Kansans Brace for Possibility of "Governor Brownback"

Author image

Pro-choice advocates in Kansas have had to put up with a lot over the years. They've suffered the attentions of the poisonously anti-choice Operation Rescue, an extremist organization that waged a virulent campaign against providers, while conservative Republican majorities have battered away at abortion rights on the legislative front.

Choice advocates suffered a grievous loss earlier this year when the unrelenting atmosphere of violence promoted by Operation Rescue resulted in the assassination of Dr. George Tiller. But no matter how bad things have become with the extremists, pro-choicers have been covered legislatively. Despite its red state reputation, Kansas advocates have relied on friendly governors to veto an endless stream of anti-choice bills.

But now, as the state gears up for the 2010 governor's race, this delicate balance could be shattered by the current front runner: Republican Senator Sam Brownback.

Brownback's name should be warning enough to anyone who knows anything about reproductive rights. This is the guy who attempted to make ultrasounds mandatory for women seeking abortions, tried to deprive Planned Parenthood of Title X family planning funding for low-income clients, and argued that rape and incest survivors shouldn't have access to abortions. When he ran in the 2008 primaries, Brownback declared abortion is "the reason I'm in the race for president, to right this wrong." He has never lost a political race in Kansas.

"[To say we are nervous] would be an understatement," said Kari Ann Rinker, the National Organization for Women's lobbyist in Topeka. "I've never heard of the man making a reasonable vote. Anytime a woman is responsible for her private health care decision making, he has no problem inserting himself into the process."

During Brownback's time in the U.S. Senate, the effects of his radical opinions on reproductive rights were diluted by the sheer size of the upper chamber. But as governor he could really do some damage in alliance with the conservative lawmakers who have long controlled the Kansas state legislature. "We see a lot of scary stuff on a regular basis," Rinker says. "[Governor] Kathleen [Sebelius] vetoed a lot of the worst stuff that came down the pike."

Without a friendly hand behind the veto pen in Kansas, in the last year Planned Parenthood would have been defunded by budget amendment, providers would be required to put up posters acknowledging the anti-choice bugbear of coercive abortion, and any woman past 22 weeks of pregnancy whose baby could conceivably be kept alive through artificial means wouldn't be eligible for an abortion. (In Kansas, abortion past the 22-week mark is illegal unless serious health risks are involved; another vetoed item would have allowed parents or partners to sue if they suspected the health risks weren't that serious.) Efforts to achieve all of these were attempted in the past year. There is no reason to expect a Republican legislature with Brownback behind it to be any less pugnacious about women's rights.

More troubling still, the field of gubernatorial candidates appealing to the pro-choice vote isn't particularly broad. In the past, moderate Republican governors like Bill Graves, Sebelius's predecessor, have vetoed anti-choice legislation. But this year the Republican primary field has been swept of contenders by Brownback's intimidating presence and the party's nationwide purge of anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh.

While Brownback has been the presumptive Republican nominee since early 2009, the Democrats didn't announce a contender until November 17, when Tom Wiggans, a moderate businessman recently returned to Kansas, entered the race. But despite Wiggans's personal fortune and centrist credentials, he has already retired from the field, leaving Democrats scrambling for a replacement. A new contender is unlikely to be announced until after the holidays.

"We are a long ways away from November 2010 still," said Tyler Longpine, Communications Director for the Kansas State Democratic Party. "A year is an eternity in politics. Between now and then Sam Brownback will get the challenge he deserves."

As of right now, the prospects look bleak. Wiggans was reportedly tapped because senior Democratic Party officials at the state level decided against running next year, due to Brownback's unusually strong position.

"By virtue of Brownback's name recognition, the length of time he has been a Senator, that he was a presidential candidate, there is no question this he [will be] the front runner," said Peter Brownlie, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri.

But name recognition cuts both ways. Everyone in Kansas knows about Brownback's hard right edge, particularly around women's issues, and that may not be a boon in a state whose voters are rapidly wearying of abortion-related demagoguery. The last statewide politician who emphasized his radical anti-choice ideology didn't do his political prospects any favors. Phil Kline gained notoriety for using his powers as attorney general to paw through women's confidential abortion records in quest of some unspecified wrongdoing (the women were largely patients of Dr. Tiller). When the extent of his extremism became clear, Kline was rewarded for his bullying doggedness with a double-digit loss to a Democrat in the 2006 election cycle. In 2008 he lost his next election, for Johnson County district attorney, again by double digits, this time to a fellow Republican.

"People of both parties and all over the state are tired of abortion being the prominent issue when the state is facing economic problems," Brownlie says. "In the last two election cycles it has been pretty clear that a lot of voters are really sick of politicians who are all about abortion, all the time."

A couple of timely court dramas could help realize Brownlie's opinion. Two of Kline's top aides are currently on trial for ethics violations related to their hectoring crusade against abortion providers. It is widely speculated that Kline may be next. Brownlie hopes that "the possibilities of sanctions or disbarment will further discredit the far right anti-abortion wing of the Republican Party."

Considering the fruits of Kline's radical anti-abortion positions, and other x factors, like the fall out from the trial of Dr. Tiller's killer, pro-choice advocates have reason to hope, if Democrats can find a worthwhile candidate. In which case, Brownback's position may not be as unimpeachable as it appears.

. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
11 comments
Please login or register to post and rate comments...
Comments are rated by readers on a scale from 1 to 5. Comments with a rating of 2 or less are hidden. Click on hidden comments to view them.
0
elm The right of people to know the atrocities, to know the victims January 5, 2010 - 5:41pm

It is a shame that one child has to die so we can live as we want.

 

long live Senator Brownback, there's a high place in heaven for him. He is a hero to the fifty million children who were never aloud to draw a breathe.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyDxaQ4ZApA&feature=player_embedded

0
bitologic "This is the guy who January 5, 2010 - 10:39pm

"This is the guy who attempted to make ultrasounds mandatory for women seeking abortions"

I don't understand what is so bad about a woman being able to make an informed choice. A choice based in the light of modern scientific advances. Perhaps your not really "pro-choice" at all.

jeff

0
ProChoiceFerret dook dook dook dook dook January 6, 2010 - 2:23pm

"This is the guy who attempted to make ultrasounds mandatory for women seeking abortions"

I don't understand what is so bad about a woman being able to make an informed choice. A choice based in the light of modern scientific advances. Perhaps your not really "pro-choice" at all.

Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?

0
crowepps Informed choice January 6, 2010 - 3:22pm

What information does the ultrasound contribute to her choice?  The fact that she's pregnant?  She already knows that or she wouldn't be seeking an abortion.  The average cost of $200 is a further bar to her ability to do so, even without the implicit message of "you're too stupid to know what's in there".

0
ProChoiceGoth Um, making something mandatory IS NOT pro-choice January 9, 2010 - 5:10pm

If a woman CHOOSES to look at the ultrasound, I am fine with that. What I'm NOT fine with, is a woman being FORCED to look and being told utter lies about the development of the fetus to ATTEMPT to deter her from aborting. Women are not idiots. Don't treat us as such. 

 

It's pro-choice or NO choice.

0
Princess Rot I shall put this as simply as possible... January 6, 2010 - 2:13pm

Informed choice, my ass.

 

A woman seeking abortion is not an alien who just beamed down from another planet. She knows she's pregnant and what she's pregnant with. Whatever her reasons it is the outcome of pregnancy that she doesn't want - hence the need for an abortion. Ultrasound has always been available on request, so these laws are completely (and deliberately) redundant on that point because that is not the reason they exist.

 

Making ultrasound compulsory only adds to the expense and effort unfortunately needed to persue this basic reproductive right, potentially cutting out poor, isolated and uninsured women and using them as a proxy to send a message to all women. The message is that not wanting to be pregnant and not wanting a child, or this child, for whatever reason, is dirty, unnatural and shameful, as is the act that led to the pregnancy (but only for the woman, men automatically don't count because of the existing societal standard that women are responsible for sex). It's got nothing to do with "saving babies" because it's all about shaming. If you do believe the hot air they spout about saving lives you are being wilfully naive.

0
jgbeam Go Sam! January 6, 2010 - 5:41pm

This could be his chance to get back in the good graces of the pro-life community after his sellout support of your revered Kathleen.

Jim Grant, Pro-lifer

0
faultroy We Really Need Some Cooler Heads January 8, 2010 - 11:35pm

When Dr. Tillman was assassinated I was furious with the Right for not condemning this senseless act with much more fervor. It is total hypocrisy to call him a killer and then say: "he got what he deserved." It does not have to be this way. Anti's have a legitimate right to actively protest and aggressively fight for unborn rights. However very few Americans would be in favor of no Abortion Rights whatsoever. What all conservative Americans want is the recognition and the vocal acknowledgement that Abortion by its very nature is abhorrent and vulgar. And while morally reprehensible, sometimes it is necessary. Abortion advocates have steadfastly refused to validate this position and as a result of not doing so, have literally polarized and given indirect support and aid to the Prolife platform. The biggest problem for both sides of the debate is an unrelenting unyielding nod to the reality that both positions have some level of merit. I cannot forsee a reversal of Roe V Wade, but I can certainly see a major chipping away at its foundation if the Pro Abortionists do not resolve this Public Relations nightmare. The feeling on Main Street is that pro abortionists are nothing more than a bunch of Greedy Heartless Harpies that only want the Federal Aid Dollars and really care nothing whatsoever about human life. It really is high time for some major damage control from Pro Abortion Activists. It is time to put the political rhetoric aside and show empathy--on both sides.

0
ahunt What all conservative January 9, 2010 - 1:04am

What all conservative Americans want is the recognition and the vocal
acknowledgement that Abortion by its very nature is abhorrent and
vulgar. And while morally reprehensible, sometimes it is necessary.

 

Then maybe conservative Amercans should stop gettiing abortions. Unless of course...you operate under the delusion that only poor, vulgar liberals choose abortion.

 

Abortion advocates have steadfastly refused to validate this position

 

Um...because we do not believe that abortion is morally reprehensible? Just maybe?

 

 

 

 

0
crowepps Vocal acknowledgement January 9, 2010 - 1:22pm

What all conservative Americans want is the recognition and the vocal acknowledgement that Abortion by its very nature is abhorrent and vulgar. And while morally reprehensible, sometimes it is necessary.

Vulgar?  "Lacking in good taste", "common", "lower class"?

 

So conservative Americans don't want to actually STOP abortions or restrict abortions but instead for women to understand that they should be ASHAMED of not wanting to be pregnant?  Or perhaps for women to be ASHAMED of having had sex and so becoming 'cheap' or 'slutty' or 'loathsome'.  That's what I thought conservative Americans wanted and that's why I oppose their goals.

 

As for abortion being simultaneously 'morally reprehensible' AND 'necessary' that is just ridiculous.  If something is necessary, as far instance to save ones own life because of ectopic pregnancy, there isn't any moral choice involved at all.  Most people aren't so stuck in black and white decision making as to consider married women reluctantly ending wanted pregnancies 'immoral' for choosing to live.

0
ProChoiceGoth What children? January 9, 2010 - 5:08pm

There are no children involved in abortions.


It's pro-choice or
NO choice.