NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Judge issues temporary injunction blocking Kansas’ Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act

by | Jun 25, 2015

By Dave Andrusko

Stop-Dismemberment55reShawnee County District Court Judge Larry Hendricks this morning granted a temporary injunction to the father-daughter abortion duo of Herb Hodes and Traci Nauser in a suit brought against Kansas’s historic Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Act.

The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights filed the lawsuit on behalf of Overland Park Center for Women’s Health on June 1. The short-term effect of Judge Hendricks’ decision is that the SB95 will not take effect, as it was scheduled to on July 1, while he considers the lawsuit.

Oklahoma, which has also passed the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Act, is not affected by the decision.

SB 95 would end a gruesome, barbaric, limb-ripping method of abortion performed on tiny, unborn living girls and boys. State health department statistics for Kansas abortions in 2014 show that this inhumane abortion method was employed 637 times, an increase of 9% from 2013.

Not surprisingly, the CRR does not even mention the word “dismemberment” in their pleadings, much less try to justify it.

“Instead,” as Kansans for Life legislative director Kathy Ostrowski wrote earlier this week, “abortion filings are claiming this method is too necessary and ‘expeditious’ to prohibit, and that the public and the abortionists will suffer irreparable harm if they are unable use it. “

The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act is model legislation provided by the National Right to Life Committee.

The state of Kansas’ legal filing strongly defended the dismemberment ban and points to the reasoning in the Supreme Court’s 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart decision which upheld the ban on partial-birth abortions:

1. “The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman.”

2. “Under our precedents it is clear the State has a significant role to play in regulating the medical profession.”

The Kansas defense team notes, “[T]he U.S. Supreme Court explained that …’Casey does not allow a doctor to choose the abortion method he or she might prefer … [and physicians] are not entitled to ignore regulations that direct them to use reasonable alternative procedures.’ ”

The state of Kansas asserts that attorneys for Hodes and Nauser have not demonstrated, “that the alleged irreparable injury outweighs the harm to the State’s well-established interest in promoting human dignity and barring a procedure deemed inhumane.”

When Pro-life Kansas State Rep. Becky Hutchins spoke up for the victim of dismemberment abortion– the “living” unborn child– she talked about the “three D’s” that follow from such abortions:

“Tearing a developed fetus apart, limb by limb, is an act of depravity that society should not permit. We cannot afford such a devaluation of human life, nor the desensitization of medical personnel it requires.

Because dismemberment abortions are so incredibly brutal—tiny arms, legs, and other body parts are torn off, piece by piece until the baby bleeds to death–pro-abortionists spend much of their time dehumanizing the victim. Which is why National Right to Life Director of State Legislation Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., said at the time Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback signed SB95,

“The groundbreaking passage of the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act has the potential to transform the debate when people realize that unborn children are being torn limb from limb.”

Categories: Abortion