by Steven Ertelt
May 23, 2007
Topeka, KS (LifeNews.com) — Heading out of town with their legislative session finished, members of the Kansas Senate cast one last vote in an attempt to override a veto by pro-abortion Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of a bill that would help enforce abortion laws in the state. State law puts limits in place on when late-term abortions can be done.
The measure requires abortion practitioners to tell the state why they did abortions on unborn children after the point of viability.
Sen. Phil Journey called for the override vote but his motion failed 19-10, eight votes short of the two-thirds necessary to override the governor’s veto.
Journey’s attempt to move the bill forward was complicated by the fact that seven members of the Senate were absent and another four abstained from voting on the override.
"I was hoping we’d get closer. Sometimes you have to jump on the donkey and tilt at windmills," the Republican lawmaker told the Associated Press. "I think there’s enough support to get a bill passed. This was a good test of the waters."
He indicated he would introduce the bill again next session.
State legislators put the reporting requirements on the budget bill as an attachment but Sebelius used her authority to veto specific items to remove the provision from the measure. She claimed asking abortion practitioners to report on their following state laws would lead to divulging personal information about women having abortions even though the information could be redacted.
"This isn’t a threat to the privacy of those who undergo this procedure," Journey told AP in response to her concerns.
The information on why the late-term abortions were done would be added to the annual report the state health department releases about abortion figures in Kansas.
In a statement sent to LifeNews.com, Mary Kay Culp, the head of Kansans for Life, blasted Sebelius for vetoing the common sense measure.
"Gov. Sebelius said she thinks Kansans care about their laws being enforced," she said. Then she "vetoed a bill designed to help do precisely that, using deceptive claims about threats to privacy, when in truth, the reporting form would use a number instead of a name to identify each case."
"This was the very, very, very, very least she could have done to protect unborn children and their mothers, and once again she couldn’t do it," Culp added.
"She traded the lives of nearly born children, and safety and high standards of health care for women through required diagnosis, in exchange for political advocacy for the abortion industry that has supported her politically for years, and then covered it up with false claims about privacy rights," Culp concluded.