Kansas governor signs abortion law

Kansas governor signs abortion law

(CNN)A new Kansas law banning a common second-term abortion procedure is the first of its kind in the United States.

The law, signed by Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback on Tuesday, bans what it describes as "dismemberment abortion" and defines as "knowingly dismembering a living unborn child and extracting such unborn child one piece at a time from the uterus."

Supporters of the measure described it as a groundbreaking step, while opponents warned it was dangerous and among the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.

The law does not spell out a specific time frame that limits when an abortion can occur, but it bans the dilation and evacuation abortion procedure commonly used during the second trimester of pregnancy. The law allows for the procedure if "necessary to protect the life or health of the mother," according to a statement on Brownback's website.

So Kansas is leading the way in new and interesting ways to restrict abortion rights. This law recently signed into effect is the first of its kind where it specifically targets a common abortion procedure used during the second trimester of pregnancy. For info about this particular abortion procedure, look below:

Dilation and evacuation abortion

In methods of abortion, dilation and evacuation (also sometimes called dilation and extraction) is the dilation of the cervix and surgical evacuation of the contents of the uterus. It is a method of abortion as well as a therapeutic procedure used after miscarriage to prevent infection by ensuring that the uterus is fully evacuated.[1][2]

Approximately 11% of induced abortions are performed in the second trimester. In 2002, there were an estimated 142,000 second-trimester abortions in the United States.[3] The second trimester of pregnancy begins at 13 weeks gestation. For first-trimester and early second-trimester abortions, the pregnancy may be ended by vacuum aspiration alone. Sometimes in the second trimester, however, it becomes necessary to use instruments to remove the fetus. This instrumental procedure is normally what is meant when the term dilation and evacuation is used.

So basically, this law is a run around way of banning second trimester abortions (except in cases where it threatens the mother's life).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

LOL,

You guys are ok to charge "Felony Animal Cruelty" to a woman who killed some damn goldfish on the premise that it was "cruel" but dismembering babies is OK?

LOL
LOL
LOL

Watch the video from parents magazine on the 2nd trimester and tell me that isn't cruel.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think I have to agree with this.
I am pro choice, just seems like 13 weeks is a little long to make that choice.

Sure things change, but I would have to say based on how the procedure is described we are part the clump of cells point.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

One more thing. The official name of this procedure (as per the wiki article in the OP) is Dilation and Evacuation Abortion, but Kansas wants to call it Dismemberment Abortion. That is clearly an attempt to paint this procedure as barbaric with more violent sounding words. In other words, the bill is titled in such a way to get people to automatically side against that abortion procedure being legal without even knowing what the procedure is and how it is performed.

a reply to: infolurker

You are the first person to post... how do you know what anyone is ok with?

Sorry people didn't see the goldfish thing like you did.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Then why not just make second trimester abortions illegal? Don't you think it is fishy that the law mislabels the abortion procedure with something more barbaric sounding?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Maybe they got me with the wording, cause you are right it does sound barbaric.

I don't have so much of an issue of how, but when in the pregnancy it is being done.

Good!!

This "dismemberment abortion" is just sick. There are plenty of ways to avoid GETTING pregnant. If you can't do that then I believe a woman should have to deal with the consequences. And knowingly murdering a human is sick and shouldn't e allowed regardless of what age it is.

There is also the option of adoption.


a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: infolurker

Who is "you guys"? I'm the person you were responding to and I haven't even given a clear opinion on if I agree with it or not. I, personally, find it fishy that these lawmakers have to misrepresent the procedure, but at the same time only 11% of the total number of abortions performed are second trimester abortions so I'm not sure much is being lost there.

a reply to: Sremmos80


Hey, I dare anyone to watch the informational videos for expectant mothers posted and tell me it is OK to kill it.

Seriously.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think I would have to agree with making it illegal outright.

Am willing to accept I don't know enough about what is going on at 13 weeks, just seems like far down the road to decide.

I've argued with a member of this forum who stated a fetus is a parasite before.
I just HATE taking life unless it's a dangerous situation to the mother.
ABSINANCE is the best idea,if you can't handle precautions before it comes to that.
AND I was a secret adoption.wonder what THEIR story was...

a reply to: PageLC14

Making the woman "deal with the consequences" just creates strain on the back end through welfare payments, a broken home, possibly bad parenting, etc. Abortion could be an option if there wasn't already 101,000 children already awaiting adoption. Sometimes for upwards of 3 years.

a reply to: PageLC14

I love it when the pro lifers refer to pregnancy as "consequences" and yet still don't seem to understand why someone chooses not to have the baby.

"Make the sinners LIVE with their mistakes to punish them." That's what it means to be Pro-Life. lol

a reply to: Sremmos80

I'm waiting for someone to come along who knows a bit more about this procedure rather than listen to the standard crew of people talking through their emotions that show up whenever an abortion thread appears on these forums before I make a judgment call.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It is just another example of what some consider less government intrusion.


Politicians and limiting medical decisions has never been a good combination.

And that's why I said there are plenty of ways to avoid getting pregnant in the first place. More money should be going into that sort of stuff than into killing helpless babies. If people can not take the necessary precautions while having sex then they need the life lesson that's handed to them. Like I was.

Making the woman "deal with the consequences" just creates strain on the back end through welfare payments, a broken home, possibly bad parenting, etc.

All of that can result in two people planning for a child as well. Even if its bad planning.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't consider myself a "pro-lifer", I just don't agree with killing a living human. Especially babies who have no say in the matter.


a reply to: mOjOm

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Sremmos80


Hey, I dare anyone to watch the informational videos for expectant mothers posted and tell me it is OK to kill it.

Seriously.

I watched the videos.

I still support a woman's right to choose. I personally would never wait until 13 weeks to have an abortion myself, but then again I've never had to make that choice because I'm not an idiot and practice safe sex.

And when the children grow up the pro lifers that supposedly love them so
much are quick to give them the middle finger.