Get a free copy of Parental Rights & Education when you subscribe to our newsletter!
The two new laws will increase the punishment for those who coerce women into having abortions and require abortion providers to ask for the reasons why women are seeking abortions.
Two new laws are now on the books in the Sunflower State after the Kansas legislature overrode two vetoes by the governor last week.
Kansas is unique in that it is a largely conservative state but is headed by a pro-abortion governor.
One of the bills vetoed by Gov. Laura Kelly, D, was House Bill 2436, which makes coercive abortion a felony.
Coercing a woman to have an abortion is already a crime in all 50 states, but HB 2436 increases the penalties on anyone who coerces a person to have an abortion to up to 25 years in prison if it involves certain violent crimes, such as rape, human trafficking, kidnapping, or assault.
Coercing a woman to get an abortion through threats of physical harm, financial harm, legal harm, or deportation could result in up to a year in prison for someone who is not the father of the child or up to two years for the โputative father,โ or someone who is presumed but not yet proven to be the father.
The new law specifically addresses threats to destroy government identification, even if that identification is fraudulent, as the bill is partially aimed at stopping forced abortions for women who are victims of human trafficking or sexual assault.
Tessa Longbons Cox, senior researcher at the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, submitted testimony in support of the bill citing studies which show more than 60 percent of women who have an abortion felt unwanted pressure to abort their child.
โThese studies add to a growing body of literature on the prevalence and impact of unwanted abortions and abortion coercion,โ Cox argued. โOne study shows that victims of human trafficking have frequent contact with abortion centers and are at risk of undergoing multiple abortions against their will. The women at greatest risk of forced abortion may be least able to stand up for their rights when a forced abortion occurs.โ
Republican Rep. Rebecca Schmoe, a sponsor of the legislation who has spoken frequently about how she herself was pressured to get an abortion by a doctor, explained:
โIf a woman has expressed her desire to continue the pregnancy, and someone threatens her, whether it is to harm her physically, whether itโs to harm her financially, or whether it is to hold documentation in the case of someone who is being trafficked, that would now be punishable as a crime.โ
Some who opposed the bill said they werenโt necessarily opposed to the billโs purpose but to its execution.
Democrat Rep. Jo Ella Hoye said the bill doesnโt properly define what would be viewed as coercive nor establish what classifies as โputative father.โ
โThis is not ready for prime time. This is not ready to be put on the books. But there is bipartisan support to keep this moving,โ she said.
Gov. Laura Kelly wrote in her veto,
โWhile I agree that no one should be coerced into undergoing a medical procedure against their will, it is already a crime to threaten violence against another individual.
Additionally, I am concerned with the vague language in this bill and its potential to intrude upon private, often difficult, conversations between a person and their family, friends, and health care providers. This overly broad language risks criminalizing Kansans who are being confided in by their loved ones or simply sharing their expertise as a health care provider.โ
The legislature overrode Kellyโs veto by a vote of 28-10 in the Senate and 85-40 in the House of Representatives.
The second veto that the legislature overrode was of House Bill 2749, which requires the facility performing an abortion to ask the reasons why the woman is having an abortion.
The legislation requires abortionists to ask women if their abortion is because the baby would interfere with the womanโs education or career; the woman cannot provide for the child; or the woman already has โenough, or too manyโ children; whether her partner is abusive; the womanโs partner wants her to have an abortion; the woman does not have enough support from family; the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; the pregnancy threatens the physical health of the mother; the pregnancy threatens the mental health of the mother; or the child is expected to have a disability.
Opponents of the bill were upset that there was no โotherโ choice, although the new law the bill does the woman to decline to answer.
Abortion facilities are also required to ask other information, such as the age of the mother, whether the woman has experienced domestic abuse in the last year, whether the woman has a stable and safe place to live, and whether the woman has been a victim of neglect.
Supporters of the bill say this information is important because it can help collect data needed to draft legislation to assist expectant mothers.
Rep. Brenda Landwehr, R, stated, โItโs important for public policy officials who make health decisions every day to make informed decisions. In no way does the reporting in this bill restrict, prevent, or stop any woman from having an abortion.โ
Opponents call the bill invasive and says it serves no purpose but to create barriers for women to get abortions.
Sen. Pat Pettey, D, claimed, โI find this to be invasive and really disrespectful of those women who have decided to make this difficult decision to have an abortion.โ
In her veto, Gov. Kelly referenced the vote by Kansans in August 2022 not to adopt an amendment that said there is no right to an abortion in the stateโs constitution.
She said there was no valid medical reason to have a woman disclose why she is getting an abortion.
The Senate voted 27-10 and the House voted 84-41 to override the veto.
Abortion supporters used to say that abortion was a tragedy. They claimed that abortion was something that should be โsafe, legal, and rare.โ Abortion was supposedly just for extreme cases.
That was never the plan.
Pro-aborts gnash their teeth any time legislators even suggest passing laws that might collect information on why someone wants to get an abortion because apparently โsafe, legal, and rareโ no longer applies. In fact, anything that might result in one less abortion is opposed by those who so maniacally defend it.
Whether pro-aborts want to admit it or not, many women choose abortion, at least in part, because they are pressured or even physically threatened by the father of the child. Then thereโs the emotional manipulation. Maybe theyโre led to believe by friends or family that having a baby will ruin their future. Maybe theyโre led to believe by a relative or a doctor that they are too young, too โmessed up,โ or too poor to have a child. Maybe theyโre led to believe that they and their child are doomed to a life of poverty and misery. Or perhaps they are merely told they have no choice and that everything will be better once they make the appointment and go through with it.
Tragically, many abortions are also the result of sexual assault and human trafficking. Yet strangely the abortion industry, which profits off of each abortion, doesnโt want anyone to know the reasons why any of their patients, particularly a minor, wants to get an abortion. This makes no sense, since medical providers are notorious for surveying patients before appointments about anything that might impact their care. This includes questions about their mental health, including feelings of depression or anxiety; whether they feel unsafe at home; if they have ever considered harming themselves; and so forth.
If a patient has arrived at an abortion clinic under duress because the father of the child is demanding she get an abortion or else, wouldnโt a physician want to know that? Why wouldnโt it be relevant for the state to know if a woman was seeking an abortion because she was raped, or shouldnโt the state know if a girl seeking an abortion was being molested by an older man? Why wouldnโt it be important for the state to know if a woman was choosing to kill her child because she is in a home where she and her other children are being physically assaulted?
The fact is that those who support abortion donโt seem to have any interest in knowing the answers to any of these questions. They donโt want to know what the state or non-state groups such as pro-life pregnancy centers can do to help women in these terrible circumstances. They donโt want women receiving the help they need so they can choose to keep their child. They just want more abortions.
Praise God for the Kansas legislators who were willing to push back and have been able to pass common sense and transparent laws that will not only help women but hopefully save babies. Itโs a small win, but proof that the pro-life movement must keep praying and fighting for more wins โ until the day that abortion is truly unthinkable.
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to todayโs politics and culture, consider making a donationย here.
