The House passed a wide-ranging anti-abortion bill Monday, along with another bill meant to keep Kansas courts from making rulings based on foreign laws — which some supporters have said is necessary to protect the state from Muslims who would impose their legal code, also known as sharia.
The abortion bill, which supporters dubbed "The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," passed 88-31. It seeks to revamp the state's tax code to remove all subsidies — direct and indirect — for medical costs related to the elective termination of pregnancy.
"We're talking about not being able to deduct the cost of any health insurance that pays for coverage of abortions," said Rep. John Rubin, R-Shawnee, one of the bill's champions.
Rubin said the bill also prohibits including donations to institutions that provide abortions in a taxpayer's charitable deductions.
Opponents of the bill expressed concerns about how it would be enforced, saying that tax auditors combing through a woman's medical records to find evidence of an abortion within her deductions could run up against privacy laws established by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA.
Rep. Sean Gatewood, D-Topeka, is on the Federal and State Committee that heard the bill and said he had received no enforcement information.
"We never heard a word from the Department of Revenue," Gatewood said. "Nothing."
Rubin said the department already audits medical deductions routinely and there may be a provision in HIPAA that allows access to medical records for law enforcement purposes.
"As with all changes to the tax code, our tax staff and auditors will study it after the session is over," department spokeswoman Jeannine Koranda said of the bill.
The bill also revises the information distributed by the Department of Health and Environment to include a link between abortion and breast cancer that is disputed by several major medical groups.
Rep. Barbara Bollier, R-Mission Hills, a retired physician, offered an amendment Friday to tack on several specific medical risks of continuing a pregnancy, but it was defeated.
"Women must have accurate medical information, as well as true informed consent," Bollier said in a statement explaining her "no" vote that a number of other House members signed on to. "House Substitute for Senate Bill 313 purposefully creates confusion about risks associated with medical treatments. It requires limited informed consent information that is one-sided. It allows health care providers to withhold information from patients, which is unethical."
The bill also restricts the state from paying anyone who engages in abortion or abortion training, which has caused an ongoing debate about the medical accreditation of The University of Kansas' obstetrics and gynecology program.
Medical residents in the program, considered state employees, currently may receive off-site abortion training or may opt out if they have a moral or religious objection, which is in line with an accrediting group's written standards.
An amendment to the bill allows medical residents to step out of their state employee status and receive the training "on their own time and their own dime," but that expires after one year.
Some conservatives have begun advocating a tougher stance on the medical center.
Kansans for Life, the main lobbying force behind the underlying bill, has said it won’t result in a loss of accreditation.
The other bill passed by the House, dubbed the "Kansas Laws for Kansas Courts Act," prohibits judges from making any ruling based on a foreign or religious law that is contrary to the state or federal Constitution.
It doesn’t specifically mention sharia in order to distinguish itself from an Oklahoma law already declared unconstitutional.
But supporters, including Rep. Peggy Mast, R-Emporia, and Rep. Jan Pauls, D-Hutchinson, have called it a pre-emptive measure to prevent the spread of Islamic law.
Several lawyers outside the Statehouse warned that the bill could sour international trade for Kansas companies, but Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, told the House that a conference committee amended it to exempt business-to-business transactions in which foreign laws are taken into account.
"We wanted to make sure nothing in this bill would prohibit that relatively common proceeding," Kinzer said.
The bill passed 120-0.
Comments (100)
Add commentSo the Amendment
would exempt business-to-business transactions with companies from countries who live under Sharia law? That means that should a transaction 'go sour' or some provisions of a contract were violated, that the American (or Kansan) company would be left holding the bag because if litigated, the Sharia law would prevail? More explanation is needed! I support the bill as introduced, as it protects our fundamental rights under the U.S. and Kansas Constitutions. No foreign country has the right to force their 'laws' or legal system on American soil--EVER!!! Our military men and women put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms. This Legislature needs to ensure that their sacrifices are not in vain.
standby,
I think it means it will be legal to imprison a juror if they make a decision other than what the judge and prosecutor wants.
Islam
Is trying to take over the world through any method possible.
Topeka78
you are talking about the real threat aren't you the right wing christian Jihad teaparty running the republican party?
it means that sharia law will not be considered in kansas courts
if the defendant is from an Islamist country and abides by sharia while living on this soil.
You Know,, Like if a father kills his Daughter for dating a Jew.
Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Secret Iran Sales
Koch Industries Inc., one of the world’s largest privately held companies, sent Ludmila Egorova-Farines, its newly hired compliance officer and ethics manager, to investigate the management of a subsidiary in Arles in southern France. In less than a week, she discovered that the company had paid bribes to win contracts
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting...
sonofbettysventilator
Kinda like kansas law that makes abortion illegal for our daughter, mother or sisters if they get raped or knocked up by a family member. The teaparty law! you know?
But they can't pass a budget!
But they can't pass a budget!
Legislature
When will they get to the important stuff. Like Redistricting, the Budget.....?
The right wing nuts
are becoming more paranoid everyday. And what the hell does sharia law and abortion have in common. Fear mongering at its worst with invisible enemies.
sonofbettysventilator
How should American courts interpret and enforce the provisions of Muslim marriage contracts, specifically the payment of mahr (financial assets given by the groom directly to the bride, to be placed in her name and intended to provide support for her in case of the groom's death, a divorce, etc.)?
That's probably one of the elements of shari'a most likely to be considered by American judges: does a Muslim marriage contract constitute a prenup, or is it a simple contract meant to be interpreted and enforced through contract law? Without reference to the religious and cultural bases upon which such contracts are built, how do you decide whether the bride get to keep the money if one or the other fails to go through with the marriage or they divorce before payments are complete?
In Zawahiri v Alwattar, an Ohio court considered such a question: the groom had promised under a shari'a marriage contract to pay the bride $25,000. When he divorced her, she asked for her money; the court refused to consider shari'a, and sent her away empty-handed. Good decision or bad?
All of you!
Think of all the things you do here and now that would get you EXECUTED
if we were under sharia law.
These anti-abortion nuts are
These anti-abortion nuts are such HYPOCRITES! They claim it is all about information so women can make 'informed consent'. This piece of work allows doctors to withhold information..you know, too much information just won't do for these people. Women could have a life threatening condition and doctor's don't have to tell her because that information may make her decide to get an aboriton? The woman could have cancer but the doctor doesn't have to tell her. Oh, they aren't totally heartless..if she DIES, then her family can sue the doctor. Her baby could have severe deformities or no brain and she doesn't need to know it? Then, this law FORCED doctors to LIE and say that abortion causes breast cancer which the AMA and ACI have said is absolutely not true! This is just another illegal law that Kansas taxpayers will have to pay to defend. We've already wasted over 600K with no end in sight. These hypocrites have no ethics so they have no right to tell women what personal private decisions they should make.
Slash! thats why people that live under sharia law should stay
In country's with sharia law.
If they are in the UNITED STATES of AMERICA,,
they should abide by OUR LAWS!
sonofbettysventilator
And what, exactly, does our law say about a woman who agrees to a marriage under a given set of conditions and expectations, and then expects her husband to live up to that agreement? "Too bad, so sad"?
You ain't talkin' about me Digger,,
I'm PRO CHOICE!
Digger66
"Oh, they aren't totally heartless..if she DIES, then her family can sue the doctor. "
Um, actually, I don't think her family CAN sue the doctor; the whole bit about civil immunity pretty well precludes such a suit's success.
Okay slash,, what are we talking about now,, Apples or Oranges??
.
sonofbettysventilator
The Koran authorizes the punishment of exactly four criminal offenses (theft, fornication, false witness and waging war against Islam), and does not specify the death penalty for any of them.
The body of law (shari'a and fiqh) that has grown up around the Koran owes quite a bit more to local pre-Islamic legal traditions than to anything the Prophet actually said, which means it varies quite a bit from country to country, sect to sect, region to region, imam to imam. Which offenses have you committed that you think would get you the death penalty, and in which place?
sonofbettysventilator
The bride agrees, in front of the religious officiant, to love, honor, and obey; the groom promises to love, honor, cherish, and give her $25 grand. She upholds her end of the bargain, the groom does not, and the state of Ohio says "too bad." Your suggestion is that to uphold her rights and get her husband to live up to his word, she needs to move to another country. Wow.
(And yes, in some countries failure to pay the mahr can lead to the groom getting thrown in jail until he or his family cough up some assets to pay off the obligation.)
slash...
I'm running at 2 out of 4 on the Koran criminal offenses...think I will stick with my Christianity...at least I'm forgiven!
Beth Din
Here's a fun fact a lot of people don't know: the Beth Din of America operates as a rabbinic court, judging family and commercial disputes in accordance with Jewish Orthodox law. It's a form of binding arbitration, so if you agree to take your dispute to the Beth Din, you also agree that the decision will be enforceable in the regular court system. Therefore, the state court (be it Kansas or New York or California or Texas) can end up enforcing a decision based on what is or is not kosher, or what conforms to halacha law.
Is this good or bad? Does your opinion of the Kansas court enforcing religious law depend on whether it is shari'a or halacha or Roman canon law?
Our rights
In the states that elected Republican Governors, they all are trying to pass these laws. Just think if Rommy is elected President, Women Beware
Americans
should first of all abide by the Constitution, Federal and State Laws.
We do elect legislators to pass laws, if it is not what one is looking for, then think about the philosophical beliefs of the person you are voting for before you cast your vote, or correct your vote in the next election.
If there are religious considerations, then those are private issues, separate from what our Constitution provides.
Thanks for the laugh on this one:
"which some supporters have said is necessary to protect the state from Muslims who would impose their legal code, sharia."
Like, how many Muslims are in our legislature, now? Do you expect Kansas voters to elect a majority of Muslims to the legislature any time soon?
Good grief.
And the real work goes undone so they can cater to their hubris, and to less than brilliant voters who eat this crp up like it's t-bone steak.
These jerks always yell about less government in our lives UNTIL
It's something THEY want to impose on everyone else!
Rep. Jan Pauls, D-Hutchinson, called it a preemptive
measure to prevent the spread of Islamic law.
Guess some Democrats like t-Bone TOO!
HA HA HA!
.
No foriegn country can force their laws now
This is a solution to a problem that doesn't and can't exist but it makes certain people feel good about themselves.
By preemptive,
she means we do not currently have a problem with this. It's okay to vote for it if you want, but if you read my post again you'll see that I want them to work on problems we have RIGHT NOW.
What does it preempt? It preempts the possibility that the majority of Kansas voters will vote in a majority in the legislature of Muslims or people who agree with Sharia law (beat your women, keep them in burquas, kill your girls if they do something you don't like).
Hell, if every Kansan, and that includes Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, deplores the idea of Sharia law, then by all means, stop the presses - do nothing until you get this law on the books.
But what is the excuse for doing it now when we have so many other pressing problems?
1) To stall so they can come back on tax payer expense to work overtime.
2) To cater to the voters who think Democrats will hate not having Sharia law.
Come on, people. Stop playing games.
Nobody in Kansas wants Sharia law. Are you serious?