Contact: J.P. Duffy or Alice Chao, 866-FRC-NEWS or 866-372-6397; both with Family Research Council 

WASHINGTON, May 24, 2016 /Standard Newswire/ -- On May 20, Family Research Council filed an amicus brief with the Kansas Supreme Court in the case of Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt. At issue is the constitutionality of Kansas Senate Bill 95, "which prohibits the performance of dilation and evacuation abortions on live, unborn children." Two Kansas abortionists who perform late-term "dilation and evacution" abortions challenged the law claiming that the Kansas Constitution protects this barbaric procedure.

Family Research Council's amicus brief was prepared by Paul Linton, Special Counsel for the Thomas More Society, with assistance of local counsel, Mary Ellen Rose, of Overland Park, Kansas. In its brief, FRC argued that "nothing in the Kansas Constitution, properly considered, confers a right to perform an abortion, whether by the dismemberment method at issue in this case, or any other method." Furthermore, the brief maintained that the Kansas Supreme Court, "has never recognized a state right to abortion…there is no basis for recognizing such a right."

Family Research Council Senior Fellow Chris Gacek, Esq. released the following statement:

"The constitutional claims made by Drs. Hodes and Nauser are unsupportable by any fair reading of the Kansas Constitution. There is no text in that document which grants a right to abortion of any kind. If anything, abortion takes away one of the inalienable rights actually mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and the Kansas Constitution, that right being the right to life," Gacek concluded.

To read FRC's amicus brief, please see: downloads.frc.org/EF/EF16E102.pdf