Because Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is a stalwart supporter of abortion rights, there was suspense about whether she would sign Alexa’s Law, which the Legislature passed to allow prosecutors to charge a pregnant woman’s attacker for harming the unborn child as well as the woman. But the heartbreaking story and sincere emotion surrounding this bill made it almost impossible to oppose. The family of Chelsea Brooks and the public wanted this legislation too much to be denied. It eases slippery-slope concerns that bills aimed at protecting fetuses from violence have been passed in more than 30 states without sparking any widespread threat to abortion rights.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
19 Comments
It is a Bullshit law, all they had to do was improve the law already in place.. But that would mean less TV Spots and Newspaper articles say look at me.. look what I did..
Whenever I see a woman pregnant, I see her as two people, so why not the Alexa’s law?Why should anyone would want to spend so much time, energy and money on having babies, is having babies not important?
Wiseman,
“Why not the Alexa’s law?” Go read the discussion on today’s Open Thread.
Oh, my good Lord, not another abortion thread.
Here we go again.
Re-argue every thing that’s ever been said since 1971 . . .
“little hands and feet” “stops a beating heart” “suck the brains out their head” “nothing less than murder” “baby killers” “it’s a child, not a choice” “if it’s not a baby, then you’re not pregnant” “save the baby humans”
Beats head against wall because it feels so good when I stop . . .
Tom, why should I?
“Oh, my good Lord, not another abortion thread.
Here we go again.”————–
lol – I get the same feeling every time I see another Global Warming thread.
She had no problem opposing it in the past. Following is an article about the same subject and bill. Sebelius was very vocal as a member of the House of Representatives.
Today she is aware that the signing of the bill something she needs politically. She normally has plenty to say when she signs a bill but this one she is keeping mum on. The question is why?
Could it be that she really does not believe in the bill? Could it be that she does not want to draw attention to the issue until she wants to use it in a campaign?
The case talked about in this article was also murder but Sebelius did not see it that way.
Killing fetus not crime, court rules Part of conviction of Wichitan reversedBy Lori LinenbergerThe Wichita Eaglecalendar October 28, 1989,pp. 1A and 6A
The Kansas Supreme Court ruled Friday that a fetus is not a human being under the state’s homicide laws, prompting a Kansas anti-abortion group to vow to try to change the law during the coming legislative session.Two legislators who also are lawyers said that changing the law to give a fetus protection under criminal statutes could have broad implications for abortion. Such protection would mean establishing a point at which a fetus is considered a human being, they said.”I have real serious problems with that,” said Rep. Kathleen Sebelius, D-Topeka and member of the House Judiciary Committee. “I think for me and a lot of other people there are certain inalienable rights established for a person, but those are not applied in utero.”The state’s highest court made the ruling in the appeal of Willard Green, a Wichita man convicted last year of two counts of first-degree murder in the death of Zeola Wilson and her 8-month-old fetus. The court reversed the conviction in the case of the fetus but upheld the conviction for the mother.In its unanimous ruling, the court repeatedly said that killing a fetus was not considered a crime by the Legislature, but that making it a crime could fall within the lawmakers’ power.”Imposing criminal liability for the killing of a fetus is a legislative function,” said the court’s opinion, written by Justice Harold Herd. “We are prohibited from construing ‘viable fetus’ to be within the term human being since such action exceeds our judicial power and denies the defendant due process.”Anti-abortion activists denounced the ruling.”This would not be the first time that the court has been wrong,” said Pat Goodson, lobbyist for Right to Life of Kansas. “They have taken us a step down that slippery slope of devaluation of human life.”First, the unborn child is not a person if the mother does not want it. Now, the court is saying that it is not a person regardless, even if it is viable, even if the mother loves it. Anyone can come along and murder that child. We definitely will seek legislative redress in the coming session.”Sen. Wint Winter Jr., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the issue was a proper one for the Legislature to address, but he doubted it would be a priority in the session that begins in January because of other direct abortion questions expected to arise.Another anti-abortion group, Kansans for Life, has said it will ask the Legislature to require doctors to determine whether a feus is viable – could survive outside the womb – before an abortion is performed. With some exceptions, a viable fetus could not be aborted under the group’s proposal.Other abortion issues, such as requiring parental consent for a minor to have an abortion, are expected to come before the Legislature as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last summer that upheld several abortion restrictions enacted in Missouri.Rep. John Solbach, D-Lawrence and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said that little was to be gained by changing criminal laws to protect a fetus. The assailant of a pregnant woman can be properly charged and punished for the crime against the woman, he said.”You’ve got to do serious damage to the mother that would rise to the level of at least an aggravated battery in order to hurt a fetus,” he said.After the shooting of Zeola Wilson, in 1987, doctors were unable to save Wilson’s life but delivered her baby by Caesarean section.”Although there were no signs of life at birth, a neonatal team immediately attempted to resuscitate the fetus,” Herd wrote in the court’s opinion. “Ten minutes later a faint heartbeat was heard, but in the process of transferring the fetus to ICU (intensive care unit), the heartbeat was lost.”The baby was pronounced dead about 30 minutes later.The pediatrician who treated the baby described the birth as a stillbirth, Herd noted, even though he briefly considered the baby alive when the heartbeat was discovered.Janice Fitch, Sedgwick County assistant district attorney, said the court’s decision puzzled her. Fitch said that Sedgwick County Judge Keith Sanborn had instructed the jury to convict Green in the baby’s death only if it determined that the child was born alive and then died of injuries caused by the shooting.But the Supreme Court said that life had never been established in the fetus.”The detection of a faint heartbeat for a brief period is not substantial competent evidence to support the jury determination that a live birth occurred when … there was expert testimony the fetus was stillborn and brain-dead at the time of delivery,” the court ruled.”The judge didn’t instruct on the viable fetus issue as a basis of the homicide,” Fitch said. “I’m real unclear as to what they (court) did rule on.”Fitch had not seen a copy of the court’s decision Friday.
Wiseman,
Because, on the Open Thread, we’ve already begun an in-depth discussion of the law, complete with quotes from and references to statutes, bills, conference committee reports, and House journals.
sts – There were many in the house and senate that opposed similar bills before, that’s why it was never passed before.
Does this make the family feel better? Does this bring back their daughter and granddaughter? Instead of being unhappy that the law is not going to punish the offender harshly enough, why not go and try to educate the girls that are the mothers age about unprotected sex at 14? And while you are at it why don’t you take some parenting classes so your other daughter won’t end up pregnant by some guy that is nearly twice her age.
In the case of Alexa and Chelsa, the perps murdered them both with the intent of concealing one of the perp’s prior crime of having intercourse with an underage girl.
In the same spirit as those outlined by “hate” law sentencing, this crime, due to its heinousness, seemed to demand more punishment than that available for a single murder. The governor was right to sign the bill.
Where are the conservative hate-law sentencing haters on this subject?
Thank goodness murderers who kill women will finally have their time in court. Before this law nothing was done. Nary could a woman killer like BTK get life in prison for killing a woman, now all that has changed.
Such a stupid, unnecessary law. It’s sad that the anti-abortion crowd will use people for their own political ends.
Well gee, Rhonda as long as the threat to abortion rights is isolated…
If only that were true.
Does anyone on this entire thread think for a minute that I want to take the choice away from women to have their children? NO way. And I certainly don’t want to see women abused and murdered over it.
This law will have consequences that extend so far beyond what it was intended. We have already proven that with what other states have done with similiar language.
There certainly was a way to do this without assigning personhood to the fetus. Which is what they’re really wanting to do. And those who complained about the hate crimes laws…would the outcome have been any different in what happens to the perp?
NO! You talk out both sides of your mouths.
TDT – I understand that. I’m talking about a pro-choice Governor (who says she is Catholic) signing a pro-life bill for political reasons only.
Sotheysaid –The apathy leads to arrogance or is that the other way around?
Wiseman, go read today’s open thread.
Ah, yes, just what we need. Another crime to plea bargain about.
The “harm” statute was not good enough. Almost nobody could be charged with it and the penalties were no greater than, say, an aggr. battery charge. The revisor of statutes put the repeal in the bill because the “harm” statutes provided for a LESSER penalty and the criminals could argue to be sentenced under the lesser statute.
Does this make the family feel better? Yes, it does. Because when a crime happens to another pregnant woman, the perp can be charged with TWO “person” felonies instead of one, meaning a greater penalty when he or she is convicted.
The Wilson case quoted earlier is almost 20 years old. There’s a US Supreme Court case out of Pennsylvania where a fetal homicide law was challenged and upheld. One of the reporters can get the name of it from Dion L or Rep. O’Neal, Brunk or Kinzer. Explains very well the premise of the law. There was life, and because of the criminal actions of another, there is not.
The “harm” statute was mostly useless. There were even narrower circumstances where someone could be charged under it and the penalties were no greater than an aggr. battery charge. It did not provide for punishment for the crime against the unborn child. Harm to the woman is covered under the statutes we have in place now, such as aggr. battery. Women are not less protected than they were. When will people quit spreading their propaganda and out and out lies?
Get an education,
The Revisor did *not* put the repeal of 21-3440 in the bill. That was added in conference committee, long after the Revisor’s Office was done with it.