Kansas Lawmakers Plan to Restrict Late Abortion, Despite Absence Of Late Abortion in State

Lance KinzerYou know if Kansas State Rep Lance Kinzer is involved, it’s going to be good. I get more material for this blog from my google alert out on him than from any other single source.

So it is with an air of comfortable familiarity that I relate to you his plans to chip away at women’s ability to access late term abortions in Kansas, despite the fact that a psychotic killer already murdered the only person who provided them in the state. (Just to be clear, late term abortions are already restricted to women who need them to prevent serious bodily harm or death, along with a variety of even less sensical restrictions.)

The Lawrence Journal-World:

Tiller was the face of the abortion debate in Kansas — and sometimes nationally — because his Wichita clinic was among a few in the U.S. performing abortions in the last weeks of pregnancy. Tiller’s clinic has been closed since he was shot to death in May and no doctor or clinic elsewhere in Kansas is doing the same work.

But legislators who oppose abortion still expect to pass a bill requiring doctors who perform late-term procedures to report more information to the state and making it possible for them to face lawsuits if patients or others come to believe their abortions violated state law. Abortion opponents contend such issues are still compelling, even if no doctor or clinic is performing abortions as late as Tiller did.

So saving imaginary pre-born patriots is more “compelling” than dealing with Kansas’ multitude of non-imaginary problems, like poverty, foreclosures, homelessness, drug addiction, the disappearance of small farmers as factory farming takes over, de-facto racial segregation, unemployment, lack of public transportation, massive budget shortfalls, waterway pollution, religious intolerance, and etc.

Fascinating, Lance.

Some abortion rights supporters had hoped for a break from the Legislature’s perennial debates over abortion because of lingering revulsion over Tiller’s murder, including among many abortion opponents.

Ha! How amusingly naïve.

“There’s nobody in the state of Kansas who’s doing abortions past 22 weeks of pregnancy. It’s a moot issue,” said Peter Brownlie, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri.

9 thoughts on “Kansas Lawmakers Plan to Restrict Late Abortion, Despite Absence Of Late Abortion in State

  1. I think Chomsky makes a really good point. We should focus on the biggest problems and the most effective ways to combat them, if we want to be serious that is. Not to say that abortion isn’t important, it is, but if you’re serious about saving childrens’ lives, then you would try to make safe drinking water more available in the world or something of that nature. Abortion definitely makes a good debate though, providing safe drinking water isn’t really controversial so everyone should be for it. Maybe the fact that abortion does spur a debate is the reason why people spend so much of their energy with it.

    Yea, so I think the energy spent with the topic is ultimately wasted, I mean, it’s a fun topic to talk about, but in terms of solving the big problem, it doesn’t really do anything. I agree with Chomsky, we should focus on the overwhelming problems and the most effective solutions. But if we’re not serious, then we can just continue to focus on tiny controversial issues.

  2. I appreciate the video, keinst, the men make some interesting points.

    However, my beef with it is that it is nothing but two academic white men talking about something that will never personally (bodily) affect them. It’s easy for them to be abstract, and paint big pictures, when their life or health will not be, nor ever has been, threatened by a lack of reproductive health access. They being lefties, they mostly make arguments that lead to the conclusion abortion should be allowed, and that’s fine. But they also make a lot of assumptions and expect the viewer to just not question those assumptions and go along with their arguments. The statement that a fetus is a full human being that abortion “kills” for example.

    Per your comments in your second post, for me, as a woman with dozens of reproductive-age women in her life, this IS a big issue in my real, actual day-to-day life. Anywhere that abortions are illegal, surprisingly large numbers of women die from botched abortion. I know many, many women who have had abortions legally. How many would be dead today if that hadn’t been possible?

    All of the things Chompsky mentioned as important issues that could save children’s lives are valid. For those looking to “save babies”, it may be a good idea to consider that list. But for women who don’t want themselves or their friends to die in botched abortions or to be forced to give birth, abortion remains a big deal that directly affects our lives.

  3. I definitely agree with what you’re saying. It’s funny because you actually mention the reason why I choose to remain out of the abortion debate. The fact is that men aren’t directly affected by the issue. We’re indirectly affected of course, but it’s definitely not a male topic. I do not feel right to make a choice on something that will never ever affect my life and therefore, I have to leave the decision up to women.

    On your point about how the speakers make assumptions that they expect everyone else to follow. I don’t understand what you mean. I think they’re just stating their arguments. Arguments have to follow some logical processes which implies that there are fundamental statements one has to make. It doesn’t mean that they assume everyone else agrees with it. So the fundamental statement that the fetus is a full human being is something that people can disagree on. Furthermore, I think most of the time there has to be disagreement in fundamental statements for there to be different opinions on solutions.

    I know I’m not explaining this clearly, but basically what I’m saying is that there isn’t anything special going on. So if I believe in solution A1, it’s because my logic is derived from my assumption of A and so on. It doesn’t mean that I assume everyone is going to follow me, I’m just stating out my opinion.

    About the fact that abortion rights is an important issue to people. I definitely agree, but there are different ways to prioritize, on a general overall level and a personal level. For example, it’s personally a big problem for me that I don’t have health insurance, but I admit, it’s a bigger problem that kids don’t have access to safe drinking water. So there are objective ways to prioritize problems. I’m not saying that you can’t work on multiple problems at the same time, I’m just saying that the focus is misallocated.

    Oh and the fact that the speakers were two white guys I don’t think is a valid criticism. I mean, I know where you’re going with that statement, but you know, it doesn’t weaken their logic.

  4. I’ll go for some debate.

    “So there are objective ways to prioritize problems.”

    Oh really? I doubt that. Who exactly decides the “objective” priorities?

    What would be more useful is to see how one’s own problems connect to the greater problems of society. You have no health insurance, and there is no adequate safety-net option. You are not alone in this… this is a problem faced by millions of Americans, including about 9 million kids. So fighting for your own good also could help 9 million uninsured children as collateral. It is the same for me and reproductive choices. If I fight to retain all my choices (I’m speaking here more broadly than just late term abortion, or even abortion at all), all other women of or near reproductive age may also benefit.

    “Oh and the fact that the speakers were two white guys I don’t think is a valid criticism. I mean, I know where you’re going with that statement, but you know, it doesn’t weaken their logic.”

    I strongly disagree. You admit above that their arguments are based on their personal beliefs, and so it was acceptable that their “logic” is based largely on assumptions that are debatable among reasonable people. Their status as white males deeply affects their knowledge bases, their life experiences, the assumptions they will make, the perspective with which they approach the debate, and the outcome of their “logic”.

  5. Everyone has to determine for themselves which problems they think are the greatest. In that sense, there isn’t a universal objective measure, but there are specific ones that can help people discern. Number of deaths is one example.

    To clarify, we’re talking about something that’s issue focused (so my example with health care was a bad one). For example, if pro life people are seriously concerned with saving babies lives or something like that, there are more effective ways to do it on a grander scale and the same thing for pro choice people. So people would still be fighting for something that personally affects them, but just in a greater scale. Do you see what I’m saying?

    I completely agree that fighting for something that personally affects you will be fighting for everyone else that is fighting for the same problem. The only thing I’m pointing out is a different strategy. So let’s say for a theoretical example, that providing women with good obstetric care would save many more lives and improve more women’s health. In that case, more effort should be focused on that (moreover, there shouldn’t be debate over providing women with obstetric care so improvements in that area may be more quickly achieved). So you would still be fighting for the same issue, but the strategy is different. And of course, you can fight for abortion rights AND obstetric care at the same time, but I believe that the focus that certain problems get should be proportionate to the size of the problem.

    Regarding their being white. I agree with what you’re saying that their personal experiences will affect their assumptions, but that IN ITSELF doesn’t make their logic weak or their bases incorrect. They’re not wrong BECAUSE they’re white and male. We’re talking about a correlation and a cause-effect relationship. I’m saying that it’s a correlation and that a cause-effect relationship would be required to make a valid criticism. (Not to say that there aren’t strong correlations, I’m just not sure how strong the correlations are in this case)

  6. I’m sorry if I’m continuing this off topic debate. We can always continue it outside of this website.

    I like debating, I think it’s important.

  7. Yeah, I shouldn’t have let this thread get off track, but then I thought it would be an asshole move to forbid you from replying after I just made an argument. So from here on out, any further comments on this thread need to address Lance Kinzer or abortion rights in Kansas. We can have a private debate in email.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s