Kansas Supreme Court invalidates dismemberment abortion ban

By Michael GryboskiMainline Church Editor Tuesday, July 09, 2024

The Kansas Supreme Court has struck down a state law banning second-trimester dismemberment abortions and a series of regulations governing abortion clinics.

In two rulings issued last Friday, the Kansas Supreme Court struck down a series of laws that restricted the ability to perform dilation and evacuation abortions and imposed safety requirements on abortion clinics.

IN Hodes & Nauser, MDs v. KobachThe state Supreme Court has ruled that a 2015 state law, known as Senate Bill 95, banning dilation and evacuation abortions, also known as dismemberment abortions, is unconstitutional.

Get our latest news for FREE

Subscribe to receive daily/weekly emails with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.

Justice Eric Rosen authored the majority opinion, writing that “Section 1 of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution protects the fundamental right of personal autonomy, which includes the right of a pregnant person to terminate her pregnancy.”

“The State has failed to meet its burden of proof that SB 95 is narrowly tailored to advance any compelling interest. We affirm the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Provider,” Rosen wrote.

Rosen disagreed with the state’s argument that the law was intended to protect life, noting that other second-trimester abortion procedures would still be permitted and that “the state’s interest, as stated, is so general that it means whatever the state wants it to mean when it has to justify something it would like to do.”

“For example, such language could justify the government using force to force someone to donate an organ if it would save their life,” Rosen continued.

Justice Caleb Stegall authored the dissenting opinion, arguing that “the majority cannot bring itself to hold that the government has a compelling interest in unborn human life.”

“Yes, the majority maneuvers around this issue, sidestepping it in favor of a narrow customization analysis. But the truth is that the majority does not answer this question because it is clearly troublesome to the majority’s new Section 1 regime,” Stegall wrote.

IN Hodes & Nauser, MDs v. StanekThe Kansas Supreme Court has ruled against a series of abortion clinic ordinances passed in 2011 and 2015, saying they violate abortion rights.

These included requiring a doctor to be present when a pregnant woman took the abortifacient drug mifepristone and requiring that only doctors — not nurses or midwives — could perform surgical abortions.

Justice Melissa Taylor Standridge authored the majority opinion, finding that “the State has not met its evidentiary burden to show that the challenged laws further support its identified compelling interest in protecting maternal health and regulating the medical profession with respect to maternal health.”

“However, as we have just discussed, any degree of infringement — even a minor one — of a fundamental right protected under Section 1 requires strict scrutiny,” Standridge added.

Stegall also filed a dissenting opinion, arguing that the decision effectively paves the way for any government regulations that interfere with personal choices to be struck down if challenged in court.

“In fact, dozens of other laws govern a person’s right to decide what happens to his or her body, and these must, the majority argue, be subject to strict oversight,” Stegall wrote.

“The vast majority of government action is now subject to the most rigorous and demanding standard of constitutionality—strict scrutiny. And no lawyer or judge anywhere has even attempted to suggest that all or even most of the clearly legitimate purposes of government action could survive such a test.”

Kansans for Life Communications Director Danielle Underwood condemned the rulings in a statement, saying the decisions were based on partisan views.

“Further adding fuel to the fire, the extremely liberal justices of the Kansas Supreme Court invalidated basic health and safety standards for abortion facilities while one of the state’s largest abortion franchises operated for an unknown period of time without medical supervision,” Underwood said.

“It pains me to say, ‘We told you so,’ to the many Kansas residents who have been misled by the abortion industry’s assurances that our state will continue to be ‘heavily regulated’ if voters reject the 2022 amendment.”

Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, whose organization helped represent the plaintiffs in the litigation, celebrated the decisions, declaring that “the Kansas Supreme Court has overwhelmingly reaffirmed that the state constitution protects abortion as a fundamental right.”

“This is a tremendous victory for the health, safety and dignity of people in Kansas and across the Midwest, where millions have been cut off from access to abortion,” Northup said in a statement. “We will continue our fight to ensure that Kansas residents have access to the critical health care they need in their home state.”

In August 2022, Kansas voters rejected a pro-life amendment to the state constitution that would have allowed state lawmakers to impose tighter restrictions on abortion or even ban the procedure altogether.