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
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
Was Ronald Reagan pro-choice?
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
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
Friday, June 22, 2007
Pro-Choice Position Bad For Democrats?
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.”
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.”
Thursday, June 21, 2007
In the News
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.
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.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
The Ugly Just Gets Uglier
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.
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.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Spy vs. Spy
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.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“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.”
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Governor Sebelius Signs UVVA
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
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
Friday, April 27, 2007
One Last Chance to Defeat UVVA!
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Commentary from the peanut gallery...
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)
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)
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Urgent Legislative Alert!
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)