Recently the Kansas state attorneys have been keeping busy defending the actions of their political counterparts in the Kansas state legislature. This legislature has been on quite the spree recently and has made many moves to advance the sanctity of life. While the majority of a pro-life Kansas has welcomed these worthy actions, some sharply disagree with them. These minority opinions are being defended by a few of abortions’ most vocal friends and, most recently, the ACLU has stepped up in defense of this profane practice.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against the state of Kansas over their controversial law which bans abortion coverage in a standard private insurance plan, and bans all coverage of abortions in plans sold through the state exchange, except when the mother’s life is in danger. In order to receive private insurance for abortion procedures, Kansas state citizens would be required to buy an additional insurance plan on top of the standard plan. This is a plan, however, that several companies have said they will not offer. This law, which would affect all private insurance carriers, is demonstrative of Kansas’ commitment and courage in the fight against abortion and deals another blow to the abortion industry and practice. But not only does it advance Kansas’ pro life agenda, it makes sense and fits within the bounds of law.

To even call abortion, from whatever worldview you look at it, a part of standard healthcare is ridiculous. It is believed by many researchers that abortions can be damaging to a woman’s health in physical ways, as well as psychological ways, making it something that would be outrageous to say advances a woman’s health.  If one will not admit it destroys a young life, then it is, at the very least, the prevention of an unwanted life, but not standard healthcare. The child is not a disease the that needs healing nor is it a condition that needs fixing.  It is a human life.  Abortion is, overall, damaging to the woman’s health, the killing of an unborn child, or if you refuse to believe that, a form of radical birth control, but in no way shape and form necessary to the standard healthcare of a woman.

But despite this, there is a potential question to the legality of restricting insurance companies from providing coverage for abortions.  One could try to argue that the government should not tell private companies what to insure and not to insure, but the government already does this and it is perfectly legal, whether people like it or not. The newly mandated coverage of birth control can be used as case and point of this.

One could then try to take the route the ACLU is taking in their lawsuit and claim that this law presents an undue burden on women who are trying to get an abortion. This has been the precedent and standard on which laws restricting abortion have been judged recently, and this is the standard that the ALCU is trying to say does not match up with the new Kansas law. But when we look at the fact that only 12% of abortions were paid for with private insurance and that two thirds of women who did have private insurance paid out of pocket, all according to the Guttmacher Institute, it is hard to see this as being an undue burden when 88% of women do it already.  Also, with some companies offering the rider, this could all be a mute point as private insurance could be found.

The ACLU also claims it discriminates against women because they say that without abortion coverage, women will not have comprehensive health plans  like men. As addressed earlier, termination of unborn boys and girls should not be considered healthcare, and with this correct understanding women’s healthcare plans without abortion are comprehensive. This has nothing to do with gender discrimination.

The American Civil Liberties Union, far from sticking up for the liberties of the weak, are engaging in an effort to help continue a violent practice that destroys human life under the guise of medical freedom. A legal victory for Kansas means a victory for life, the unborn, and those who no longer want to support this evil practice by making insurance payments with money which can later be used for insurance supported abortions. And with twelve other states passing such laws in 2010, this lawsuit will have enormous bearing on the nation. Let’s pray it bears well.

Recently the Kansas state attorneys have been keeping busy defending the actions of their political counterparts in the Kansas state legislature. This legislature has been on quite the spree recently and has made many moves to advance the sanctity of life. While the majority of a pro-life Kansas has welcomed these worthy actions, some sharply disagree with them. These minority opinions are being defended by a few of abortions’ most vocal friends and, most recently, the ACLU has stepped up in defense of this profane practice.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against the state of Kansas over their controversial law which bans abortion coverage in a standard private insurance plan, and bans all coverage of abortions in plans sold through the state exchange, except when the mother’s life is in danger. In order to receive private insurance for abortion procedures, Kansas state citizens would be required to buy an additional insurance plan on top of the standard plan. This is a plan, however, that several companies have said they will not offer. This law, which would affect all private insurance carriers, is demonstrative of Kansas’ commitment and courage in the fight against abortion and deals another blow to the abortion industry and practice. But not only does it advance Kansas’ pro life agenda, it makes sense and fits within the bounds of law.

To even call abortion, from whatever worldview you look at it, a part of standard healthcare is ridiculous. It is believed by many researchers that abortions can be damaging to a woman’s health in physical ways, as well as psychological ways, making it something that would be outrageous to say advances a woman’s health.  If one will not admit it destroys a young life, then it is, at the very least, the prevention of an unwanted life, but not standard healthcare. The child is not a disease the that needs healing nor is it a condition that needs fixing.  It is a human life.  Abortion is, overall, damaging to the woman’s health, the killing of an unborn child, or if you refuse to believe that, a form of radical birth control, but in no way shape and form necessary to the standard healthcare of a woman.

But despite this, there is a potential question to the legality of restricting insurance companies from providing coverage for abortions.  One could try to argue that the government should not tell private companies what to insure and not to insure, but the government already does this and it is perfectly legal, whether people like it or not. The newly mandated coverage of birth control can be used as case and point of this.

One could then try to take the route the ACLU is taking in their lawsuit and claim that this law presents an undue burden on women who are trying to get an abortion. This has been the precedent and standard on which laws restricting abortion have been judged recently, and this is the standard that the ALCU is trying to say does not match up with the new Kansas law. But when we look at the fact that only 12% of abortions were paid for with private insurance and that two thirds of women who did have private insurance paid out of pocket, all according to the Guttmacher Institute, it is hard to see this as being an undue burden when 88% of women do it already.  Also, with some companies offering the rider, this could all be a mute point as private insurance could be found.

The ACLU also claims it discriminates against women because they say that without abortion coverage, women will not have comprehensive health plans  like men. As addressed earlier, termination of unborn boys and girls should not be considered healthcare, and with this correct understanding women’s healthcare plans without abortion are comprehensive. This has nothing to do with gender discrimination.

The American Civil Liberties Union, far from sticking up for the liberties of the weak, are engaging in an effort to help continue a violent practice that destroys human life under the guise of medical freedom. A legal victory for Kansas means a victory for life, the unborn, and those who no longer want to support this evil practice by making insurance payments with money which can later be used for insurance supported abortions. And with twelve other states passing such laws in 2010, this lawsuit will have enormous bearing on the nation. Let’s pray it bears well.