iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Kansas Abortion Clinic Regulations Challenged By Trio of Doctors

Doctors To Sue Over New Kan Abortion Clinic Rules

JOHN HANNA   10/27/11 08:21 PM ET   AP

TOPEKA, Kan. — Three doctors who perform abortions in Kansas will challenge new regulations for their clinics even after the rules were revised to placate the physicians, their attorneys said Thursday, arguing that the rules still impose unreasonable and "irrational" requirements.

The physicians – Dr. Herbert Hodes, his daughter, Dr. Traci Nauser, and Dr. Ronald Yeomans – already persuaded a federal judge to block the earlier version of the rules. The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents Hodes and Nauser, and Cheryl Pilate, who represents Yeomans, both said Thursday that they would sue over the revised regulations.

Hodes and Nauser perform abortions and other services at their medical offices in the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park and Yeomans performs abortions at a Kansas City, Kan., clinic.

The first version of the rules told providers what drugs and equipment they must stock and set minimum size requirements for procedure and recovery rooms. The department recently revised the rules, paring down the list of drugs and equipment required and dropping specific sizes for rooms. The state published the revised regulations Thursday and they are set to take effect Nov. 14.

A federal judge blocked enforcement of the original regulations until a trial of the doctors' lawsuit. Learning last week that revised regulations would take effect next month, the judge ordered the parties in the lawsuit to analyze the differences between the two sets of rules.

"They made some important changes, which is good, but unfortunately, they have left a lot in that is unacceptable," Bonnie Scott Jones, an attorney for the center, said during a telephone interview. "They're still extremely burdensome in multiple ways, so they still do need to be challenged."

The revised regulations retain a rule allowing only a physician to dispense drugs, which Jones said would prevent a physician's assistant from giving over-the-counter pain medication. Also kept was a requirement that providers make all records available for review by the health department, something critics predict will invade patients' privacy.

Pilate also cited a requirement that patients remain in recovery rooms for up to an hour after a procedure, based on how far along their pregnancy was. The original rules specified a two-hour wait, but Pilate said even the revised version is onerous. She said the new rules still have "medically unnecessary restrictions."

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt's office declined comment. Schmidt is a defendant in the existing lawsuit, as are two county prosecutors in the Kansas City area and the state's secretary of health and environment.

Health department spokeswoman Miranda Steele said the agency had not seen the center's announcement. "KDHE will move forward as we can legally, however we need to do our jobs within the rule of law," she added.

The health department wrote both sets of regulations under a law enacted this year requiring clinics, hospitals and doctors' offices performing five or more elective abortions a month to obtain a special, annual license. It was part of a wave of anti-abortion measures enacted this year across the nation, as abortion opponents capitalized on the election of new, sympathetic Republican governors such as Kansas' Sam Brownback.

The original regulations were temporary because the health department skipped a public hearing to get them in place by July 1, which they said the law required. The revised set was published after a public hearing in September.

Both Yeomans' clinic, Aid for Women, and Hodes' and Nauser's office failed to obtain a license, saying their buildings would need extensive renovations under the original rules. The third abortion provider in Kansas, a Planned Parenthood clinic, also in Overland Park, received a license.

Abortion rights supporters argue the rules are meant to be burdensome enough to discourage doctors and clinics from terminating pregnancies. Abortion opponents argue the rules will protect patients.

Mary Kay Culp, executive director of the anti-abortion group Kansans for Life, said the original rules were "reasonable and state of the art," and abortion providers have no legitimate complaints after their concerns were considered.

___

Online:

Kansas Department of Health and Environment: http://www.kdheks.gov/

Center for Reproductive Rights: http://reproductiverights.org/

Kansans for Life: http://www.kfl.org

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
TOPEKA, Kan. — Three doctors who perform abortions in Kansas will challenge new regulations for their clinics even after the rules were revised to placate the physicians, their attorneys said Th...
TOPEKA, Kan. — Three doctors who perform abortions in Kansas will challenge new regulations for their clinics even after the rules were revised to placate the physicians, their attorneys said Th...
Filed by Jade Walker  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 699
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
03:33 PM on 10/31/2011
"The inalienable right to life possessed by every human being is present from the moment of initial formation, and all human beings shall be entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law." Learn more at: http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/about-personhood.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
giftsthatpurr
zestful life
07:40 PM on 11/03/2011
This is your second cut and paste post. - identical to the first. UGH
photo
CanadjunBeef
Remember Jesus, the radical liberal
02:29 AM on 10/29/2011
Some legislators sudenly take a keen interest in health standards when it is abortion that is the service being provided. All out of concern for women, of course. Riiight.
11:45 AM on 10/29/2011
Not really.
These laws attack those clinics that do abortions and only over abortion procedures. They are very specific with the intent to make abortions more costly and to abuse these clinics. There are many many low impact surgeries and procedures done in clinics that are not put under these laws. The laws exempt these other procedures. Why? If it was really only health, all procedures would be under this. It is because of abortion and only abortion. The hypocracy and cynicism of this is off the charts. I don't believe any of these anti-choice people anymore about pretty much anything. They have lost the last credibility in my mind. They are people who are about their religion and making everyone conform to it, but most notable they abuse poor women and their families. This abuse is horrific.
06:37 PM on 10/28/2011
In general when this issue comes up I am noting a huge error being made by both sides. Stop attacking people (specifically or a group generalization) and attack the arguement. Observations are fine.

It is so hard to take a person's thoughts seriously when they use name calling tactics like a middle schooler.

(Slightly off topic, middle school kids are aweful to each other. I had to ride the MS bus home one day from HS and I mean dang).
photo
goatini
We are two-legged wombs, that’s all
09:08 PM on 10/28/2011
It would be a start to stop attacking WOMEN.
12:49 PM on 10/29/2011
I cannot speak for everybody, but I know I have yet to attack any women or women in general.

Just because your civil rights interfere with another human's human rights does not mean I am attacking your rights. Rather I am defending the other's rights.

Thats like saying abolitionists were attacking wealthy white slave owners. (Well some of them were but thats not the point).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wyl
04:58 PM on 10/28/2011
Welcome to Brownbackistan, it's where Kansas used to be
Welcome toBrownbackistan, it's our new theocracy!
Brownback and Koch call all the shots, we're governed by the rich
The wealthy all get wealthier and the rest can all eat s@#$

(the video!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLUfNPdirdE
photo
3RawBob
My Bible: the Jefferson Bible
04:00 PM on 10/28/2011
I am an Obama fan, but it has taken him a long time to realize that the President runs the administration of the Federal Government. Executive Orders have weight. The Department of Justice has power. Health and Human Services has control over programs.

I would like to see a tough Justice Department and HHS response to these states’ blatant violation of the health needs of citizens. Cut off all HHS funds that they legally can, and rescind every program with the state that is in non-compliance. Slow walk every request from that state, and force the state to sue the Federal Government for any action.

There are times I wish Obama was more like Lyndon Johnson.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimtodd
Unrepentant child of '60s
03:23 PM on 10/28/2011
Abortion is an inconsequential act that is of no interest to anyone not party to the pregnancy. Further, any law dealing directly with the right or access to abortion services is unconstitutional, because it violates church state separation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shannington
You'll get as much respect as you give me.
04:02 PM on 10/28/2011
Fanned!
06:39 PM on 10/28/2011
I beg to differ. The state constitutionally has an interest to defend human life. This includes human life in its most basic form.

I know I am using simmplistic terms and will probably have to explain myself further.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MathIsTruth
07:30 PM on 10/28/2011
Abortion is about human tissue, not about human life.

You argument, therefore, is inapplicable.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimtodd
Unrepentant child of '60s
08:22 PM on 10/28/2011
Your point is simplistic enough. It is just wrong from every point of view other than your own. First of all, there is nothing about human life that is so unique as to lend some special value to its mere prospect. It's not like we are running out of people.
12:03 PM on 10/28/2011
Since god is responsible for all things according to religious types how can you say god is against abortions when he causes so many more miscarriages?
12:52 PM on 10/28/2011
which also means he causes all cancers and acts of terroism, or in the very least does nothing to stop it from happening. god does work in mysterious ways ya know, thank god hes not worse!
06:30 PM on 10/28/2011
I assume by god, you are referring to the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam correct. If so it is a proper noun and would be greatly appreciated if you used it as such. Not a big deal but itis a bit rude. I'm sure this was not blatant but,if you could simply try to do so, it would be great. Thanks.

I may be wrong, but I do believe He gave mankind freedom beyond his control. I personally think Him to be more of a big picture kinda diety rather than a micromanager. Again just me though.
11:59 AM on 10/28/2011
Their rubepublicans so rational doesn't apply and mythology rules!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
OlderBudWeiser
Retired RN in Ca.
11:53 AM on 10/28/2011
Where are the jobs?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joseph Van Der Putten
11:52 AM on 10/28/2011
Why talk about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, while you are busy forcing your way ever deeper into the American bedroom ?

Smaller govt. means we don't have time to worry about JOBS, we're too busy checking out what's happening in your crotch area.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ira Meyers
Blogger,Proud Liberal
11:45 AM on 10/28/2011
So much for less Gov. intrusion into our life. Creepy people, the men of Kansas know more about sheep then do they women.
06:33 PM on 10/28/2011
Not any more intrusive than saying I cant own a person.

*Note, I am not saying I agree with owning a person rather I am using it as an example.
photo
Topo19
4 more for 44
06:52 PM on 10/28/2011
It is far more intrusive.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lou Allin
Lou is the author of two series of mystery novels
11:43 AM on 10/28/2011
Small government for the GOP: Open your legs and say ahhhhh.
photo
goatini
We are two-legged wombs, that’s all
05:05 PM on 10/28/2011
You mean, "Amen".
11:39 AM on 10/28/2011
This is the same people who preach the gospel, they will do anything to protect the life of the unborn but once born until death they will fight just as hard to keep their thumb on the scales. Mostly men are most vocal and active on this issue isn't that interesting. No woman I know has a plan to have an abortion, but to take away that choice as given in the constitution. I believe every woman is pro-life but wants the freedom to choose. These same people fight for life before conception, but cheer for executions of possible innocent people, the law be damned. They want a pure country, pure in their religion (which is another choice freedom we have) pure in race, pure in ideology, they bend laws to insure that. demonize people who disagree, They turn their backs on the poor, the needy, think the poor are a drain on the society, rather than a hand up they give a slap down. they forget about you from womb to tomb. These new laws also will limit most birth control, another choice they fight to take away. The high and mighty are no closer to God than the poor. These people sicken me, and terrify me. I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion, CHOICE, is that word in their vocabulary?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:33 AM on 10/28/2011
Abortion is always wrong, and sometimes evil.
11:56 AM on 10/28/2011
In your opinion, which is of no consequence if it isn't your womb.
photo
LibSocialistSiren
So Liberal, it makes your teeth hurt!
11:58 AM on 10/28/2011
Please keep your wacky values away from my reproductive rights. Kthanx!
11:23 AM on 10/28/2011
I don't think you have to be a religious person to see abortion is not a positive thing. Atheist, agnostics, diestes should all agree that being responsible for your actions includes accepting consequences. I recently saw a statistic that 41% of pregnancies in NYC end in termination. No matter what your religious beliefs I find this to be a sad statistic for our society. There are lasting effects for the women and men who chose abortion and I would argue that those who do chose rarely have this choice as a pillar of pride and are not telling everyone I had an abortion. It also has nothing to do with a women's right to choice. There has to be point where you loose your right to choice. I can not understand how anyone can argue for late or live birth abortion. Once that baby can survive outside of the mothers womb, it is clearly murder to end it's life.
AquarianInExile
Eykis is Aquarian
11:47 AM on 10/28/2011
BJ,

IT IS NOBODY's BUSINESS - Do you tell EVERYONE what your doctor said about your arthritis?


Accepting Consequences? So, punishment is a-okay for ACCIDENTAL PREGNANCY?



RIDICULOUS STATEMENTS.


Eykis
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
anon004
Yes, it's true -- reality has a liberal bias
12:36 PM on 10/28/2011
"Atheist, agnostics, diestes should all agree that being responsibl­e for your actions includes accepting consequenc­es."

Tell me, how much say does the kid get when being born to a parent that doesn't want, or can't afford him/her?

"There has to be point where you loose your right to choice."

And who is going to determine that? A judge? A cop? A politican? You? When it's my body, I reserve the right to be the ultimate arbiter of that choice, as any free person would.

BTW, there is no such thing as a "live birth" abortion. That's just an emotionally loaded term cooked up by the anti-choicers to describe a certain type of procedure. It's a contradiction in terms.
AquarianInExile
Eykis is Aquarian
01:00 PM on 10/28/2011
Anon,

No doubt bjackson is a MAN deciding what WOMEN should do with THEIR BODIES.


Typical FEWL.



Eykis
04:48 PM on 10/28/2011
The intellectual dishonesty with which you argue is amazing.

What if I said no one should have that choice? No police, government,me, you or a parent. We as a society limit harmful behaviors of our members all of the time. I highly doubt that those of you who argue for pro choice believe that all laws and regulations pertaining to peoples choice to harm themselves or others are bad. Are you against laws that simply reduce the likely hood of harm like speed limits as well? I like to drive 160 MPH and I don't appreciate you putting speed bumps in the neighborhood as it limits my freedom of choice to drive recklessly.

What about that statistic I shared that said that 44% of pregnancy in NYC end in abortion. That seems like a symptom of a profoundly sick society in my assessment.

Anyway this is not an all or nothing discussion for me, I just think that to sit back and act like this is a freedom that has positive consequences or implications for our society is not truthful. The more that people can agree on the more reasonable laws we are likely to have, if we continue to constantly have polarizing view we will undoubtedly have bad laws.