Latest news with #KansasConstitution
Yahoo
a day ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Kansans challenge constitutionality of state law nullifying end-of-life choices of pregnant women
Five lawsuit plaintiffs, three women and two physicians from Lawrence, are part of a constitutional challenge of a Kansas law nullifying the end-of-life medical care decisions of pregnant women. The suit was filed Thursday in Douglas County District Court. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector) TOPEKA — Two physicians and three women are plaintiffs in a Kansas lawsuit challenging constitutionality of a state law invalidating advance medical directives outlining end-of-life treatment for pregnant patients. The group's lawsuit seeks to prohibit enforcement of a Kansas statute interfering with health care decisions outlined in living wills based exclusively on an individual's pregnancy status. Kansas is among states permitting state interference in advance directives for pregnant patients, regardless of the gestational age of a fetus, when a person was incapacitated or terminally ill. Issues surrounding end-of-life state law recently took on urgency as a brain-dead pregnant Georgia woman was placed on life support in deference to that state's abortion ban. Kansas patient plaintiffs Emma Vernon, Abigail Ottaway and Laura Stratton as well as Kansas physician plaintiffs Michele Bennett and Lynley Holman argued in the Douglas County District Court complaint filed Thursday the Kansas law violated rights of personal autonomy, privacy, equal treatment and freedom of speech under the Kansas Constitution's Bill of Rights by disregarding clearly articulated end-of-life choices of pregnant people. 'Because I'm currently pregnant, I don't get the peace of mind a living will is meant to provide,' said Vernon, a Lawrence resident who is pregnant. 'I shouldn't have to fear that my pregnancy could cost me my dignity and autonomy.' Vernon said she outlined in a living will the medical care she would want if faced with a life-threatening condition, but Kansas' law meant she wouldn't have control over her end-of-life care while pregnant. 'I am no less capable of planning my medical care simply because I am pregnant. I know what is best for me,' she said. Many states established a boundary for medical directives of pregnant individuals no longer capable of participating in end-of-life care in terms of the viability of a fetus. Kansas' statute invalidated decision-making authority of pregnant women regardless of gestational development of a fetus. Holman, a Lawrence physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, said responsibilities of health care professionals should be centered on honoring patients' autonomy and privacy. 'When a law compels me to act against my patients' clearly expressed decisions, it not only undermines the trust at the heart of the patient-provider relationship, but also threatens the ethical foundation of medical care,' Holman said. Defendants in the Kansas lawsuit are Kris Kobach, the state attorney general; Richard Bradbury, president of the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts; and Dakota Loomis, district attorney in Douglas County. The lawsuit seeks to prevent Kobach and Bradbury from enforcing state law nullifying directives of pregnant women. The case was filed by attorneys with Compassion & Choices, a Colorado nonprofit working to improve patient autonomy at the end of life; If/When/How, a California reproductive rights legal nonprofit; and the Topeka law firm of Irigonegaray & Revenaugh. Attorney Pedro Irigonegaray said Kansans valued individual rights and personal freedoms, but the state's pregnancy exclusion 'betrays those values by denying pregnant people the right to control their own medical decisions.' 'Our plaintiffs are simply asking for the same fundamental rights the Kansas Constitution guarantees to all Kansans,' said Jess Pezley, senior staff attorney at Compassion & Choices. 'Categorically stripping individuals of their right to make deeply personal end-of-life decisions because they are pregnant is not only offensive, it's fundamentally at odds with the values enshrined in the Kansas Constitution.' The lawsuit says Kansas law 'unjustly, discriminatorily and categorically disregards' the clearly expressed end-of-life decisions of pregnant women. The women plaintiffs asked the district court to 'affirm that the protections guaranteed by the Kansas Constitution apply equally to them and ensure that their most personal end-of-life decisions will be respected regardless of their pregnancy status.' In addition, the petition says the physician plaintiffs were 'deeply committed to the foundational medical principle that patients have a fundamental right to determine what treatment they receive, and that providing treatment without a patient's informed consent violates both medical ethics and the law.' 'Yet, Kansas law compels them to disregard their patients' clearly expressed end-of-life decisions, forcing them to provide their pregnant patients with a lower standard of care than any of their other patients receive,' the petition said. 'It demands this diminished care without offering any clarity on what end-of-life treatment they are required to provide — leaving them to guess at what the law expects while exposing them to civil, criminal and professional consequences for getting it wrong.'
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
ACLU sues over Kansas law banning gender-affirming care for minors
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Kansas on Wednesday that was passed – blocking gender-affirming care for minors. The lawsuit was filed in Douglas County on behalf of two transgender adolescents and their parents, who say the new law violates the Kansas Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and fundamental rights. Missouri Supreme Court temporarily reinstates abortion ban In February, Kansas became the 27th state to ban or restrict such care when GOP lawmakers reversed Gov. Laura Kelly's veto after President Donald Trump issued an order barring federal support for gender-affirming care for youth under 19. Gov. Kelly vetoed the bill on Feb. 11, saying it's inappropriate for politicians to infringe on parental rights. One week later, on Feb. 18, the veto was reversed. The ACLU lawsuit was filed on behalf of a 16-year-old and his mother, as well as a 13-year-old and her mother. 'Our clients and every Kansan should have the freedom to make their own private medical decisions and consult with their doctors without the intrusion of Kansas politicians,' said D.C. Hiegert, Civil Liberties Legal Fellow for the ACLU of Kansas. Supporters of such bans argue that they protect vulnerable children from what they see as 'radical' ideology about gender – and from making irreversible medical decisions too young. Download WDAF+ for Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV The Kansas law prohibits puberty blockers, hormone therapies and/or surgery for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria who are trying to transition away from the gender assigned to them at birth. State employees caring for children are not allowed to provide or encourage such treatment—nor are they allowed to encourage 'social transitioning.' The law allows these same treatments to be provided to cisgender youth for any other reason. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach released a statement in response to the lawsuit: 'I look forward to meeting the ACLU in court and defending our Kansas law. Once again, the ACLU is attempting to twist the meaning of the Kansas Constitution into something unrecognizable. The Kansas Legislature was well within its authority when it acted to protect Kansas children from these harmful surgeries.' The Associated Press contributed to this story. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Kansas Legislature yet to approve $875 million in property tax funding for K-12 public schools
A deputy commissioner of the Kansas State Department of Education informed members of the Kansas State Board of Education the 2025 Legislature has yet to approve collection of an estimated $875 million in property taxes to fund public education statewide in 2025-2026. (Kansas Reflector screen capture of Board of Education livestream) TOPEKA — The Republican-controlled Kansas Legislature returns to work Thursday after neglecting to perform during the regular part of the 2025 session an annual obligation to affirm collection of $875 million in property taxes to finance public schools statewide. It's assumed by education administrators and advocates the wrap-up portion of the legislative session — typically reserved for attempts to override vetoes by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly — would allow time for passage of a bill clarifying the 2025-2026 funding picture for school districts serving more than 450,000 students throughout the state. 'Unless they fix that this week, that's an $875 million hole in next year's budget,' said Frank Harwood, deputy commissioner of fiscal and administrative services at the Kansas State Department of Education. He said the Legislature could take advantage of the brief end-of-session window to address a bill triggering collection of 20 mills in property tax for public schools. State law requires every school district levy a 20-mill tax on property in their district to help finance public education. This money didn't stay in the taxing district, but was sent to the state to create the pool of money to fund all districts. 'If this doesn't get dealt with, we're going to be coming back for a special session,' said Sen. Cindy Holscher, a Democrat from Overland Park. Without the property tax levy, the Legislature would have to replace the revenue with an appropriation from the general treasury or reduce funding to public school districts. The Legislature risked running afoul of Kansas Supreme Court decisions in the Gannon case that resulted from a finding the Legislature failed to abide by the Kansas Constitution in terms of funding a suitable education for children. Meanwhile, a second education budget issue emerged regarding the Legislature's decision to designate $1.25 million for public schools and $250,000 to private schools for CPR training and to acquire defibrillator or AED equipment. The appropriation, inspired by survival of an Emporia teenager who suffered cardiac arrest, would be drawn from an anticipated increase in base-aid school funding. This category of K-12 funding was adjusted annually based on changes in the Midwest version of the consumer price index for urban consumers or CPI-U. Leah Fliter, assistant executive director of the Kansas Association of School Boards, said CPI-U funding was to be directed to public education, but the state budget presented to the governor directed a portion to private schools. Fliter said the school board association wasn't opposed to state spending for training or equipment to address cardiac emergencies in private schools, but suggested lawmakers ought to select a funding source other than CPI-U aid for public education. 'We are very concerned about that taking of CPI funding for AEDs,' she said. Harwood, the deputy commissioner at the state Department of Education, said questions had been raised about constitutionality of the $250,000 appropriation to private schools. 'Because most of the private schools are parochial, it may actually be a violation of the Constitution because state aid can't go to parochial schools,' Harwood said. The Legislature scheduled work sessions Thursday and Friday in anticipation the governor would issue vetoes. As of Tuesday, Kelly had vetoed 10 bills approved by the GOP-controlled Legislature. The governor has been working through the state budget bill and could make line-item vetoes.
Yahoo
30-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Maybe it's time the Kansas Legislature let us vote on what we want to vote on
It's not often the people of Kansas get to hold a 'referendum' on state legislation. In fact, they can't. At least not on their own. Under our state's constitution, we operate a representative democracy electing legislators to make decisions on our behalf and ultimately hold them accountable every 2-4 years. This indirect democracy can be viewed as a paternalistic relationship between electeds and electorate — a reassuring pat on the head from politicians that lawmaking is their province, and they will call us when needed. So any time our Legislature agrees to offer us a chance at direct power on one issue, we should stand up and take note. And any time our Legislature agrees to offer us a chance at direct power forever, we should stand up, take note, and run as fast as we can to our polling place before they change their minds. Which is why we should really take notice of what the conservative-controlled Legislature did last week when the required two-thirds majority passed SCR 1611. It's a proposed constitutional amendment asking voters on Aug. 4, 2026, if we should elect (not just retain) our seven Supreme Court justices. Not only do we get invited to dinner, but it's a permanent invite and we get to buy the groceries! That is not to say electing the Supreme Court is totally advisable. On its face, SCR 1611 is a de facto 'referendum' on the current merit-based selection process controlled by bar-appointed lawyers and governor-appointed citizens. Passed by 70% of the electorate in 1958 after Gov. Fred Hall's infamous triple-play scandal, the system was enacted to keep Supreme Court selections free of corruption, moneyed interests, and political bosses. But if you use your sunflower-colored glasses and squint through the Oz dust of debate, you might also see a glimmer of hope . . . direct democracy! Today, 26 states provide for some form of direct, or pure, democracy that bypass legislatures with citizen-initiated ballot measures for new laws (initiatives) and/or vetoes (referendums) through collection of signatures (petitions). Laws without lawmakers. Sadly, Kansas does not allow that; Gov. Joan Finney was the last to earnestly push the issue in the early 1990s. Technically, SCR 1611 is not direct democracy either, but it's close. It has no citizen-initiated lawmaking. But citizens gain a direct line to pick justices who enforce the biggest law (Kansas Constitution) and the weightiest legal question of our time (women's right to an abortion). So why stop there? The Kansas Constitution already allows citizen-initiated ballot measures for cities, counties and school districts. All adjoining states — Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and Oklahoma — allow it. Sixty-four percent of states with part-time 'citizen' legislatures, like Kansas, allow it. Most of all, big issues supported by a majority of Kansans but ignored by legislative leadership — Medicaid expansion (72%), recreational marijuana (65%), a women's right to choose (65%), assault weapon bans (55%) — could be put to a vote of the people, once and for all. Even Senate President Ty Masterson, an Andover Republican and expected 2026 gubernatorial candidate who led the charge for SCR 1611, believes 'it's time to give the people the opportunity to assume that power and tear down firewalls and shine the light of democracy we all claim to support.' I couldn't agree more. If legislative leaders are truly ingenuous about tearing down judiciary firewalls for the people, their own firewalls should be next. Bill Fiander is a lecturer at Washburn University specializing in public administration, urban planning, and state/local government. He is the former planning and development director for the City of Topeka
Yahoo
10-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Kansas House bill strives to strip property interest from definition of university, college tenure
Emporia State University President Ken Hush, center in sweater, remains a defendant in a federal lawsuit seeking to reverse the firing of 11 tenured faculty at ESU in 2022. On Tuesday, a Kansas House committee will consider a bill altering state law to declare awarding university tenure didn't mean a professor was receiving a property right associated with their employment. The bill was drafted by Steven Lovett, an ESU attorney and a defendant in the lawsuit with Hush. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector) TOPEKA — Legislation headed to a Kansas House committee Tuesday would redefine tenure at public higher education institutions to strike the concept that faculty members earning this academic status held a property interest tied to their employment. The bill was introduced by Salina Rep. Steven Howe, who chairs the House's higher education budget committee, at the behest of Steven Lovett, general counsel at Emporia State University. ESU is embroiled in state and federal court battles tied to the administration's decision in 2022 to fire 30 tenured or tenure-track professors. Lovett's role in drafting or advancing the House bill could be a conflict of interest because passage had the potential to influence his prospects of success as a defendant in the federal case. On Monday, an ESU spokeswoman Gwen Larson said it was a 'surprise to the university' Lovett had the bill introduced in the House. Larson said Lovett took that step as a 'private citizen' rather than in his capacity as a university attorney. Larson asserted all university employees had a 'constitutional right' — she didn't offer a citation from the Kansas Constitution — to present a bill to the Legislature. 'A bill submitted by Steven Lovett, which stipulates that tenure shall not be defined as an entitlement or property right, was done in his capacity as a private citizen,' Larson said. 'While submission of this bill comes as a surprise to the university, the university respects Mr. Lovett's constitutional rights and freedom of expression.' Eleven dismissed ESU faculty filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court challenging their firings on constitutional grounds. In addition to defending against that suit, Emporia State attorneys turned to Lyon County District Court in an attempt to prevail in the labor dispute. Phillip Gragson, a Topeka attorney representing ESU tenured professors targeted for dismissal, said his clients were aware of the House bill. 'If it passes,' Gragson said, 'it's a death knell to the Kansas higher education system.' The hearing on House Bill 2348 has been scheduled for 3:30 p.m. Tuesday in the House Judiciary Committee. Howe and the Kansas Board of Regents didn't respond to requests Monday for comment. Emporia State President Ken Hush summarized the legal drama to members of Howe's higher education committee in January. Hush pointed to a federal judge's order in December that concluded faculty tenure was associated with a property right. 'That obviously means an entitlement in a job forever or until this is settled in some form,' Hush said. 'As a state agency, we're working with the attorney general on this. The other option is to correct that via legislation.' Academic tenure in the United States is often viewed as a contractual right granted college or university educators who demonstrated a commitment over the years to teaching, research and service. Tenure evolved as a mechanism to encourage intellectual autonomy among scholars. Absence of some form of job security would likely shift the focus of researchers and teachers to noncontroversial, insubstantial topics. Some critics of tenure have argued the system made it difficult to hold faculty accountable for on-the-job failures. In 2022, the Kansas Board of Regents clouded the issue with a policy making it easier to terminate tenured faculty at state universities based on financial problems or declining enrollment. The policy was an outgrowth of uncertainties created by the COVID-19 pandemic. The policy didn't eliminate standard justifications for possibly firing a tenured faculty member, such as personal misconduct, criminal offenses or violation of university policy. Only ESU implemented the streamlined policy to dispatch tenured professors. Under the new House bill, 'an award of tenure may confer certain benefits, processes or preferences, but tenure shall be discretionary and conditional and shall not — nor shall it be interpreted to — create any entitlement, right or property interest in a faculty member's current, ongoing or future employment by an institution.' 'Surely the law can't be that a tenured professor can never be let go when a university is downsizing,' said Rep. Paul Waggoner, R-Hutchinson. Howe, who introduced the tenure reform bill, also made a recent motion in his House committee to add $2.2 million to the ESU budget for legal expenses in the faculty firing case. He said it would be unfair if ESU had to pay court-related expenditures through internal reallocation. 'This motion is basically to support Emporia State University in their effort to create efficiencies,' Howe said. Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, co-chair of the Kansas conference of the American Association of University Professors, said the House bill ought to be relabeled an attempt to seize property and due process rights from educators while inflicting general harm on the people of Kansas. He said the legislation would remove employment protections held by tenured faculty across Kansas in addition of forbidding those rights from being conferred in the future. 'We see this bill as being fundamentally flawed,' said Barrett-Gonzalez, a professor of engineering at University of Kansas. 'This bill, if passed, will effectively take the property rights of thousands of faculty members … without compensation or due process.' The House bill could jeopardize accreditation among engineering, medical and law schools, damage national reputations of targeted colleges and universities, make it more difficult to recruit or retain quality faculty and invite a collapse in student enrollment, Barrett-Gonzalez said. Language in the bill indicated it would directly apply to the six public universities operated by the state Board of Regents. It could involve the state's 19 community colleges, six technical colleges and Washburn University in Topeka, said Heather Morgan, executive director of the Kansas Community College Association. She said the association didn't have a position on the bill and assumed other state laws would exempt community and technical colleges from the tenure reform. In 2014, the Legislature and Gov. Sam Brownback approved legislation that ended tenure for K-12 public school teachers. The Kansas Supreme Court subsequently issued a decision that K-12 tenure could be deleted by state lawmakers. Rep. Sydney Carlin, D-Manhattan, Sen. Marci Francisco, D-Lawrence, and Rep. Barbara Ballard, D-Lawrence, serve communities that host either Kansas State University or KU. All three said they were disturbed by ramifications of the bill introduced by Howe and the ESU attorney. 'It made my heart sick,' Carlin said. 'This is just another attack on educators. Tenure is really an investment in the university and the professor.' Francisco, with a Senate district covering the KU campus in Lawrence, echoed that sentiment. She said the legislation sought to substantively and negatively alter the employer-employee relationship between higher education institutions and faculty. 'It allows people to really do harm to you without recourse,' Ballard said. 'No one gives you tenure. You earn it. Everybody, not just faculty, deserve due process.'
