Bench Memos

Politics & Policy

What’s the Matter with the Kansas Supreme Court? (Part 1)

On Friday, in Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, a 6-1 majority of the Kansas Supreme Court struck down S.B. 95, a law that prohibits the use of dilation and evacuation (D & E) abortions except where necessary to preserve the mother’s life or to prevent a “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.”

D & E abortions entail dismemberment of a fetus. They are a common form of abortion during the second trimester and later. Partial-birth abortion is a variation on this procedure, and the federal prohibition on it was upheld by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), in a decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

In this case, the court grounded its decision in the Kansas Constitution rather than the U.S. Constitution, so no ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court reaching a different conclusion under the Fourteenth Amendment would limit the new abortion regime in Kansas.

Does the Kansas Constitution have any more to say about abortion than the U.S. Constitution? The Hodes & Nauser majority notes that Section 1 of the Kansas Bill of Rights’ declaration that “All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights” contains a phrase not found in the U.S. Constitution: “inalienable natural rights.” In other words, no.

But that was enough to convince the court it was on to something. Its 118-page per curiam (unsigned) judicial opinion meandered from the historical and “philosophical underpinnings of natural rights” to an exploration of bodily integrity to how “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” must include “decisions about parenting and procreation” to how natural rights extend to women in general and pregnant women in particular, before straining to downplay the one aspect of Kansas legal history that actually addresses abortion: Kansas’ longstanding statutes, dating back to the earliest years of statehood, that prohibited the practice.

The reality is that during the 19th century, abortion had been substantially proscribed under the common law, and at the time the Kansas Bill of Rights was adopted in 1859, the growing trend in that and other states was to strengthen criminal statutory abortion prohibitions. Those laws went much farther in restricting abortion than S.B. 95. The question presented to the court is not what policy should be, but what the law actually says. There can be no doubt as to what the drafters of Kansas’ constitution would have thought of extending their broad language about natural rights to include a right to conduct dismemberment abortions.

Yet the majority lacked enough self-awareness to invoke authorities from Locke to Lincoln as if they somehow supported their conclusion while dismissing the explicit historical evidence against them as “tethered to prejudices from two centuries ago.” “In this imagined world,” retorted Justice Caleb Stegall, the court’s lone dissenter, “the Liberty Bell rings every time a baby in utero loses her arm.”

The outcome-seeking nature of the court’s flimsy analysis is transparent, and its attempt to invoke history is an embarrassment. One member of the majority even penned a concurrence that distanced himself from what he called the “historical back-and-forth” between the majority and the dissent, preferring the supposed clarity of admitted living constitutionalism. (Well, he sort of admitted it, preferring to use the euphemism “contemporary context.”) That only one justice on that seven-member tribunal had the good sense to dissent from this jurisprudential travesty should be a red flag for any observer of American courts.

What’s the matter with the Kansas Supreme Court? The answer is to be found beyond the content of the court’s opinion. To understand the problem requires understanding the system of judicial selection that prevails in that and regrettably many other states. More on that in part 2.

Carrie Severino is chief counsel and policy director to the Judicial Crisis Network.

Most Popular

White House

Nikki Haley Has a Point

Nikki Haley isn’t a Deep Stater. She’s not a saboteur. She wouldn’t undermine the duly elected president, no siree! That’s the message that comes along with Haley’s new memoir With All Due Respect. In that book, she gives the politician’s review of her career so far, shares some details about her ... Read More
White House

Trump vs. the ‘Policy Community’

When it comes to Russia, I am with what Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman calls the American “policy community.” Vindman, of course, is one of the House Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses. His haughtiness in proclaiming the policy community and his membership in it grates, throughout his 340-page ... Read More
Law & the Courts

DACA’s Day in Court

When President Obama unilaterally changed immigration policy after repeatedly and correctly insisting that he lacked the constitutional power to do it, he said that congressional inaction had forced his hand. In the case of his first major unilateral move — “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” which ... Read More

A Preposterous Review

A   Georgetown University professor named Charles King has reviewed my new book The Case for Nationalism for Foreign Affairs, and his review is a train wreck. It is worth dwelling on, not only because the review contains most of the lines of attack against my book, but because it is extraordinarily shoddy and ... Read More