Last week, Dr. George Tiller’s former abortion clinic re-opened its doors to the Kansas public, a huge victory for the women in Wichita who haven’t had access to a nearby clinic since Tiller’s murder in 2009. One the heels of that step forward, however, the state’s anti-abortion lawmakers are working hard to pull Kansas yet another step back.

The Kansas legislature has approved a sweeping anti-abortion bill that would ban Planned Parenthood from teaching sex ed in public schools, require doctors to give women biased information about a disputed link between abortion and breast cancer, level costly taxes on abortion providers, and define life as beginning “at fertilization” in the state constitution. The HB 2253 measure now heads to Gov. Sam Brownback (R), who is expected to sign it into law.

According to women’s health advocates, the “personhood” clause that would redefine life at conception is one of the most problematic pieces of HB 2253. As it’s written, it acknowledges the protections under Roe v. Wade and wouldn’t ban abortions in the state immediately. But that type of language is called a “personhood trigger,” specifically intended to make it easier for the state to totally outlaw abortion services if the Supreme Court ever overturns Roe and leaves abortion rights to the states:

If the bill is signed into law, Kansas will become the eighth state declaring that life begins at fertilization, said Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager of the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, which researches abortion-related laws nationwide.

While it would not supplant Kansas law banning most abortions after the 22nd week of pregnancy, it does set the state up to more swiftly outlaw all abortions should the U.S. Supreme Court revisit its 1973 ruling making abortion legal, Nash said.

“It’s a statement of intent and it’s a pretty strong statement,” Nash said. “Should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade or should the court come to some different conclusion, the state legislature would be ready, willing and able to ban abortions.”

HB 2253 is a 70-page package of abortion restrictions that failed to advance last year — but, after anti-choice Republicans won big majorities in the Kansas legislature in the 2012 election, state lawmakers have been able to successfully push it through this year. Similar situations are also unfolding in Arkansas and North Dakota, where recently-elected Republican majorities have significantly advanced the anti-choice agenda with harsh abortion restrictions that directly flout Roe v. Wade.

GOP lawmakers, who have typically attempted to indirectly undermine women’s right to choose without openly challenging the constitutional right to an abortion, have become more open about their goal to strike down Roe during this legislative session. Republicans are gearing up for legal fights they hope will land the abortion issue back in the Supreme Court — and if it does, states like Kansas will be prepared to move swiftly to use their “personhood” clauses to outlaw abortion altogether.

Oklahoma State Rep. Mike Reynolds (R) has already unsuccessfully attempted to pass a far-right “personhood” bill to endow embryos with “all the rights, privileges and immunities” of other U.S. citizens. That bill failed without coming up for a vote in April, but Reynolds is ready to try again in the new legislative session.

According to the Tulsa World, the state lawmaker has authored a new bill that is “virtually identical” to last year’s failed personhood measure, which women’s health advocates warned could actually result in outlawing some forms of contraception and invitro fertilization:

The bill states that life begins at conception — which is already part of state law — and that “unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being,” and that Oklahoma law “shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state.”

Pregnant women are exempt from prosecution for “indirectly harming her unborn child” and miscarriages.

Personhood measures are so extreme that they don’t even have the full support of the anti-choice community. A similar proposal in Virginia faced strong opposition from Republicans during the last session, and personhood initiatives across the country have failed to gain traction over the past year.

In addition to the failure of Reynold’s first anti-abortion bill, Oklahoma’s personhood movement was dealt another blow last year when the Supreme Court confirmed that defining an embryo as a citizen is “clearly unconstitutional.”

Nonetheless, far-right lawmakers like Reynolds are pressing on in their quest to redefine personhood to include zygotes. And the radical anti-choice agenda is looking for inroads on a national level, too — Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is among the Congressmembers supporting a fetal personhood bill this year.

This week, one of Ohio’s top lawmakers announced that the state Senate will not attempt to push through two pieces of restrictive abortion legislation during this session, including a “heartbeat” bill that would have represented the most stringent abortion ban in the nation. Arizona’s 20-week abortion ban currently earns the dubious distinction of being the country’s toughest abortion restriction, but Ohio’s bill would have moved the goalposts even further by seeking to outlaw the procedure as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected — which can occur as early as 6 weeks, before many women even realize they’re pregnant.

Ohio Senate Speaker Tom Niehaus (R) acknowledged on Tuesday that the heartbeat measure is too controversial to reach consensus even among anti-choice groups, and he wants to hold off on a vote this year so that abortion opponents can come to an agreement on the bill. But that’s not good enough for some of the right-wing activists in the state, who are still demanding that Republicans find a way to jam the legislation through:

Janet Folger Porter, president of the conservative action group Faith2Action, said she’ll work to collect 17 Republican signatures on a discharge petition, which can be used to force the so-called “heartbeat bill” out of a committee.

“Unless pro-lifers want to hold signs and march for 40 more years, they should pick up the phone and call every Republican senator and demand a floor vote for the Heartbeat Bill before their inaction kills it,” Porter said in a statement. “These Republicans have the power to bring the Heartbeat Bill to a vote before it dies.”

Even though Republicans haven’t seen much recent success with radical abortion initiatives — voters largely rejected anti-choice legislation on November 6, as well as the anti-choice candidates who sparked controversy with their campaigns’ focuses on restricting abortion access — Faith2Action isn’t the only far-right group clinging to a failing agenda.

Anti-abortion groups like Personhood USA and the Susan B. Anthony List are still busy pressuring lawmakers to continue supporting legislation to limit women’s reproductive access, and conservative lawmakers in states like Arkansas are already gearing up to advance that type of agenda next year. And when former GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) recently suggested that Republicans might want to reconsider their focus on limiting abortion rights in order to build a broader coalition, spokespeople for the two groups harshly criticized him for betraying the party’s mission.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has gotten in hot water with anti-choice groups for his comment this Sunday that Republicans should stop focusing on abortion if the GOP wants to appeal to broader group of Americans. The Susan B. Anthony list and Personhood USA, two leading anti-choice groups, both issued statements strongly condemning McCain’s suggestion:

“He should figure out why he decided to take that position [to oppose abortion rights] in the first place,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “The folks that have taken the stand on this issue have taken it because we’re talking about defending vulnerable human life. If it’s not about that, it’s not about anything.” …

Personhood USA took a more direct tact in an earlier statement, calling on the GOP to “drop” its former presidential candidate over his desire for a de facto truce on abortion. “We will never be successful if we compromise,” said Jennifer Mason, the group’s communications director.

These groups appear to be speaking for anti-choice advocates across the country — lawmakers in multiple states began a renewed push to enact harsh abortion legislation in the weeks right after the election, despite the fact that voters decisively rejected that agenda on November 6.

Personhood USA’s campaign in particular has been extremely unpopular with the public. The group endorses legislation to redefine legal personhood as beginning at conception — hence criminalizing abortion without exception, and potentially several forms of contraception as well — and that ambition has been frustrated at every turn, as every personhood initiative to come to a final vote has been defeated. In the most recent example, Virginia Republicans conceded earlier this week that they don’t have the votes in their own party to advance personhood legislation beyond committee.

McCain himself, however, doesn’t fit the typical profile of the politicians who anti-choice advocates usually target, since he remains staunchly opposed to abortion rights. As the New Republic’s Sarah Blustain reported in 2008, “There is no ‘latitude’ in McCain’s position on abortion. Interviews with dozens of people who have dealt with him on the issue–pro-choice and pro-life activists, Hill staffers, McCain confidants, pollsters, and staffers — along with a two-and-a-half-decade-long perfectly anti-abortion voting record, make that clear.”

During this year’s lame duck session, some anti-choice lawmakers are seizing the opportunity to reintroduce anti-abortion legislation. But in Virginia, on the other hand, Republicans are unlikely to advance a radical “personhood” bill that would have granted fetuses the same rights as U.S. citizens — at least not this session, and perhaps not in the next one either.

Virginia lawmakers sent the personhood bill back to committee in February, ensuring that the legislation is effectively dead unless the state’s Senate Education and Health Committee brings it up for a vote this week. And the Washington Examiner reports that the committee’s chair, Sen. Steve Martin (R), has no plans to schedule that vote because he’s confident the measure doesn’t have enough support to pass. In fact, personhood is now struggling to gain the support of Virginia Republicans:

“We don’t have eight votes [a majority on the committee], and I’m not going to be spending taxpayers’ dollars just to call us back into town,” Martin said. “If they came up with the eighth vote in committee and could identify him, I’d be happy to call it up.”

The bill passed out of Martin’s committee in February. But the swing Republican on the panel, Sen. Harry Blevins of Chesapeake, has since sided against it. [...]

Del. Bob Marshall, the Manassas Republican who authored the personhood bill, plans to keep pushing an anti-abortion agenda, but he does sense fewer Republicans are less willing to embrace them.

“For years, the Republicans used to say Democrats were the ones blocking this, and now it clearly is the Republicans,” Marshall said.

Virginia is not alone. In Colorado, a radical personhood ballot initiative divided the anti-choice community, leading several Republican politicians to withhold support for the measure during this fall’s tight congressional races. Proposed personhood measures — which would outlaw all types of abortions, some forms of contraception, and potentially even invitro fertilization — have failed in states across the country.

And as conservative lawmakers begin to distance themselves from personhood, it may prove to be just the tip of the iceberg for the GOP. Republicans are beginning to concede that their positions on women’s health issues hurt them in the presidential election, and former GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) even recently suggested that Republicans should avoid focusing on abortion whatsoever.

State legislators in Michigan held a hearing on Tuesday to consider House Bills 5684 and 5685, which would allow taxpayers to receive tax relief for unborn fetuses past 12 weeks’ gestation. The proposed legislation is an odd push for Michigan Republicans, partly because Progress Michigan notes the state slashed tax credits for children last year — meaning that although parents living in Michigan do not qualify for additional tax breaks to offset the cost of caring for their own children, they could soon be able to claim a tax credit for an unborn fetus.

Progress Michigan’s executive director points out that the proposed legislation is a dangerous step toward endowing fetuses with the same rights as human beings while disregarding the real economic needs of Michigan’s children, 341,000 of whom currently live in high-poverty areas:

“It’s clear Lansing Republicans have the wrong priorities by wasting time on these extreme bills,” said Zack Pohl, Executive Director of Progress Michigan. “This is really a backdoor way of passing extreme personhood legislation, which has been rejected by voters in states across the country. Even worse, this would create a special new tax credit for unborn fetuses, after Lansing Republicans eliminated the tax credit for living, breathing children last year. It’s time for our elected leaders to get their priorities straight and start working together to create good jobs and improve education.”

The National Conference of State Legislatures believes this type of legislation could represent the first of its kind, although they acknowledged that the issue of states providing tax credits for fetuses has not been widely studied.

The nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency has estimated that allowing Michigan residents to claim a tax credit for unborn fetuses would cost the state between $5 million and $10 million annually in lost tax revenue.

(HT: Alison C)

Tea Party standard-bearer Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) today refused to state her position on legal abortion access for rape victims, repeatedly dodging questions from the debate moderator during a radio debate with challenger Jim Graves.

Bachmann has been a longtime supporter of the so-called “Personhood Amendment,” a measure that would outlaw all abortions, some types of birth control, and potentially in-vitro fertilizations. But in today’s debate, Bachmann would not clarify whether she would support abortion access for rape victims, repeatedly saying, “I agree with the Catholic Church,” and vaguely suggesting that there could be “waivers” for certain unnamed conditions:

BACHMANN: And it isn’t just these very rare cases that we deal with, it’s the big overall issue of abortion and the legality of abortion. And 52 million lives is a lot. And again, my position is in line with the Catholic Church, that’s been my position for 40 years, it hasn’t changed.

MODERATOR: Representative, just at the end there though, there, you heard what Richard Mourdock said and you know that has been controversial: ‘God intended this to happen’ if a fetus results as a consequence of that rape. And I want to know if you agree with that.

BACHMANN: Well what I agree with is that I’m 100 percent pro-life and I agree with the Catholic Church on that issue.[...]

MODERATOR: Just to be clear here though, we are talking about an amendment to the U.S. Constitution here. Declaring personhood, right? From the moment of conception.

BACHMANN: If– what — From the moment of conception declaring the personhood of an individual would again be in line with saying that I am 100 percent pro-life and I believe in the protection of human life from conception to natural death.

The back-and-forth goes on. Listen:

The Catholic Church hierarchy does not support abortion access for rape victims, and will only consider abortion in extremely limited circumstances when it is necessary to save the life of the woman — although abortion rights in life-threatening situations remain contested.

Bachmann likely refused to clarify her position because she feared a backlash similar to what Senate candidates Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin faced after they stated their opposition to providing access to legal abortion for women who conceived through rape. But Bachmann’s record is clear as day: She refers to abortion as a ‘holocaust,’ has participated in events with Personhood USA, a group that opposes abortion in cases of rape, and she has she would unconstitutionally roll back the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade.

The highest court in the United States dealt a blow to the far-right “personhood” movement yesterday when it declined to hear an appeal from Personhood Oklahoma, an anti-abortion group seeking to challenge a lower court’s ruling that struck down their proposed ballot amendment.

Far-reaching personhood amendments would endow fertilized eggs with the same constitutional rights as people, and could also serve to outlaw invitro fertilization and some forms of contraception. In April, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that personhood is “clearly unconstitutional,” blocking a proposed personhood amendment from the state’s ballot because it would have gone too far to limit women’s right to choose. Personhood Oklahoma attempted to appeal their case to the Supreme Court, hoping to overturn the lower court’s decision — but as the Hill reports, the Supreme Court declined to hear Personhood Oklahoma’s appeal yesterday, putting a definitive end to personhood advocates’ quest to advance the ballot issue in that state:

By rejecting the appeal, the justices left in place a lower court’s decision that found a personhood measure in Oklahoma would violate the Constitution.

Only four of the nine justices have to agree for the court to take a case, so Monday’s rejection could be a sign that the court’s four conservative justices aren’t interested in wading into personhood, a concept that has divided opponents of abortion rights. [...]

The justices do not explain their decisions to accept or deny cases, and did not offer an explanation for declining to hear the personhood suit.

Even aside from yesterday’s decision, personhood activists have not had much recent success. Oklahoma lawmakers failed to bring a personhood initiative up for a vote in their House earlier this year, effectively killing the legislation. And in other states across the country, personhood groups have repeatedly struggled to advance their agenda, failing to collect enough signatures to land personhood amendments on the ballot in Nevada and Florida and losing the popular vote in Colorado and Mississippi.