Posted on 07/09/2024 4:27:14 AM PDT by Morgana
A Kansas judge has allowed pro-abortion groups to expand an existing lawsuit to include a challenge to a new pro-life law that took effect on Monday. According to Kansas Public Radio, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Great Plains said the Kansas health department “has stated that it will not enforce this intrusive law for now.”
HB 2749 requires that medical facilities and doctors report to the Secretary of Health and Environment the reasons why each abortion is committed at their facility. Women would be given a survey list of 18 possible reasons for their abortion and the responses would be anonymous, though women would have the right to refuse to fill out the survey. The law also obligates the state health department to release statistics on abortion twice a year.
Though Governor Laura Kelly refused to sign the bill, her veto was overridden by lawmakers. The law took effect on July 1. Pro-abortion groups added their challenge to HB 2749 to an already existing lawsuit previously filed against the state’s 24-hour waiting period for abortions.
Pro-life groups in support of the law have said that it will allow more information and therefore better understanding as to why women seek abortion. This knowledge would help policymakers and pro-life groups better support women who are facing challenges during pregnancy, providing them the opportunity to choose life with confidence.
“The more data we have about why a woman chooses abortion will allow policymakers and social service agencies to help women to make an authentic choice for life if that’s what she chooses to do,” said Chuck Weber, executive director of the Kansas Catholic Conference.
Abortionists, however, called the law invasive and unnecessary. Attorneys with the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights argued that it violates the Kansas Constitution because it interferes with the right to bodily autonomy.
Two other pro-life laws took effect on Monday as well. One makes it a felony to coerce a pregnant woman into an abortion. It carries a punishment of a minimum $500 fee and 30 days in jail. If the father is over 18 and coerces a minor into an abortion, the minimum jail sentence increases to 90 days and the minimum fine increases to $1,000. Coercion is defined as threatening physical harm or restraining the woman, withholding legal documents, controlling access to medication, financial harm, or threats of arrest or deportation. The third pro-life law that took effect on Monday increases funding for pro-life groups.
“They’re the front line,” Lucrecia Nold, policy specialist of the Kansas Catholic Conference, said of PRCs. “So let’s give them all of the resources that are available so that we can help these women.”
How does a mere survey, which you are free to refuse, interfere with one's "bodily autonomy"?
If they refer to the matter of these anonymous statistics being made public, then they should be challenging all public health statistics (which they won't be).
The truth is they have something to hide
Violation of bodily autonomy is a very weak legal argument, and I predict it will be quickly rejected. Otherwise, any other voluntary (or even mandatory) health survey could then be challenged on that basis, including data collection for COVID-19.
“ A woman in Texas has been arrested after she physically forced abortion pills into her teenage daughter’s mouth in an attempt to abort her own grandchild.”
I’m sure they have nothing to say about this kind of behavior
The sickness coming out of the abortion crowd says that they should be able to terminate their pregnancy because the growing child isn’t a human yet because it can’t “fend for itself” ie it isn’t capable of taking care of itself.
That is how sick and given over to evil that the abortion advocates are. And I’m sure their view ext3nds all the way to elderly folks and disabled folks who are dependent on others
Except when dims mandate you get the jab or lose your job.
>Except when dims mandate you get the jab or lose your job.
...or present your clot-shot, (non)vaxx card to simply eat @ a restaurant
Abortion should require registration like with a gun purchase.
The incapable of taking care of itself argument is easily refuted by asking one question: At what age is a person capable of taking care of itself? The usual response is crickets. Some respond with an age, then, once you point out that by their logic, it will be okay to kill anyone until they reach the age of capability, the light turns on (not in all cases, but some).
Same as what about the baby’s choice in getting his/her arms and legs pulled off.
The reason for the abortion? Because mama and papa couldn’t keep their pants on and don’t give a d@mn about killing an innocent baby. Because after paying their drug dealer they couldn’t afford a 21 cent condom at Walmart. Or do they get them free through PP or welfare? They hand out a month’s supply of birth control pills for free but that takes 13 brain cells to remember to take them every morning.
Abortion: Birth control with extreme prejudice.
Why anyone eats out is crazy. People swear they’re broke but can afford to spend their week’s paycheck at a restaurant for one meal that someone has coughed on, tossed the salad with unwashed potty hands and who knows how long the food has sat out growing nasty bacteria. Then you have to have proof of a death booster. This is one evil upside down world.
Abortionists, however, called the law invasive and unnecessary.
= = =
Abortion is invasive and unnecessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.