Lawmakers fail to override veto of abortion bill

      Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ veto of new restrictions on abortion providers withstood an attempt Wednesday by anti-abortion senators to overturn it.
    The vote was 25-14, two short of the two-thirds majority needed to nullify the veto in the Senate and send it to the House, where an override effort probably would have been successful.
    Besides imposing new restrictions, the measure would have allowed lawsuits to block late-term procedures on fetuses that are 22 weeks or older.
    When she vetoed the measure, Sebelius argued it could deny women lifesaving medical care. But abortion opponents said Sebelius’ action shows that she holds radical views.
    The measure was partly a response to allegations that Dr. George Tiller has performed illegal late-term abortions at his Wichita clinic. Tiller is among the few U.S. physicians who perform such procedures, and he says that he follows state law.
    “Kansans are proud of the progress we’ve made lowing the abortion rate and lifting our economy. It’s time for legislators to recognize that progress and focus on the things that continue to move us forward,” Sebelius said in a written statement after the vote.
    The vote came with little debate, as Sen. Tim Huelskamp made the override motion.
    “It’s a much-needed bill. It provides much-needed information and protection,” said the Fowler Republican.
    Abortion opponents said the bill would protect patients from being coerced into having abortions, particularly minors. Also, they noted that some provisions were designed to increase the amount of information patients receive before having their pregnancies terminated.
    The bill called for doctors using ultrasound or monitoring fetal heartbeats to make information from those sources available to a patient at least 30 minutes before an abortion. Also, doctors would have to tell their patients whether their fetuses are viable and, if not, why.
    The bill also allows a former patient or her family to sue a doctor for monetary damages if she believes a pregnancy was improperly terminated.