In its recent and controversial pro-abortion decision, the Kansas Supreme Court warped the English language, repeatedly referring to abortions as "whether to continue a pregnancy."  But more glaringly, in its 87-page opinion, the Kansas Court completely avoided any discussion of the existence of fetal personhood, even though protecting the unborn was the entire purpose of the challenged law. As Justice Biles noted in his concurring opinion  (pp. 96–97): My larger point is this: ... S.B. 95 is not claimed by the State to have been enacted to promote maternal health — it is all about fetal protection and tellingly entitled, "the Kansas unborn child protection from dismemberment abortion act."  K.S.A. 65-6741.  And its legislative history shows patient safety was never brought up as a supporting justification….no guesswork is required — it is squarely in this legislation's title and...(Read Full Article)