Kansas abortion bill is not a return to the Dark Ages. Both parties can work together
Kansas is in the midst of what looks like a predictable partisan battle on abortion. I am a registered Democrat, and my co-author Elizabeth Kirk is a registered Republican. We both support the Value Them Both Amendment now in the Legislature, and we wonder: Does it have to be so partisan?
The background: Last year, in a decision relating to a 2015 ban on dilation and evacuation procedures — dismemberment abortions — the Kansas Supreme Court found a “natural right” to abortion in the Kansas Constitution and required that all laws relating to abortion be evaluated under the highest level of judicial review, known as strict scrutiny. The practical upshot of this new standard is that all Kansas abortion laws are vulnerable — even those that enjoy broad support among Kansans, such as parental consent, waiting periods and restrictions on government money going for abortion. This new proposed constitutional amendment is a response. It aims to restore authority to the Legislature to pass commonsense laws without the overwhelming obstacle of the strict scrutiny test.
For voters to have a chance to weigh in, the amendment must pass each chamber of the Kansas Legislature by a two-thirds vote. Last Wednesday, the Kansas Senate passed the measure 28-12. Not one Democrat voted for it. Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly decried the Senate vote, calling the amendment an attack on women that would throw Kansas back to “the Dark Ages.”
Does abortion have to be a partisan issue? Last month, The Wall Street Journal published “Waiting for a Moderate Democrat on Abortion,” a commentary from Carl Anderson, supreme knight of the Knights of Columbus. In it, he called for abortion to become a “postpartisan” issue. Citing a recent Marist poll, he observed a broad national consensus that is not reflected in the entrenched party divide. It showed 60% of Democrats and 92% of Republicans want significant limitations on abortion, such as allowing it only in the first trimester, in cases of rape or incest, or to save the mother’s life. That is a lot of common ground. Anderson concluded, “Over the years there have been many pro-life Democratic candidates, and our country needs such candidates again.”
Last week, Kristen Day, a registered Democrat since 1988 and president of Democrats for Life, recounted in USA Today her recent experience with Democratic candidate Pete Buttigieg in which she challenged him, unsuccessfully, to support a moderate party platform on abortion. Explaining that abortion perpetuates patriarchal views of women, discriminates against the disabled and “trades violent solutions for a whole-life approach to human life: funding maternal health care, providing child care and improving our abysmal education system,” Day called for the Democratic Party to abandon its extreme stance and to embrace inclusivity and diversity on abortion.
We have pro-life Democrats in Kansas. In 2015, eight Democratic members of the Kansas House supported the very dilation and evacuation law that gave rise to the current controversy. Those pro-life Democrats include current Reps. John Alcala, Tom Burroughs, Stan Frownfelter and Kathy Wolfe Moore. Since 2015, other Kansas House Democrats, including Tim Hodge and Jeff Pittman, have supported moderate regulations on abortion, such as the 2017 Disclose Act, which requires abortion providers to give patients information about their credentials.
With the House vote on the amendment yet to come, it remains to be seen whether the Democratic Party in Kansas will maintain its openness to moderate views on abortion. Most Kansans — including most Democrats — do not support unlimited, unregulated abortion. They support parental consent, waiting periods, health and safety clinic regulations and funding restrictions. The proposed constitutional amendment would merely preserve the ability of Kansans to enact such laws.
It is not a ban on abortion. It does not throw Kansas into the Dark Ages, but only back to April 2019 before the Kansas Supreme Court decision. It does not attack women, nor does it create any legal protections for the unborn. It simply leaves the question of abortion up to the people, making the legislators — of every political party — accountable to the will of the people to achieve just and fair laws that protect both women and children.
Ann Marie Alvey is pro-life ministries coordinator for the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas. She co-authored this with Elizabeth Kirk, Kowalski Chair of Catholic Thought at the St. Lawrence Catholic Campus Center in Lawrence, Kansas.
This story was originally published February 4, 2020 at 5:00 AM with the headline "Kansas abortion bill is not a return to the Dark Ages. Both parties can work together."