NRL News

Pro-abortionists determined to diminish importance of educational information in reducing the number of abortions

by | Nov 30, 2012

By Kathy Ostrowski, Kansans for Life legislative director

Editor’s note. This week NRL News Today readers benefited from two stories Kathy wrote. The first was about a wonderful website run by the Kansas state health department that, among other fine qualities, offers real-time sonography of the developing unborn child ( The second dealt with how hysterically pro-abortionists respond to the “threat” of a mother making an informed consent.

Kari Rinker

Her insights published here and on the Kansans for Life webpage drew the ire of pro-abortionists. I asked Kathy to respond to one in particular.

Veteran Kansas abortion lobbyist, Kari Rinker, is indignant that we attribute lower abortion numbers in our state to years of mandated access to informed consent materials. Let’s take a look.

Kansas enacted informed consent provisions in 1998. Since then the state has certified that 3,551 women who received such information at abortion clinics (not a location conducive to a woman changing her mind) did NOT proceed with abortion.

There are no surveys of these women examining their decision-making, but receiving notice of 80 free pregnancy help centers statewide and detailed photos of prenatal development certainly look like pertinent factors.

Kansas’ pre-abortion right-to-know information was improved, effective July 2009, to include:

notice of the right to see any ultrasound performed at the clinic and receive the photo,

notice of the right to hear the unborn’s heart tones performed at the clinic,

notice posted in clinic against coercion,

listing of statewide location for free ultrasounds,

listing of perinatal hospice for medically challenging pregnancies, and

digitalization of the state information.

But the crowning achievement was the website’s 2011 addition of scientifically accurate prenatal descriptions and 4D videography by the Endowment for Human Development, whose materials on this topic are distributed not by a pro-life organization but by National Geographic! 

She stated, “Thus, nearly 2,700 women never stepped inside a Kansas abortion business, due to their access to a state informed consent website.”

N.O.W. lobbyist Rinker angrily discounts the impact because, she says, in this one posting we did not footnote that the clinic of the late abortionist George Tiller closed in June of 2009.

While we have certainly acknowledged in past postings that the closure would affect abortion numbers, one might ask how many abortions does she want subtracted because of the closure? For the following reasons, the number is likely quite small.

Tiller’s clinic performed both early and late abortions. Several hundred non-late-term abortions were done there annually, but why should we see those numbers disappear because his clinic was no longer open? Wouldn’t that same number of women go elsewhere in Kansas to abort?

His clinic also performed 441 late-term abortions in 2008 and 2009, with over 90% obtained by non-residents. Logically, seekers of that kind of abortion are going to other states.

The Kansas state health department reports one late abortion performed in Kansas after 22 weeks LMP in 2010 and eight obtained by Kansas women in other states. Well, that’s nine. Who’s to say there weren’t more women who were told to get a late-term abortion because their unborn child had an anomaly, but the Kansas right-to-know website showed them an alternative– how to get special care and hospice?

Secondly, after demeaning unborn children as “fetal beings” and something “to pet and cuddle,”  Rinker writes, “The enactment of a greater number of restrictions in Kansas, a lower abortion rate nationwide, President Obama’s elimination of federal funding for abstinence education programs (although the President recently reversed this in the 2012 budget)… are all much more likely to have made a far greater difference in a lower number of abortions in Kansas than some cyber-fetus imagery on a website.”

That maternal instinct stimulated by ultrasound photos doesn’t exist is wishful thinking on her part as is her put down of the potential impact of abstinence education.

Rinker attributes the fewer number of abortions to “restrictive” pro-life laws in 2011.

  • Yes we have banned abortions after 22 weeks with few exceptions, so that affects a few women.
  • Yes, we require two-parent consent for abortions of minors, but there’s only 6 months data to see changes in abortions in that category.
  • And yes we require specific riders for abortions to be paid under health insurance, but Planned Parenthood’s sworn testimony in Kansas says only 6% of abortions are paid by insurance.

So Rinker is both quibbling and grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to undermine the importance of women’s access to right-to-know information.

Categories: Informed Consent