NRL News

Kansas judge enjoins Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act

by | Jul 9, 2015

Rules abortion also protected by state constitution

By Kathy Ostrowski, Legislative Director, Kansans for Life

Shawnee County District Court Judge Larry Hendricks

Shawnee County District Court Judge Larry Hendricks

Editor’s note: This first appeared in the current issue of NRL News which can be read at

On June 25, Shawnee County District Court Judge Larry Hendricks issued an injunction that bars the first-in-nation Kansas Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act [Senate Bill 95] from going into effect July 1.

The judge’s order will remain in effect while he considers the lawsuit further.

The lawsuit was filed and argued by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of the Overland Park Center for Women’s Health that had previously sued two other Kansas pro-life laws.

Kansans for Life is confident this law will eventually be upheld—mirroring the long, but successful partial-birth abortion battle in which the U.S. Supreme Court eventually acknowledged the validity of pro-life legislation.

The Kansas Attorney General’s office defended SB 95 as well-founded on U.S. Supreme Court language that upholds the state’s right to show respect for life inside the mother and to insure the integrity of the medical profession which it regulates.

As defined in SB 95, a dismemberment abortion is performed when sharp metal tools are used to grab and yank off limbs of a living, well-formed, unborn child inside the mother’s womb. Unfortunately, Thursday’s hearing completely omitted the procedure’s description, and focused on dry legal points as if debating a parking lot boundary line.

“Kansans were outraged to learn of this barbaric method of shredding apart innocent unborn children,” said Kansans for Life executive director, Mary Kay Culp.

Judge Hendricks echoed the abortion industry claim that the federal “right” to an abortion is fully upheld in the Kansas constitution. Hendricks ignores the key 2007 Gonzales ruling, in which the Court said:

“Casey [the 1992 Supreme Court decision] 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.”

Even pro-abortion justices of the U. S. Supreme Court have acknowledged that the dismemberment of a living unborn child is as brutal and inhumane a method of abortion as the partial-birth abortion procedure, which is now illegal throughout the country.

SB 95 allowed exceptions for an abortion needed to prevent the death or physical damage to the mother. The federal Partial-birth abortion ban allows only an exception to prevent the death of the mother. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that law in 2007 in Gonzales.

Kansas health department statistics had shown a recent 9% rise in use of this inhuman dismemberment method, which was used to tear apart 637 living unborn children in 2014.

Categories: Judicial