Why did Gov. Kelly veto abortion coercion bill’s protection for women in danger? | Opinion

Abortion coercion is wrong. Making threats against a woman to bully her into terminating a pregnancy that she does not want to terminate is wrong. No one in the Kansas Legislature has argued that abortion coercion does not happen. Given the bipartisan, unanimous understanding that coercion is wrong and the acknowledgment that it is happening to Kansas women, why did Gov. Laura Kelly veto legislation that would help these women seek justice?

Kelly seems to think that the narrowly tailored plain language of H.B. 2436 proved too complicated for Kansas law enforcement, prosecutors and judges. This is disheartening, not only because of her lack of confidence in those who would be investigating and trying abortion coercion cases in court, but more so with the admission that these attacks on women do happen and the suggestion that we should continue to turn a blind eye to this abuse. I am grateful my colleagues in the Legislature overrode her veto this week.

In Kelly’s veto explanation, she expresses her concern of “vague language” which might “intrude upon private, often difficult, conversations between a person and their family, friends, and health care providers.”

Given the specific requirements in the bill as to what qualifies as coercion, the question is: Whom is Kelly more concerned with protecting?

It is disingenuous of her to pretend there is no significant difference between concerned conversations and coercion. These intimate conversations between the pregnant woman who has chosen to carry her child and her loved ones, health care providers, bosses, coaches or anyone else who would be concerned about the mother are not what is being criminalized. What is being criminalized is threatening the life, livelihood or legal documentation status of a woman because she has made a choice which someone disagrees with. It is true that this threat could come from anyone who would benefit (real or perceived) from stealing that choice from the mother. Furthermore, any accusation of coercion must go through the legal process and have enough evidence to prosecute. The purposefully strict requirements of what is considered abortion coercion, coupled with the requirement of evidence of the coercion, provide guardrails against false accusations.

These threats are not simply happening within the confines of conversations with loved ones, as Kelly has tried to lead people to believe. This coercion is rampant in cases of human trafficking and sexual abuse. Many women saved from sex traffickers have reported begging their traffickers to let them keep their babies in hopes it could provide them with a break from the abuse. They saw it as a means to survival and perhaps their only chance to be a mother. The traffickers threatened and forced them to have abortions against their will, only to have the women sold again within 24 hours of the procedure.

Likewise, women and girls who have been sexually abused are often pressured into an abortion to destroy evidence of the abuse. Should a woman in this situation choose to carry her child, society has the responsibility to ensure that she has the right to make that choice without threats of harm.

This bill does not seek to criminalize abortion. It simply asserts that a woman has the right to make a choice to carry her child without the threat of harm from anyone.

Given the governor’s overly broad and dismissive opposition to this bill, one must wonder how someone who has been so outspokenly pro-choice is against the right of a mother to make a choice free from coercion.

With or without the governor’s support, the majority of the Kansas Legislature does not condone the continued protection of those who would threaten violence, legal status and financial harm to women who Kansans believe should be free to make their own reproductive choices.

Rebecca Schmoe represents District 59 in the Kansas House of Representatives.