Now let’s see: There are single-issue voters, and there is the Kansas Court of Appeals.
Where do the twain meet?
Possibly on Dec. 9, when the Kansas Court of Appeals sits en banc (a fancy term for all 14 of them together, rather than in the usual three-judge panels scattered around the state) to hear the case challenging a new abortion law.
The law prohibits a relatively rare second-trimester abortion procedure which anti-abortion activists politically cleverly named the “Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act.”
Now, the procedure isn’t used often, and it increases the chances that after an abortion, a woman retains a higher probability of planned pregnancy.
Abortion-rights interests believe outlawing specific procedures to perform a legal abortion is unconstitutional, something medical professionals and not legislators and lobbyists should decide. Anti-abortion groups believe the law is a step toward outlawing all abortions, which is what they want.
It’s about that simple.
A Shawnee County District Court judge issued an injunction against enforcement of the law and the Kansas Supreme Court decided not to hear the case—essentially preventing enforcement of the law.
The high court is already hip-deep in controversial cases, including whether the Legislature and governor are spending enough on K-12 education to ensure all Kansas schoolchildren have equal opportunities to receive a good education…oh, yes, and that district court chief judge selection matter which carries a provision which would shut down the court by repealing its budget appropriation.
So, the attorney general asked the Court of Appeals to hear the case and it said yes, essentially as a way to speed movement of the issue to the Kansas Supreme Court (see above).
But the Court of Appeals hearing in December—that’s where the politics of the issue continue.
First, of course, with all members of the Court of Appeals hearing the case—idea apparently is that the 14 will reach a decision quicker than just three?—all 14 are going to have essentially to vote either yes or no on the abortion law. That puts all of the judges on record.
Oh, let’s not forget that six of those judges stand for retention election next November. That retention election? Remember the list of judges whose names you don’t recognize at the bottom of the ballot? The “yes” or “no” box you check to keep them in office or boot them out? Figure anyone who opposes all forms of abortion will vote not to confirm judges who voted against the constitutionality of the abortion bill.
And, figure that voters will be reminded of the constitutionality decision by mailers, phone calls and e-mails—from anti-abortion activists, of course, but probably also from abortion-rights forces—in the days before the usually forgettable confirmation votes at next November’s elections.
So, at least six of those judges will be putting their careers in jeopardy for doing their job—carefully and impartially determining whether the anti-abortion law is constitutional, not whether they want to keep making their car payments.
Oh, yes, remember that Gov. Brownback gets to appoint, without any screening by the Supreme Court Nominating Commission but subject to Senate confirmation, members of the Court of Appeals. So Brownback—who signed the anti-abortion bill in the first place—gets to appoint the booted judges’ replacements.
Head spinning a bit? Whether the bill is lawful or not, well, that’s up to the court. But once the black-robed folks get their job done, the politics will start.
Don’t doubt it for a minute…
Syndicated by Hawver News Company LLC of Topeka; Martin Hawver is publisher of Hawver’s Capitol Report—to learn more about this nonpartisan statewide political news service, visit the website at www.hawvernews.com.
