetrator since its inception in 1984. It has been used over 70 times, however, to prosecute women who were carrying their babies to term. A similar trend has appeared in other states as well, even though the laws specifically exempt pregnant women just as HB 2062 does.

HB 2062 does nothing to address violence against pregnant women, but functions
solely by defining fetuses as people under the Kansas criminal code. Homicide is the number one cause of death amongst pregnant women. Until violence against women is addressed; pregnant women will continue to be murdered.

HB 2062 is controversial because, for the first time ever, it would define fetuses, from the moment of conception, as full people under Kansas law.

Please help us stop this bill today. Please contact the representatives below and ask them to vote "NO" on HB 2062.

Robert Grant
620-457-8496
grant@house.state.ks.us

Shirley Palmer
620-223-4105
palmers@house.state.ks.us

Dennis McKinney
620-723-2129
mckinney@house.state.ks.us

Joshua Svaty
785-472-7794
svaty@house.state.ks.us

Tom Burroughs
913-375-1956
burroughs@house.state.ks.us

Stan Frownfelter
913-262-9659
frownfelter@house.state.ks.us

Steve Lukert
785-284-3623
lukert@house.state.ks.us

Eber Phelps
785-625-5947
phelps@house.state.ks.us

Vincent Wetta
620-326-5205
wetta@house.state.ks.us

Nile Dillmore
316-264-2988
dillmore@house.state.ks.us

Oletha Faust-Goudeau
316-652-9067
faustgoudeau@house.state.ks.us

Raj Goyle
316-681-8133
goyle@house.state.ks.us

Ann Mah
785-266-9434
mah@house.state.ks.us

Melody McCray-Miller
316-744-7516
Millerm@house.state.ks.us

Terry McLachlan
316-619-7879
mclachlan@house.state.ks.us

Cindy Neighbor
913-268-9061
neighbor@house.state.ks.us

Michael Peterson
913-371-7354
peterson@house.state.ks.us

Tom Sawyer
316-265-7076
sawyer@house.state.ks.us

Mark Treaster
620-459-6363
treaster@house.state.ks.us

Ed Trimmer
620-221-7146
trimmer@house.state.ks.us

Jim Ward
316-683-3609
ward@house.state.ks.us

The Capitol Bully

2007-03-30T14:13:00.000-07:00

This article is from The Pitch, enjoy!
Capitol Bully
As a state senator, Jim Barone has been accused of accosting women and using his power for his sons' gain.
By Justin Kendall
Published: March 29, 2007

A 22-year-old Kansas Senate intern had all the guys' eyes during the 2005 legislative session. The Washburn University senior was an intern for Senate President Stephen Morris. She was friendly and confident, energetic and gregarious; her smile was sweet and her eyes piercing.
It started as a bet on a basketball game. Kansas state Sen. Jim Barone bet her dinner that his alma mater, Pittsburg State University, would whip Washburn. But Washburn won the January 26 game, 76-61. Barone wanted to pay up.

Barone — a chubby, graying and balding anti-choice, pro-gun Democrat from Frontenac, Kansas — wasn't just being friendly. The then-63-year-old was in his eighth year as a lawmaker. In that time, he'd earned a reputation for latching on to pretty young women at the Capitol. Barone asked for the intern's cell phone number, and she gave it to him. She didn't think a senator 41 years her senior would call her. But Barone called — often.

He'd call and leave messages for her saying she could call him at any hour; he'd be up all night. Barone called one evening in the waning days of the session. He wanted to get together with the intern. She had gone out for drinks with co-workers at Terry's Bar and Grill in Topeka, a hot spot for lawmakers and statehouse staff during the session. She laughed when she saw Barone's name on her caller ID, but she was "a little freaked out," says a senior Senate staffer who was with the woman that evening.

"She was laughing, but she thought it was going too far," according to the senior Senate staffer.
Barone told her he was going to stop by Terry's because he had a present for her, homemade wine from southeast Kansas. She didn't want to meet him. But, finally, she gave in.
"We have to be very discreet," Barone told her.

Discreet meant that the married Barone would give the wine to the intern outside the bar.
The young woman told her co-workers to stay inside the bar while she fetched the wine. Barone dropped off the bottle, and the woman returned to the bar. But the young woman's co-workers had seen enough.

"When he starts calling an intern and making unwanted advances," a co-worker who was at Terry's that night tells the Pitch, "that's when it crosses the line."

The 22-year-old intern wasn't the first allegation of harassment against Barone. The Pitch has learned of at least two other instances, dating back to Gov. Bill Graves' administration.
But his problems don't end there. The senator has used his position to get one of his sons out of legal trouble and to protect another son's lobbying interests. Barone's harassment of women and his abuse of power have led members of his own party to remove him from prominent positions in the Senate and to publicly question his ability to serve. The gift exchange was the last straw for a senior Senate staffer, who reported Barone to Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley later that session.

"I have never gone to the minority leader to do anything like that before, but because I was familiar with Barone's reputation, and because I felt this particular intern was vulnerable and naïve, I thought, I'm going to put a stop to this," the staff member tells the Pitch. "The bottom line is, what was he doing asking an intern for her phone number? What was he doing calling and leaving messages for her? That right there is incredibly questionable behavior."
Hensley confirmed the story with the Pitch. He says he confronted Barone about the phone calls to the intern.

"I visited with him about it, and he denied it," Hensley tells the Pitch. "But I also had a conversation with the young woman, who was pretty emphatic that that's what happened."
The intern also played voice mail messages for Hensley. However, the woman never filed a formal complaint against Barone, Hensley says.

Hensley's office had heard complaints about Barone before.

About seven years ago, a couple of bureaucrats reported Barone to Hensley for allegedly making repeated phone calls to a female employee of the state's human resources department. The employee was on the verge of filing a sexual harassment suit but agreed not to if the alleged phone calls stopped. Hensley told the bureaucrats to call him if there were other complaints. He never heard from them again.

Hensley can't remember whether he spoke with Barone about the earlier alleged phone calls.

"I have to say that I don't recall that I did," Hensley tells the Pitch. "I may have, but I don't recall that I did. My memory is real fuzzy on that deal."

No official complaints were filed in these instances.

Another woman alleges that Barone tried to swap his support for favors. The woman was a citizen working to lobby the Kansas Legislature, and she says Barone made advances toward her after taking an interest in her cause.

Things went bad from the start. When the woman introduced herself to Barone outside a committee meeting, she says Barone ogled her, looking her up and down, and then said, in a deep voice, "Really?"

"I totally did not expect that at all," the woman tells the Pitch. "I've dealt with many state officials, and they don't do that."

In future meetings, she says, Barone made her feel more uneasy. When the senator would shake her hand in private, he'd place his left hand on top of hers and hold it there. She thought it was strange, but she "didn't want to ruffle any feathers," she says. "He was the only person willing to help me."

One night while discussing the issue, Barone allegedly told her that she was "a very attractive woman."

The woman told Barone that she wanted to stick to the issue.

Barone made no further advances that night, she says, but then he started calling her "baby" in conversations. "I didn't encourage him," the woman tells the Pitch. "I let it go because I really wanted him to help me." Finally, the woman alleges, Barone suggested that they get together.
"I really appreciate what you're doing for us," the woman says she told Barone, "but I'm not interested in any fling or affair. I'm a married woman."

She says he was undeterred. "What two people do behind closed doors is their business," he allegedly told her.

"Look, I'm not going to have a fling with you, period," the woman claims she told him.

Then, she says, Barone lost his cool, telling her: "You owe me."

"I don't owe you anything," the woman says she told Barone. "Aren't you a state senator?"

"You're not even my constituent," Barone allegedly told her. Then, the woman says, Barone became defensive and told her that she had come on to him.
Barone kept calling after she turned him down — for six years, the woman says.

The woman stopped returning his calls.

This year, Hensley has politically neutered Barone, removing the Senator from three important committee positions. In January of this year, Hensley stripped Barone of his position as ranking Democrat on the Senate Ways and Means Committee, which controls the state's budget. In February, Hensley declined to reappoint Barone to the Legislative Building Committee. In March, Hensley pulled Barone from the Kansas Bioscience Authority.

"That's unheard of," says a former co-worker of the intern, who asked not to be named. "What that tells me is the Democrat leadership in the Senate has had enough of him and is tired of dealing with the complaints about him and has basically clipped his wings."

Asked about why he removed Barone from key committees, Hensley read a statement to the Pitch by phone last week in which he said Barone had become a "liability to me and to our caucus" because of his behavior. "My decision to remove him from that position was an accumulation of numerous complaints heard through the years from fellow legislators, lobbyists, state agency heads and others concerned with Sen. Barone's behavior. He has had the consistent pattern of using his position as state senator to mistreat and abuse people and advance his own personal agenda," Hensley said. "Harry Truman had a sign on his desk saying 'The buck stops here.' That same adage applies to decisions I make as the senate minority leader. If [former U.S. Speaker of the House] Denny Hastert had followed this adage when a member of his caucus became a liability, he wouldn't today be sitting on the back row of the U.S. House."
In 2004, Jim Barone narrowly won re-election, edging his opponent by 317 votes. Barone told The Pittsburg Morning Sun that his victory proved that "millionaires can't buy an election, negative campaigning doesn't pay off and integrity and public service does count."
But integrity has been lacking in Barone's behavior on the Senate floor. He isn't above showing up his political opponents — or misleading lobbyists about which way his vote will go.
Barone worked for 30 years in St. Louis for Southwestern Bell. He had been an executive with the telephone company, working in "government relations, operational controls and fiscal management," according to the Morning Sun.

After retiring, Barone returned home to southeast Kansas. When Barone and his wife, Donita, settled in Frontenac, it was a homecoming of sorts. He had grown up in Crawford County in a small coal-mining township called Camp 50, according to the Morning Sun. He graduated from Pittsburg State University in 1962.

His career with the phone company led him away from home. But his political career led him back to Frontenac. In 1996, Barone won his first Senate race.

"When he started out about 10 years ago, he came on like he was going to do the job for the people," says a statehouse source who asked not to be named. "To most people ... his five favorite words are 'What's in it for me?'"

Barone is a restless soul on the Senate floor. He bites his fingernails. He swings and reclines in his chair. He frequently disappears into the Senate break room, out of sight from the Senate gallery. Barone refers to himself in the third person: "this senator."

Last year, Barone helped torpedo a move to revive legislation sought by the regents. Barone was reportedly on the floor yelling at members of his own party not to vote for the bill. The move failed. Afterward, Barone shouted to a state official. When he had the guy's attention, he started rubbing his index and middle fingers together as if he were sharpening a blade. He then made a throat-slitting motion with his fingers and started brushing down his coat as if wiping off the blood spurting from his neck.

"You should have talked to us about this," Barone yelled.

A year earlier, Barone crossed Gov. Kathleen Sebelius on a bill targeting abortion clinics. An amendment was offered to regulate all outpatient medical clinics equally. Barone gave a lobbyist his word that he'd vote for the amendment. When it came time for the vote, Barone voted against it. The amendment failed. When the vote failed, Barone glared at the governor's staff, licked his index finger, and waved it in the air as if to chalk up a victory.
Sebelius vetoed the bill.

Chris Barone, Jim Barone' s middle child, called KU Medical Center on the morning of February 12, 2004, demanding to see Dr. Paul Wetzel. Secretary Jennifer Howse told him that the doctor was booked until March 25. Chris Barone, who was 38 years old then, wasn't satisfied. He demanded the doctor's pager number. When Howse refused to give him the number, he berated her and called her a "bitch," according to court documents.

Howse hung up on him. When Chris Barone called back, Howse transferred him to nurse Carolyn Paul. Chris Barone demanded to speak with Howse's supervisor. Paul told him the supervisor was out of the office. He demanded the supervisor's phone number. Paul refused to give it to him. Chris Barone then threatened to come to the hospital and "raise hell." Before hanging up, he told Paul, "Then fuck you to you, cunt."

The women called the University of Kansas Police Department. Officer Travis Marshall responded at 10 a.m.

"Both receptionists expressed concern for their safety due to these statements," Marshall wrote in his report.

Howse wanted to press charges.

Chris Barone called again. Marshall picked up the phone and asked Chris Barone to come to the hospital and make a statement. He refused. He said he didn't believe Marshall was really a police officer and hung up on him. But Chris Barone called one last time. He asked Howse if she had called the police. She told him she had. Finally, he agreed to come to the hospital.
The officer met Chris Barone in the lobby, where he was arrested for telephone harassment. He was released and told not to return unless he was in need of medical assistance.

Jim Barone had some leverage that could be used to get his son out of trouble: He was the ranking Democrat on the Senate budget committee, which controls KU Medical Center's budget.
A day after the arrest, Melanie Coffman, an official from KU Med Center Executive Dean Barbara Atkinson's office, told Howse that Sen. Barone had called Atkinson and said "that he wanted the charges dropped against his son," court documents say.
Coffman, another Med Center official and an attorney for the hospital asked Howse three more times over the next four weeks to drop the charges. Court documents say Howse was offered apologies and flowers in exchange for dropping the charges. Each time, she refused.
Meanwhile, Chris Barone filed a complaint with the hospital against Howse. In his complaint, which Coffman took by phone, he claimed that Howse ignored his request for medical treatment.

"I am coughing up pure white foam. I cannot eat, and KU is denying me care," he told Coffman. He added that he wasn't "a threat to anyone," and he apologized in the complaint "for whatever I said to the lady who filed charges against me."

In his complaint, Chris Barone also said, "My father is a senator, and my brother is a lawyer."
Howse filed a follow-up police report on February 16. She claimed that Coffman had approached her about dropping the charges. "When Melanie told me she was a rep of Dr. Atkinson and that Sen. Barone had called — I felt some pressure, but I told my side of the story and I told the truth," Howse wrote in the report.

Coffman asked if Howse would accept an apology from Chris Barone and drop the charges, according to the police report. "I said, 'I don't care who his daddy is, I am not going to drop the charges.'"

On March 9, 2004, Chris Barone was scheduled to appear in municipal court on his telephone harassment charge.

Howse was there, but Chris Barone didn't show. A judge issued a warrant for his arrest.
Hours after the hearing, Howse was called to the human resources department to talk to Chris McGoldrick, the senior business administrator for internal medicine, and Saunny Jordan, human resources manager for internal medicine. They told her she was fired. (Jordan declined to comment; McGoldrick no longer works at the medical center.)

In court documents, Howse claimed that McGoldrick said, "Sometimes people get fired for political reasons." She also claimed that McGoldrick told her four or five times, "Surely you knew this was going to happen." Howse kept telling him, "No."

Howse called Officer Marshall on March 11 to complain that she had been fired for pursuing the charges against Chris Barone. Howse filed a police report with Marshall.

On April 30, 2004, Chris Barone pleaded guilty to charges of telephone harassment. He was fined $200.

Howse filed a lawsuit on July 22, 2004, against KU Medical Center, Atkinson and another hospital official. She claimed in the suit that hospital administrators were more interested in "pleasing a Kansas Senator who is responsible for funding the Medical Center" than the "best interests" of the hospital.

The case settled out of court on November 3, 2005. Terms of the settlement are confidential.
"The matter was resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties," says Carrie Mulholland Brous, Howse's attorney.

Chris Barone has had other legal problems. In June 2003, Chris Barone was arrested in Crawford County for possession of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia. He still owes Jackson County, Missouri, $8,821.43 in unpaid property taxes on 4547 Fairmount Avenue, which he purchased from his father in 2003. Jim Barone bought the house in 2001 and deeded it to Chris in 2003.

Jim Barone doesn't want to talk about his family. He refuses to talk about his sons — Chris and Kevin — or answer questions about using his influence to try to get Chris Barone out of legal jams.

"You can do all of the research you want on me," Jim Barone tells the Pitch. "It'll be hard to find me talking about my family."

During the 2006 session, Senate leaders were scrambling to get a 21-vote majority to pass an expanded casino gaming bill. Lawmakers saw gambling as a way to pay for an increase in school funding. But Jim Barone, a self-professed supporter of gambling expansion in Kansas, was balking at the bill. His reason: a provision in the bill could prevent his son Kevin from keeping a job.

In early March of last year, Barone met with officials of the Sumner County Economic Development Commission in south central Kansas, according to the Morning Sun. He told the county's economic development team that they had a shot of being included in the gaming bill.
About the same time as the meeting, the county hired Jim Barone's son Kevin to lobby on behalf of the county's gaming interests. Barone's fee for lobbying the Legislature was $1,250 a month plus expenses, according to The Caldwell Messenger.

But Sumner, in farm country south of Wichita, had never been discussed as a potential casino site.

Hensley, the minority leader, blasted Barone in an editorial in The Wellington Daily News, saying Barone had misled the people of Sumner County. "I find it disturbingly coincidental that Sen. Barone's son, Kevin Barone, was then hired to lobby for Sumner County," Hensley wrote. "In my opinion, no legislator should place their personal interests above the interests of every other Kansan."

Barone was unable to deliver gambling to Sumner County. He would eventually cast his vote in favor of expanded gambling, though the measure failed.

Lawmakers added a conflict-of-interest clause to the bill, barring legislators and their family members from working in the gaming industry until they'd been out of office for five years.
"It wasn't an accident that we wrote a bill to take care of what we saw as very egregious overstepping of bounds," an architect of the bill, who asked that his name not be used, tells the Pitch.

A former legislator adds, "It just smells bad when there's an opportunity for a legislator's family member to gain from a piece of legislation that the legislature is voting on. I think anybody can see that."

Barone complained to reporters that the conflict-of-interest provision was "far overreaching." His opposition came at the expense of his home county. Crawford County voters had passed a referendum in 2005 in support of expanding casino gambling in the county.

Sumner County has retained Kevin Barone to lobby lawmakers again in 2007.

The hallway outside room No. 181-E is empty except for a security guard sitting next to the entrance to the Capitol building. Sen. Jim Barone has two minutes before he has to be at the Senate Ways and Means Committee. A Pitch reporter introduces himself to Barone as he exits his office. Barone glares at the reporter, leaving the reporter's outstretched hand hanging in the air. "Come here," Barone grumbles, stomping back into his office.

Barone storms past three secretaries. He goes no farther than the doorway. Barone's office is decorated with Pittsburg State University memorabilia — a red-and-gold PSU rug sits in the doorway to his office. A framed portrait of PSU's mascot, a gorilla, hangs on the wall next to his desk. A gold-colored statue of a gorilla sits next to a gold donkey on his desk. He leaves the door half-open. The lights are off, and the room has the gray haze of a midday afternoon.

"Do you have that statement?" Barone asks one of the secretaries.

"Yeah, I just printed it," she says.

"Let's see it," Barone says. He grabs the statement, places it on a table near the door and signs it.

The statement was prepared before Barone knew what the reporter wanted to discuss. When asked about the incident with the intern, he says, "You know, I ain't got nothing to say about that." He looks at the ceiling of his office in disbelief. "That wasn't true," he adds somberly. "Have you talked to the lady?"

Barone storms off to his committee meeting.

The statement isn't on Senate letterhead. "From the Office of Jim Barone" reads the top of the white page.

"I have always made it a practice not to respond to rumors, gossip, or innuendos and I do not intend to change my position now," it reads. "It has always been my long standing personal belief that my personal family life and the personal lives of my family members are just that, personal and private family matters.
"My job as a citizen legislator is to represent the folks back home to the best of my ability and my conservative democratic district doesn't always think exactly like my state party. I am proud to be a lifelong Kansas democrat but my number one concern is taking care of business for the people who elected me.
"The folks in my district are like family and family comes first."

A week later, Barone invites a Pitch reporter back to his office to discuss his work as a senator. Barone has only a few minutes before he has to leave to take pictures with legislative pages. He promises a Pitch reporter that he'll finish the interview later if he has to skip out.

Barone spends much of the interview dodging questions. Asked about his demotion on Ways and Means and the Buildings Committee, Barone pauses and says, "Ask the senator who did that." Then he dismisses the question by saying, "That laundry has been washed. I don't see any value in re-plowing that field." Barone adds, "I'm an optimist. You can't unfry an egg. That egg's been fried."

Barone says the demotions haven't hurt his standing in the Democratic Party. "My sense is I still enjoy the same amount of respect that I've always had," Barone says.

Barone runs through his legislative agenda. He clicks his pen. He bites his fingernails. He jingles the change in his pocket. He unbuckles the watch that has been jangling on his wrist. Barone reclines in his chair with his hands on his head, as if he were doing situps.

Barone opens a manila folder on his desk and runs through the Senate bills he's working on. He wants to set up a riverfront authority for Fort Scott and Bourbon counties. The bill made it out of committee and was headed for floor debate. He's pushing a scholarship fund for students who graduate from Frontenac High School; every student would get a scholarship, $800 maximum, toward any postsecondary education. He also wants to create sinkhole insurance.

From the shelf behind him, Barone grabs a copy of Newt Gingrich's Winning the Future. He reads the inscription inside: "To Senator Jim Barone, your friend Newt Gingrich. Good luck on your price posting bill."

The former Republican speaker of the house visited Topeka last year.

"He heard about my bill," Barone says proudly. He's referring to a bill he introduced that would require hospitals to post the costs of 25 common outpatient procedures, such as chest X-rays, mammograms and blood tests. "He very aggressively supports it."

As Barone departs for his photo-op, he says he will discuss only some aspects of the gambling bill. "Remember the ground rules," Barone warns. "I'm not going to talk about [family], but I'll talk about my work up here.

"The bill didn't make it. I supported the bill, voted for it, but it didn't make it. Check the record."
Ten minutes later, returning from the photo-op, Barone tells his secretary to fetch a transcript of the testimony he delivered before the Federal and State Affairs Committee last year.
Asked about corruption in gambling, Barone says, "Is there corruption in gaming? What evidence do you have of that? There's a history of corruption in every facet of our lives: state government, highway contracting, schools, newspapers — fair?"

The secretary returns with his testimony. "I can exert very little financial control in my own household," Barone's testimony, dated March 10, 2006, reads. "Most of you know that Donita runs it, and I guarantee you that very few, if any of us, can exert strict financial control over adult family members not residing in our households. How are we to know what their business activities are?"

Satisfied with his answer, Barone changes the subject and calls himself "an old man ... on Social Security." A Pitch reporter says Barone isn't hurting for money with his legislative salary.
"You a gambling man?" Barone asks. "I bet you a Coke, a lunch, a steak that you make more than I do up here."

The reporter declines to take the bet.

Barone digs in his bag.

"I just happen to have something here, and I'll gladly give it to you to do away with any misconceptions of what we make," Barone says. He takes out his W2 tax form, passes it to the reporter and reads the numbers with satisfaction: $15,084.21.

"Publish it," he says.

Sandra Day O'Connor Retires; What's Next for Women's Rights and the Supreme Court

2005-07-01T09:33:00.000-07:00

Friday, July 1, 2005
Bush gets first chance for Court nominee
By DEB RIECHMANN

ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

President Bush arrives to make a statement about the retirement of Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor in the Rose Garden of the White House Friday, July 1, 2005 in Washington. O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court and a swing vote on abortion as well as other contentious issues, announced her retirement Friday. A bruising Senate confirmation struggle loomed as President Bush selects a successor.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush said Friday he will pick a successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a timely manner so her vacancy can be filled by the time the Supreme Court resumes work in the fall.

The White House said he would not decide before returning from Europe July 8.
Bush will consult with Republican and Democratic senators about his selection, and will talk with them on the flight to Denmark next Tuesday and during his stay Wednesday through Friday at the summit of leading industrialized nations, in Gleneagles, Scotland, said presidential spokesman Scott McClellan.

The White House got the first indication of the retirement on Thursday when the Supreme Court's head marshal, Pamela Talkin, called White House counsel Harriet Miers to make arrangements to deliver a sealed envelope the next morning. Miers informed Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who were having lunch together, that a letter was coming. Talkin informed the White House around 9 a.m. Friday that the letter was from O'Conner , and Miers alerted Bush .

The president spoke with O'Connor before he appeared in the Rose Garden to express appreciation for her 24 years of service.

"For an old ranching girl, you turned out pretty good," he told O'Connor, who grew up on an Arizona ranch. But it was an emotional call, McClellan said. He quoted Bush as telling her, "You're one of the great Americans" and "I wish I were there to hug you."

Lactivists Fight for Women's Rights

2005-06-14T12:46:00.000-07:00

Lactivists' nursing anger

Walters' remark on breast-feeding

sparks moms' protest at ABC

By Amy Harmon New York Times News Service

Published June 7, 2005

The calls for a "nurse-in" began on the Internet mere moments after Barbara Walters uttered a negative remark about public breast-feeding on her ABC talk show, "The View."

Inspired by similar events organized by a growing group of unlikely activists nationwide, the protest brought about 200 women to ABC's headquarters Monday. "Shame on View," their signs read. "Babies Were Born to be Breastfed."

Walters, who had said a few weeks ago on the show that the sight of a woman breast-feeding on an airplane next to her had made her uncomfortable, said through a spokesman that "it was a particular circumstance, and we are surprised that it warrants a protest."

But the rally at ABC is only the most visible example of a recent wave of "lactivism." Prodded by mothers tired of being asked to adjourn to a bathroom while nursing in a public space, six states have recently passed laws giving a woman the right to breast-feed wherever she "is otherwise authorized to be."

An Ohio bill saying a woman is "entitled to breast-feed her baby in any place of public accommodation" passed the Legislature last month over the objection of one representative who wanted to exempt businesses from liability for accidents caused by "spillage."

"I really don't know any women who `spill,"' said Lisa Wilson, mother of a 4-month-old in Fairview Park, Ohio, who helped organize a nurse-in at a local deli to support the bill.

Trying for federal law

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) hosted a nurse-in on the Capitol's Cannon Terrace last month as she reintroduced federal legislation to amend the Civil Rights Act to protect women from employment discrimination for using a breast pump or feeding babies during breaks.

Nursing mothers are pressuring businesses too. Burger King has declared they are welcome. Starbucks, the target of a letter-writing campaign that asked "What's more natural than coffee and milk?" also has.

The flurry of moves come as the number of American women who choose to breast-feed has climbed from about half in 1990 to close to 70 percent.

"We're all told that breast-feeding is the best, healthiest thing you can do for your child," said Lorig Charkoudian, 32, who started the Web site www.nurseatstarbucks.com after being asked to use the bathroom to nurse at her local Starbucks. "And then we're made to feel ashamed to do it without being locked in our homes."

Legislators, business owners and family members are debating how to reconcile the health benefits of nursing with the prevailing cultural squeamishness toward nursing in public.

"It's nothing against breast-feeding. It's about exposing yourself for people who don't want to see it," said Scotty Stroup, the owner of a restaurant in Round Rock, Texas, where a nursing mother was refused service last fall.

But the new generation of lactivists compare discomfort with seeing breast-feeding in public to discomfort with seeing interracial couples or gays holding hands.

"It's like any other prejudice. They have to get used to it," said Rebecca Odes, who attended the ABC protest. "People don't want to see it because they feel uncomfortable with it, and they feel uncomfortable with it because they don't see it."

Whether to breast-feed in public, many nursing mothers say, is not simply a matter of being respectful. They cite research by the Food and Drug Administration showing that the degree of embarrassment a mother feels about breast-feeding plays a bigger role in determining whether she is likely to breast-feed than household income, length of maternity leave or employment status.

Medical advice on practice

The American Academy of Pediatrics urges that women feed their babies only breast milk for the first six months and continue breast-feeding for at least an additional six months. But while more women are breast-feeding for the first few weeks, fewer than one-third are still nursing after six months.

"To many mothers, breast-feeding runs up against sexual attitudes toward the breast," said Dr. Lawrence Gartner, who leads the academy's research on breast-feeding. "That reduces the prevalence of breast-feeding, which is a bad situation because duration of breast-feeding is an important factor in children's health."

Even mothers who are committed to nursing say they are shaken when confronted.

"People make you feel like you're doing something dirty almost," said Rene Harrell, 26, of Chantilly, Va., who recently was asked to leave a Delta Airlines lounge in Atlanta as she nursed her 8-month-old son, Elijah.

New Women's E-News Article Highlights ProKanDo

2005-06-06T10:51:00.000-07:00

Hands Off My Medical History

By Ann Farmer, Women's eNewsPosted on June 6, 2005

http://www.alternet.org/story/22157/

A woman seeking reproductive health care usually starts by filling out a questionnaire detailing her complete medical history including whether she is sexually active, past illnesses, number of pregnancies, number of live births, contraceptive use, marital status, gender of her sexual partner, occupation, address and more.

Yet, as the legal battles over reproductive rights continue to increase in number and intensity, more and more women have become reluctant to be open and frank.

And after last week--when an Indiana judge on May 30 denied the request of Planned Parenthood of Indiana to stop the state's Attorney General Steve Carter from accessing the medical records of its young clients--it may be even harder for doctors to gather an accurate health history from women and teens.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana filed its lawsuit in March after the state attorney general's office implemented the state Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, which apparently overrides federal health privacy laws, to investigate whether more than forty Planned Parenthood affiliates are properly reporting cases of rape and molestation involving girls under 14. The lawsuit also asked the Superior Court judge to require the return of records already taken by the attorney general's office. Following the judge's denial, Planned Parenthood requested a stay in the case and has vowed to appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals if necessary.

"I think it's very disturbing and frightening," says Dorothy Greene, a New York City writer who had an abortion years ago but chooses not to share that information with her doctors. "I don't know anymore where these records end up or who sees them. I don't want to feel that the personal private records of mine will be open to scrutiny by someone who has no business looking at them except for their personal ideological reasons."

Indiana is the second state in a matter of months in which prosecutors have sought full access to medical records held by reproductive health clinics.

Kansas Subpoenas

In February, Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline served subpoenas on two Kansas reproductive health clinics seeking access to the medical records of at least 90 women who had used its abortion services.

Attorneys for the two clinics--Comprehensive Health, a Planned Parenthood clinic located in the suburbs of Kansas City and Women's Health Care Services, located in Wichita--filed an appeal on March 16 with the Kansas Supreme Court to block Kline's access to the unedited files, which include the patient's name, medical history, psychological profile and sexual history.

"We made a commitment to our patients that their records are confidential and private," says Peter Brownlie, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, which, along with Women's Health Care Services, has not released any files to date.

The decision on whether to uphold Kline's injunction is pending review by the seven-member Kansas Supreme Court and may not be issued for months.

The Kansas women whose medical records were subpoenaed have expressed outrage at what they see as an incursion into their privacy, says Julie Burkhardt, executive director of ProKanDo, a pro-choice political action committee that she founded along with Dr. George Tiller, medical director of Women's Health Care Services. "They're very concerned that a non-medical official was going to be searching through their medical records."

Legal Violations

Both clinics cited in the subpoenas offer legal second-trimester abortion services.
Kline says that he's investigating possible violations of a state law limiting late-term abortions and another that requires the mandatory reporting of suspected child rape.

"This is a fishing expedition," retorts Brownlie of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, noting that Kline is poised to run next year for either a second term as attorney general or for the governorship. "We fully comply with Kansas' laws."

Whitney Watson, spokesperson for Kansas Attorney General Kline, refused to discuss any potential evidence, saying only that the District Court judge who signed the subpoenas had determined that probable cause existed.
Critics say Kline is pushing an anti-choice agenda.

"He has been very clear throughout his political career that he is out to get abortion providers," Burkhardt says. "When this inquisition broke back in February, he repeatedly said that this is about protecting children from child rapists."

But she says that Kline has subpoenaed the records of all women--not just the very young--who had abortions at or after 22 weeks of pregnancy during 2003.
She says if Kline's motive was to uncover possible instances of child sexual abuse he'd also be looking at the records of family physicians, psychologists, social workers and others.

When asked about that, Watson responded, "You don't know that we're not."
A spokesperson for the Indiana attorney general's office also says that it is pursuing its legal obligation to investigate potential wrongdoing involving minors.

Signs of Intimidation

Although Planned Parenthood declines to say exactly how much activity it lost at the Kansas clinic, it contends that the empty places in its appointment books indicate that Kline's actions were intimidating women who would normally be seeking its health care services.

"We are concerned about the chilling effect," says Brownlie. "We had phone calls from patients wanting to know if their privacy was at risk."

Concealing their medical histories can put patients' health at risk, says Katharine O'Connell, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University.

For instance, says O'Connell, many teens today take the acne drug Accutane. If they do not reveal to their doctors that they are pregnant, they might continue taking the drug, which can cause serious birth defects.

"Doctors trust that patients will be open to them," says O'Connell.

Health workers, however, say patients often feel there is a bigger risk in sharing their information.

"What people leave out are the things they're ashamed of or perceive others to have judgment about," says Leslie Rottenberg, senior director of social services for Planned Parenthood of New York. She cited sexually transmitted diseases, drugs and abortions as likely omissions.

Rottenberg adds women most often omit their abortion history, worrying that somehow their employers might find out and that minors, in particular, are concerned about insurance information reaching their parents.

"There is definite concern about where that information goes and who will know and who will have access to it," she says.

Discouraging Headlines

Carole Joffe, a professor of sociology at the University of California, Davis, believes even more women would conceal their abortion history if they knew what was going on in Kansas and Indiana.

"When young women in society see headline after headline that says the attorney general is seeking abortion records, it just adds to the sense that abortion is stigmatized. And that your records may be subpoenaed."

This stigma surrounding abortion, she says, compels many women to reach for their pocketbook rather than use their health insurance to cover the procedure.
"They're afraid to let their insurance company know or have it become part of their permanent medical record."

Both state cases follow a failed attempt in 2003 by former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to gain access to women's medical records across the nation as part of litigation to defend an anti-choice law passed by Congress which would have banned abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy.

In addition, in 2002, after the discovery of a dismembered infant in Iowa, local law enforcement officials subpoenaed approximately 1,000 positive pregnancy test results from a Planned Parenthood affiliate there in attempts to locate the mother. Months later they withdrew the subpoena after lawyers for Planned Parenthood of Iowa successfully appealed to the state Supreme Court to block and review the lower court order. Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller cited a deficit of time and resources as his reason for backing off from that intrusion into women's privacy.

Ann Farmer is a freelance writer who lives in Brooklyn, N.Y.

Cynthia Cooper contributed reporting to this article.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/22157/

LA Times Article Sheds Light On Late-Term Abortion

2005-05-31T09:02:00.000-07:00

A Late Decision, a Lasting Anguish

A Kansas doctor is under investigation for
performing abortions others won't. His clients say outsiders
can't grasp their pain or gratitude.

By Stephanie Simon Times Staff Writer

May 31, 2005 WICHITA, Kan. —

The moment is burned forever in her mind: The small exam room, her husband's ashen face, her sobs as the doctor guided a needle into her womb to kill her son.

It's been 4 1/2 years, and still Marie Becker can feel Daniel kicking inside her, kicking and kicking as she choked back hysteria — kicking until the drug stopped his heart and she felt only stillness.

She prayed Daniel would forgive her.

She prayed for forgiveness from God as well. Becker had been taught that abortion was a sin; she wanted so to believe it might also be a blessing. In her seventh month of pregnancy she had learned Daniel had a fatal genetic disorder and his life would be brief and brutal. She wanted to spare him that.

"For the love of God, the last thing I wanted to do was to murder my own child," she said recently. "This was something we did out of love and respect for him."

Becker, who asked to be identified by her middle and maiden names, tells Daniel's story to other pregnant women who find out when they are many months along that their babies are terminally ill or severely disabled. Through an online support group, she listens as they work through their options; if they choose abortion, she tells them what to expect.

These days she also prays for one of the few doctors in the nation who will take them as patients: Dr. George R. Tiller, who performed her abortion. Specializing in late second- and third-trimester abortions, his clinic here draws women from across the country and around the world.

Tiller's clinic aborted 295 viable fetuses last year and 318 the year before; his website says that he has performed more late-term abortions than anyone else practicing in the Western Hemisphere.

But the clinic is now under criminal investigation for some of those procedures.

Like most states, Kansas does not permit abortions of viable fetuses unless carrying the pregnancy to term would substantially and irreversibly damage the mother's health. Kansas Atty. Gen. Phill Kline is investigating whether Tiller's patients were truly in that much danger. Tiller's lawyers respond that he has "always consistently, carefully and appropriately followed the law in all respects."

Kline, who opposes all abortions, maintains that the mental health concerns some women cite as their main reason for terminating — including depression or anxiety about raising a disabled child — do not justify late-term abortions under Kansas law. He has demanded access to the medical records of dozens of patients. The clinic has appealed to the state Supreme Court; a decision is expected within weeks.

Tiller's patients await the ruling with mounting anger. They say no outsider could ever understand the complex tangle of emotions that brought them to Women's Health Care Services — the psychological and physical strains that made continuing their pregnancies unbearable.

"I don't know what I would have done had [Dr. Tiller] not been available to me," said Katie Plazio, a financial analyst from New Jersey. "That's selfish, I know. I feel selfish. But … doesn't everyone want the best for themselves and their family?"

Like Becker and most women who spoke for this story, Plazio asked to use her middle and maiden names to protect her privacy. Many of Tiller's patients have not told their co-workers, friends or even close relatives that they had terminated pregnancies. Their abortions were verified by a review of clinic records they supplied.

For Plazio, the heartache began with the unexpected. After a decade of infertility, she was stunned to feel a kick to her ribs as she sat through a meeting in February 2001. She had been dieting for weeks, running five miles a day — and wondering why she still couldn't squeeze into her pants. She was six months pregnant.

Overjoyed, Plazio and her husband scheduled an amniocentesis. The preliminary results were clean; bursting with excitement, Plazio, then 43, bought a baby blanket dotted with pale blue bunnies. Ten days later, her doctor called with devastating news: More complete genetic tests had determined that their son had Down syndrome.

Plazio had studied special education in college; working with adults with Down syndrome, she had seen their lives as lonely, frustrating, full of hurt. She was not sure she could find joy in raising her son to such a future. She didn't think she could cope with what she expected would be a lifetime of sadness and struggle.

Giving her son up for adoption seemed even worse — to wake each morning not knowing where he was, imagining him scared and alone. "I could not live with that fear all my life," Plazio said.

"I don't want anyone to think that I did this all for Matthew," she said. "I was not just sparing him problems. I was sparing my daughter, my husband, me and all those who depend on me…. I knew the limits of my family and my marriage. Maybe there are families who can handle it all. Maybe they are better people. But I knew I could not do it."

In March 2001, a week into her third trimester, she and her husband flew to Tiller's clinic. They took the bunny blanket and a teddy bear with a big red heart on its chest — a gift to the baby from their daughter, then 11.

Since her abortion, Plazio has suffered such severe panic attacks that she can't drive even as far as the high school to watch her daughter cheerlead. She has gained 60 pounds as she battles depression. The abortion she sought to preserve her mental health has left her deeply shaken; doctors say she suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome.

Her mental health, she is convinced, would be even worse had she tried to raise a profoundly disabled son — or had she given him up for adoption.

The abortion "released my poor sick baby back to the angels," she said. "The only thing I wish I had done differently was realize I was pregnant months earlier."

Third-trimester terminations like Plazio's are unusual.

About 95% of U.S. abortions are performed within the first 15 weeks of pregnancy, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit center for reproductive rights and health research.

About 20,000 women a year seek abortions after the 21st week, which marks roughly the midway point in a pregnancy. Perhaps 1,000 terminate after 24 weeks, when the fetus is generally considered viable. The practice, though rare, makes many Americans uneasy. While 60% say abortion should be legal in the first trimester of pregnancy, 12% say it should be legal in the third trimester, according to a Harris poll conducted in February.

Three clinics in the nation perform abortions in the third trimester. One is in Los Angeles, one in Boulder, Colo. The best-known — recommended by many genetic counselors — is Tiller's bunker-like clinic on a freeway frontage road in Wichita, next to a car dealership. Outside, protesters have erected dozens of white crosses; they maintain a prayer vigil by the gate and try to pull women aside for counseling — especially on Tuesday mornings, when Tiller sees patients seeking late-term abortions.

The women who push past the protesters Tuesdays include young victims of rape or incest who did not realize they were pregnant until just weeks from their due dates. Most are married women with much-wanted pregnancies who got a late diagnosis of fetal anomaly: a malformed heart, a missing brain, an open spinal column, an extra chromosome.

Some of the deformities are lethal. Others are not. A few fall in a gray area: The physical problems might be reparable through surgery, but the operations are risky and grueling.

One patient who had an abortion at 25 weeks in November said she could not bear to imagine surgeons cutting open her daughter's tiny chest to rebuild her heart. The thought of her Emma spending months of her childhood in the hospital overwhelmed the woman, a 30-year-old technology educator from Virginia who asked to be identified by her middle name, Paige.

"Part of me just wanted to let her die," Paige said. "Is that horrible?"

Marie Becker had the same impulse — and the same question — about her son.

At a four-month ultrasound, the doctor noticed that Daniel's limbs seemed short. She told Becker not to worry, but suggested another ultrasound in a few weeks. At that appointment, Daniel again measured short. Becker was told to come back in another month.

Becker, an accounting clerk, and her husband, a teacher, tried not to dwell on their fears for their first child. They delighted in the ultrasound pictures: Blurry black-and-white images of an arm, a leg, a face. In one, Daniel appeared to be waving; the technician typed a caption: "Hi, mom!"

Becker was 27 weeks pregnant when she went in for her next appointment. By then, it was clear that something was wrong.

A few days later, her doctor confirmed that Daniel had a rare and lethal skeletal disease. His organs were growing normally, but his bones were not; his tiny rib cage was slowly crushing his expanding heart and lungs. "His prognosis was death," Becker said. "Not at 8 years old. Not at 10 years old. Within a few months at most."

In her Florida home, with her husband at her side, Becker wept and prayed for days. Conflicting emotions overwhelmed her. She was scared to carry Daniel to term — scared of how she would react to his deformities. She was afraid to abort, sure she would burn in hell. Her son disgusted her; she wanted him out of her body. She loved him. She wanted to protect him.

Becker, who was then 30, blamed herself for making Daniel sick: Hadn't she taken migraine pills before she knew she was pregnant? Hadn't she sipped a few glasses of wine? Was it that ride at SeaWorld, the one that whirled her around? Had that caused his genes to mutate?"

I was so afraid," she said. "It was bad enough that I had inflicted this on him. I didn't want him to suffer any more."

The week before Christmas, at the start of her third trimester, Becker and her husband flew to Kansas.

Every detail of the trip remains vivid. She remembers staring, transfixed, at the freshly cleaned carpet in the Wichita airport. She remembers driving to the hotel through ice and snow — and turning away from a billboard plastered with gruesome photos of aborted fetuses. On the morning of the appointment, she threw up in the hotel shower, then insisted she needed time to style her hair; her looks seemed the one thing she could control, and she took long minutes applying her lipstick.

When she and her husband turned into the clinic parking lot, a handful of elderly protesters swarmed them, yelling, "Don't go in!" and "You don't have to do this!"

The activists were peaceful that day, but there had been scattered violence: The clinic was bombed in 1986 and blockaded for six weeks in the summer of 1991. In 1993, an antiabortion activist shot Tiller through both arms. He now works in a bulletproof vest.

Armed guards pat down patients and walk them through a metal detector at the clinic door. After paying for their abortions — which can cost more than $5,000, depending on the stage of pregnancy — patients wait in a room decorated floor to ceiling with framed letters from grateful women.

"We couldn't stop reading them," Becker said. "When you see how many people wrote letters, when you see how much they love this man, it almost feels like you're being hugged."

Becker still believes that abortion is wrong in most cases. Sitting in her Florida bungalow, her two young daughters playing beside her, she recalled a movie she once saw in Catholic school, of a baby being ripped limb from limb. The image haunts her.

She finds it reprehensible that Tiller aborts healthy fetuses in the first and second trimester (and even, sometimes, in the third trimester when the mother is very young, or a victim of rape). But she cannot censure him too harshly.

For children like Daniel, "the man is a savior," she said. "He's there for women who have nowhere else to go."

With most advanced pregnancies, Tiller performs abortions by injecting the fetus with digoxin to stop its heart. He then gradually dilates the woman's cervix to induce labor. After two or three days of contractions, the women — heavily dosed with pain medication — deliver their babies intact.

Some refuse to look. But many hug their dead children. "It was very important to us to be able to hold her, to give her that kind of respect," said Paige, who aborted her daughter at the end of the second trimester. "This was not just a fetus to me. She was my child."

After Susan Crocker's second-trimester abortion in August, she and her fiance spent three hours cradling their daughter, Isabella, who had Down syndrome. They stroked her scrunched red face and kissed her rounded cheeks. They took pictures of her tiny, almost translucent hands, folded across a green-and-pink striped blanket.

Crocker, a 34-year-old customer service manager, keeps Isabella's ashes in a marble urn decorated with dolphins; she kisses it before she goes to bed each night. Her sons follow her lead. On Halloween, they each gave a Tootsie Roll to Isabella. Jordan, 5, shares his toys with her, propping a little plastic skateboard against the urn.

When a doctor once referred to Crocker as a mother of two, Jamie, the 9-year-old, interrupted indignantly: "No, she has three kids."

"Her daughter's in her heart," said Jordan.

Despite her family's support, Crocker, who lives in Texas, has struggled with doubt and depression. "I did the unthinkable," she said. "I ended my baby's life. Sometimes I think, oh God, what if I was wrong?"

Then she thinks about the room where Tiller stopped Isabella's heart. There was a poster on the ceiling of a leaping dolphin. Underneath, it said: "Set them free."

She believes Isabella is free.

"I ended her suffering," she said. "I owe Dr. Tiller greatly. I can never, ever thank him enough."

Crocker sometimes wishes she could talk to the protesters who shouted as she entered the clinic: "Think about your baby!" She would tell them she was thinking of Isabella then, and thinks of her still, every day, with love. She would ask them not to judge.

"You don't know," she'd tell them. "You have no idea. Until it happens to you, you don't know."

Opinion Piece Published in The Wichita Eagle

2005-05-04T10:47:00.000-07:00

Posted on Wed, May. 04, 2005

MY VIEW: PHARMACISTS SHOULD HAVE TO FILL ORDERS

BY JULIE BURKHART

There is an alarming trend among pharmacists who believe it is appropriate to force their personal beliefs on the very people they have pledged to serve in our communities across this nation. Some pharmacists do this by refusing to sell their female customers various methods of birth control.

It is reprehensible that these medical professionals would stand in self-righteous judgment of those seeking prescription medications for appropriate and legal medical care.

The American Pharmacists Association published a Code of Ethics for Pharmacists in 1994 to regulate licensed professionals. Section III recognizes and "promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes the individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health.... In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients."

Section VIII states that a "pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources. When health resources are allocated, a pharmacist is fair and equitable, balancing the needs of patients and society."
Refusing to fill prescriptions based on personal ethical background is a violation of a pharmacist's professional obligation.

The American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project released a report in 2002 that found a majority of U.S. citizens overwhelmingly opposed allowing health care providers to deny services on the basis of religious or moral objections. A remarkable 86 percent of those polled opposed allowing pharmacies to refuse to fill prescriptions based on religious beliefs.

American pharmacists should fill every prescription across the board, regardless of their own morals. The privacy between the patient, physician and pharmacist should remain strictly confidential.

Ultraconservative pharmacists are creating media frenzy and forsaking the bonds of privacy by violating their professional oath. In contrast, responsible pharmacists equitably serve the needs of the patient rather than furthering their own moralistic, political agendas.

A pharmacist's position in society is not to act as an activist for the anti-choice movement. Instead, pharmacists should compassionately recognize the inherent worth of their clients and be accepting of their clients' personal, religious and cultural differences. Unfortunately, misogynistic undertones haunt these pharmacists who discriminate against women by not providing access to birth control.

Women deserve to be provided with the highest quality of care and to be trusted with issues regarding their own bodies.

Julie Burkhart of Wichita is executive director of ProKanDo, a pro-choice political action committee.

Published in The Wichita Eagle

Fifth and Final Talk Shop for 2005

2005-05-04T08:55:00.000-07:00

From ProKanDo Listserve May 3,2005

Dear Friends,

This month we will be hosting our fifth and final Talk Shop for 2005. The event is scheduled for Saturday, May 21st, from 10 a.m. until noon. Our last Talk Shop will focus on girls from all social classes and backgrounds who faced negative labeling in school.

Our guest speaker will be Shelly Endsley who works at the YWCA Crisis Center and the Women’s Studies Department at Wichita State University. Shelly will lead discussion over the book, Slut! Growing up Female with a Bad Reputation. We recommend that you read the book before attending, but it is not required.

Public libraries should have copies of the book, but if not… the book is available for sale online at www.half.com or www.amazon.com. If you purchase it at a bookstore, like Barnes and Noble or Borders, the list price is about $13.00. The book is a small paperback, a good read and definitely worth the effort.

So please join us, May 21st at 10 a.m. at 5 Crestview Lakes Estates in Wichita for a book discussion of Slut! There will be bagels, cream cheese, fruit, coffee and juice.

We would love for you to join us! Please call 316.691.2002 to RSVP or e-mail prokando@sbcglobal.net

You can also check out a review of this book by clicking here.

Roll Call Vote for HB 2503

2005-05-04T08:00:00.000-07:00

From ProKanDo listserve April 29,2005

Dear Friends,

Yesterday was a victorious day for pro-choice, pro-woman supporters! Targeted Regulations against Abortion Providers (TRAP) failed to pass for the fourth year in a row!

Please call your legislator today and thank them for their vote to sustain the governor's veto. During veto session, state legislators voted in the following way on HB 2503 (Yea vote = anti-choice, Nay vote = pro-choice):

Yeas –82
Aurand, Beamer, Bethell, Brown, Brunk, Burgess, Carlson, Carter, Colloton, Craft, Dahl, DeCastro, Decker, Edmonds, Faber, Feuerborn, Flower, Freeborn, Gatewood, George, Goico, Grange, Grant, Hayzlett, Henry, C. Holmes, M. Holmes, Horst, Huebert, Humerickhouse, Hutchins, Huy, Jack, E. Johnson, Kelley, Kelsey, Kiegerl, Kilpatrick, Kinzer, Knox, Landwehr, Larkin, Light, Long, Mast, Mays, McCreary, McKinney, McLeland, Merrick, F. Miller, Jim Morrison, Judy Morrison, Myers, Neufeld, Newton, Novascone, O’Malley, O’Neal, Oharah, Olson, Otto, Owens, Pauls, Peck, Pilcher-Cook, Powell, Powers, Ruff, Schwab, Schwartz, B. Sharp, Shultz, Siegfried, Svaty, Swenson, Vickrey, Watkins, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Yoder

Nays –42
Ballard, Burroughs, Carlin, Cox, Crow, Davis, Dillmore, Faust-Goudeau, Flaharty, Flora, Garcia, Gordon, Hawk, Henderson, Hill, Holland, Huff, Huntington, D. Johnson, Kirk, Krehbiel, Kuether, Lane, Loganbill, Loyd, Mah, Menghini, M. Miller, Peterson, Phelps, Pottorff, Roth, Ruiz, Sawyer, S. Sharp, Sloan, Storm, Thull, Treaster, Ward, Winn, Yonally

Absent/ Not voting –1
Showalter

Our fight in Kansas is far from over. I would also like to share with you an excerpt from the Lawrence Journal-World, “[Reverend Terry] Fox, who with Wichita minister Joe Wright, recently spearheaded the push for a constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage, said his political calendar was now full. "You guys have been asking what's next for us. The list is Gov. Sebelius and the legislators who voted against the override," he said.”

ProKanDo is hard at work building a political base for the 2006 election cycle. We will continue our support of pro-choice, pro-woman legislators and the re-election of Governor Kathleen Sebelius. You can support this work with a contribution. Contribute today!