Commenting on Mr. Castillo's article Rep. Kinzer stated, "I am gratified by Mr. Castillo's recognition of the need for better late term abortion reporting in Kansas. I most certainly share his sentiments regarding the Governor’s unjustified veto of this important legislation."

Rep. Kinzer went on to note that he would clarify Mr. Castillo's article in one important respect, "The Proviso was not necessitated by any inadequacy in current reporting laws. Those laws, under any fair interpretation, should be producing the exact same reporting data mandated by the proviso. Unfortunately, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's failure to properly administer the existing reporting requirements made the Proviso necessary."

Under the Kinzer proviso the Kansas Department of Health and Environment would have been required to establish and implement procedures, "requiring each report by a physician pursuant to subsection (b)(4) of K.S.A. 65-6703, and amendments thereto, to specify the diagnosis and either the condition necessitating abortion to preserve the life of the pregnant woman or the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman which continuation of the pregnancy would cause."

Commenting further Rep. Kinzer said, “In order to reduce the instances of abortions performed on viable unborn children we need to understand why these abortions are occurring. I sincerely hope that even without my proviso KDHE will exercise its clear authority under existing law to require the reporting of this vital information.”

To see the complete article by Mr. Castillo look here:

May 24, 2007
Sebelius wrong to veto abortion reporting bill

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius again vetoed a legislative proposal that would have required doctors to report exactly why viable fetuses -- those who could survive outside the womb -- were aborted. The Kansas Senate failed Tuesday to override her veto.

At least this time Sebelius didn't muddle her veto message with personal-objection rhetoric, as she did last year. Instead she wrote that "all Kansans support efforts to reduce the number of abortions," but that the proposed law "likely" would have little substantive effect and would violate the privacy of patients.

Sebelius is correct that the proposed law may not have directly reduced the number of abortions. But she is blowing more smoke than a western Kansas coal plant on the privacy concern. Privacy would have been protected, because doctors would have assigned numbers to patients and wouldn't submit names to the state.

Contrary to the pro-choice propaganda, pro-lifers aren't anti-women. But they do want to elevate considerations about the intrinsic value of unborn life. We should be earnest in demanding that babies aren't aborted for reasons less than the law requires.

Kansas law allows these procedures after the 21st week only if the woman's life is in danger or if two doctors certify that continuing the pregnancy would cause "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." But without more details, no one can be sure the law is being followed. Former Attorney General Phill Kline was ridiculed for trying to find out.

Many suspect that the mental health exception is being abused by some doctors.

"The abortion industry seems to have an almighty right to do whatever they want without anyone finding out," David Gittrich, state development director for Kansans for Life, told me. "Every other doctor is open to scrutiny on everything they do. It's just indicative of how she (Sebelius) believes abortion should be allowed in any instance."

Beyond enforcement, more details might also reveal trends that would show us how to help women in these difficult circumstances.

"We don't care about the name of the person," Gittrich said. "We want to know why women are having late-term abortions; that way we can help them. Obviously the mothers have desperate needs or situations, but why are they desperate?"

We may never find out. Current reporting laws offer only minimal details such as how many late-term, viable-life abortions are performed, and whether the women were from Kansas. In the past few years, the numbers ranged from 233 last year to 395 in 2001. None of the abortions was to save the life of the mother.

Abortion supporters are determined to keep the industry in the shadows, but these extreme procedures need closer scrutiny. Doing so would be better for mothers and their near-born children.

Back to "Media Releases"