In the latest legal setback for a state law restricting abortion, the Kansas Supreme Court delivered a ruling against a law which would ...
In the latest legal setback for a state law restricting abortion, the Kansas Supreme Court delivered a ruling against a law which would have prohibited certain second-term terminations.
Perhaps most ominously for pro-life advocates, the court affirmed for the first time that the state constitution protects the right of a woman to have an abortion.
According to Fox News, the bill was called the Kansas Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act — so called because the procedure in question, dilation and evacuation abortions, can potentially involve removing the child from the womb in pieces with forceps. The bill banned said abortions except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger.
“Among the rights [in the state constitution] is the right of personal autonomy,” the 6-1 ruling from the court read.
“Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights affords protection of the right of personal autonomy, which includes the ability to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination. This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life — decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy.”
Section 1, in its entirety, reads that “All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
“When common-law terms are used in the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, courts should look to common-law definitions for their meaning,” the ruling read. “The recognition of inalienable natural rights in section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights is intended for all Kansans, including pregnant women.”
Kansas’ Supreme Court has previously passed on questions of constitutionality under state law, according to WDAF-TV.
Democrat Gov. Laura Kelly hailed the ruling.
“While federal law has long guaranteed every woman the right to make their own medical decisions in consultation with their healthcare providers, I’m pleased that the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision now conclusively respects and recognizes that right under Kansas law as well,” Kelly said.
However, Republican state Sen. Susan Wagle blasted the court’s decision.
“Today, the liberal, activist Supreme Court showed just how out of touch they are with Kansas values,” she said in a statement. “Their refusal to acknowledge that life in the womb, ordained by our creator and recognized by our medical community, as a separate life and should be protected by our laws.
“Nowhere in our state constitution is there a right to the violent act of abortion. Instead, our protected inalienable rights include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Nowhere in our state constitution is there a right to the violent act of abortion. Instead, our protected inalienable rights include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. #ksleg
19 people are talking about this
The court’s decision is important in a larger sense: It happens amid a renewed debate at the state level over abortion, a debate which will likely end up before the Supreme Court and could radically change case law on the issue.
On the restriction end, states such as Georgia, Mississippi and Ohio have seen fetal heartbeat bills either passed by the legislature or signed into law; the legislation would ban abortion after a heartbeat is detected, which can happen as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. One of these laws is likely to turn up before the Supreme Court, meaning that abortion-rights decisions such as Roe v. Wade, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt or Planned Parenthood v. Casey could be altered or invalidated.
If they are, you have states on the other end of the spectrum that have moved to codify abortion rights into state law. The most prominent example is New York, which moved to pass a wide array of protections for abortion after Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court. The most controversial of these included protecting the right to abortion up until the moment of birth — a move which led to an outcry among conservatives and pro-life activists.
Whether Kansas’ law ends up before the Supreme Court is anyone’s guess. For now, proponents of the bill are seeking to amend the state constitution, according to WDAF-TV. Indeed, lawmakers in the state have previously introduced an amendment that would effectively ban all abortions after fertilization, though it faces heavy opposition.
At the moment, however, the law seems to be dead — something that won’t sit well with state Republicans or pro-life activists.
....so based upon this ruling....The Drug War is now ended in Kansas? As an individual with bodily autonomy...I can use any drug I like.....oh, and thank god, I can refuse all vaccination, medical and euthanasia efforts, laws and regulations!
ReplyDeleteIf an ILLEGAL puts one foot into America THEY get full Constitutional Rights and will be defended by ACLU & SPLC.
ReplyDeleteIf an ILLEGAL’s BABY gets BORN/one foot into America THEY get full Constitutional Rights and will be defended by ACLU & SPLC.
If a Duly Born American Child puts one foot in America they DO NOT have Constitutional Rights!? They can be MURDERED without legal representation ? Where are all the LeftWing lawyers dashing to represent the Babies and demand their RIGHTS? Where are the ACLU & SPLC?
Abortion up to and including live birth: My body! My right!
"They" demand the right to decide what goes on with their body until YOU want the SAME THING over vaccines.
Refuse vaccines with severe risks clearly printed on insert: Are you trying to get us all killed!?!?!?
Every Real Religious Leader that I read believed life began at conception. They have even NOW, recorded the "spark of life" an actual flash at the moment of fertilization.
Zap....as you probably know the ACLU and the SPLIC are both jew owned and jew run....so do you really think Americans have any rights anymore? Hell no....only the illegals have what used to be OUR rights.... The satanic jews want more blood sacrifices to their god SATAN...and PP does this for them daily!!!! that's why Washington gives them so much of our tax money yearly....to ensure the daily sacrifice of babies continues.....
ReplyDeleteBeing a conspiracy theorist who's usually proven right, I suspect that there is more to PP than meets the eye! I believe that there is tremendous profit made from aborted babies for science labs to satanist...and the more advanced the pregnancy, the more valuable the "fetus"! Just say'in....
ReplyDeleteForget the drug argument, although valid, and concentrate on the vaccination, medical rulings and euthanasia.
ReplyDeleteAs you say, if one has the 'natural' right to control your body and terminate pregnancy, then it is inconceivable (sorry about that) that one does not have the right to refuse medication, intervention and vaccination.
Should be case closed.
Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights affords protection
ReplyDeleteof the right of personal autonomy, which includes the ability to control
one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise
self-determination.
Ya, great point. But, you can't kill a living, heart-beating baby. That is murder.
What do they not get?
For this, the whole living Earth must suffer, legalizing murder, is a treacherous kind of disdain, for the living.
ReplyDeleteTo think, nothing called LAW is done except wealth changes hand's, the enemies of us citizens make a point or get their way, or, some Politicians, get, a few more votes.
Law, has nothing, to do with anything that could be construed to be Godly, Righteous, or Correct, it is all about the monetary, it is all about keeping the ones in power, in power.
If the CHAOS is extreme enough, so innocent people are regularly massacred, for example, or children murdered in the mother's womb, then the minds of the citizens must be so bent and broken so they will agree to anything.
Anything, like destroying their future, their nations, themselves, which is the idea in the first place.
We have become so selfish, so full of fear for our own survival, so we no longer can feel empathy or conscience, we are the walking dead and soon we will all know it.
We’re not in Kansas anymore Toto.
ReplyDeleteuh,wrong---" At conception, there is no flash of light, no burst of fireworks, no sparks flying, no fiat lux, no scientific proof of ensoulment, no vindication of doctrine by this research. There is a misunderstanding.
ReplyDeleteThe actual paper is titled “The zinc spark is an inorganic signature of human egg activation” (Duncan, F. E. et al. Sci. Rep. 6, 24737), published by Professors Teresa K. Woodruff’s and Thomas V. O’Halloran’s research groups at Northwestern University in Chicago. The “flash of light” only refers to the “inorganic signature” of the “zinc spark” detected with fluorescence microscopy in the laboratory—an analytical technique. Calcium levels rise in the egg when a sperm enters it. These high calcium levels cause zinc to be released outside the egg. Researchers wanted to see the zinc, so they simulated fertilization in the lab and put the eggs in a solution containing a fluorescent tag (FluoZin™-3). When the zinc is released, it is chemically labeled because this tag bonds to it. The tag (also called a fluorophore) can be illuminated with light of one color, and it emits light of a different, specific color. That “fluorescence” can be detected under a suitable microscope, thus revealing the zinc."
It is the Spark of Life, and a sign of God.
ReplyDeleteJust as the "Spark of Life will leave your eyes.
good for them. its no one elses business what a woman chooses to do with her body.
ReplyDeletewrong. there is no god. and its just zinc meets calcium. you really need better informed before replying.
ReplyDeletelol such childishness. superstitions are for fools and the feeble minded.
ReplyDeleteits not murder.
ReplyDeleteNo God? then there is no moral imperative to treat you in a just manner . .... meet my War Club.
ReplyDeleteDrowning babies in a bucket is not murder?
ReplyDeleteWhat is it then?
There are plenty of folks who would take these children and raise them up with love and devotion.
Cutting the babies vocal cords so the doctor won't have to hear it scream - come on, how much are we expected to take!?
seriously? 'plenty of folks' would take them? where are they? they like to march around and try to tell others how to live their lives. not interested in adopting anyone. i am surprised that anyone falls for this idiocy by pro lifers. they need to prove it,otherwise its hearsay and inadmissable.
ReplyDelete