Kansas representatives throw weight behind mutated child care bill with loosened vaccine rules

Brace yourselves for an especially scrappy version of Statehouse scraps today. I have a mammoth column coming Monday, but I can’t ignore my Saturday duties.

So let’s be quick yet purposeful.

First up, from the good folks at Kansas Action for Children, a warning about Substitute for House Bill 2294, a child care bill that passed the House on Thursday. The proposal united child care programs into one state office, but amendments pushed it in a different direction.

“While we supported the previous bipartisan compromise, the work by the House Committee on Commerce, Labor and Economic Development made this bill into something we can no longer support,” my former colleagues at KAC wrote on Friday.

Why’s that? you ask. “On Monday, the committee added two amendments that loosen vaccination requirements and could lead to deregulation of child care settings.”

Oh. Oh, dear.

The Immunize Kansas Coalition issued its own statement on the bill Friday.

The group was “very disappointed this provision was not removed from the bill before its passage by the House (this change wasn’t even mentioned in the much too brief floor debate!), especially now as Kansas is facing a significant measles outbreak. Our youngest children in child care settings — sometimes too young to be vaccinated yet for diseases like measles — are most at risk for complications from infectious diseases, and they rely on everyone around them to keep them safe.”

The bill now heads over to the Senate. It’s clearly one to keep watching as the session shifts into overdrive.

Supreme Court shards

Looks like we’re going to have a dramatic and costly election next year to determine how the state Supreme Court works — and whether abortion remains legal in Kansas.

Stung by their failure to ban the widely popular medical procedure, Republicans have decided to target the legal system itself. (National Republicans seem to be doing the same.) The proposed constitutional amendment would switch Kansas to direct elections of justices, a surefire way to make big-money court elections part of the landscape. What a delightful prospect. As you might expect, advocacy groups had a lot to say.

“This is a blatant power grab by extremists who refuse to accept that Kansans have spoken — loudly and repeatedly — for fair courts and personal freedom, including the right to abortion,” said Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes. “SCR 1611 isn’t about judicial integrity; it’s about rigging the system to force an agenda that has already been defeated. These lawmakers lost in court and at the ballot box. You don’t get to fire the referee when you’re losing the game, and Kansans will see this for exactly what it is. We’ll dust off our Vote No signs and win again.”

“This is a blatant attack by the legislators on our justices, and it’s part of a decades-long pattern of politicians attempting to punish the judicial branch for issuing decisions on education and reproductive freedom that they disagree with,” said Micah Kubic, ACLU of Kansas executive director. “We are confident that, just as they did in 2022, the people of Kansas will see this attack for what it is — and once again take action to defend their constitutional rights from the power grabs of extremist politicians in Topeka.”

Finally, from the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association: “There have been no issues regarding the Kansas Supreme Court that necessitated the proponents’ push for this constitutional amendment. We trust Kansas voters will reject this amendment. We strongly believe that when voters are exposed to the realities of watching our state’s Justices having to raise money and campaign for their seats and the negative impact it will have on our state, they will vote no.”

Questions rise

In the frothy brew of Statehouse news, these questions floated to the top for me this week.

• A majority of senators voted against increasing special education funding and eliminating continuous eligibility for Medicaid coverage this week. Do they plan on running for office again?
• Why do so many Kansas officials see open records laws as suggestions rather than, you know, laws?
• Sure, a black mass might be “a despicable, blasphemous and offensive sacrilege to not only Catholics but all people of goodwill.” But it’s also protected speech under the First Amendment. Right?
• Quoth state Sen. Virgil Peck about cheap office space for reporters at the Statehouse: “When I mention this in a forum back home, people come unglued: ‘You are only charging $100 a year for the press to write stories about you,’ that frequently are inaccurate. Those are my words.” What stories does Peck think are inaccurate? When he suggested shooting illegal immigrants? Or when he talked about “God’s special creation — females” in supporting an anti-trans bill?
• What department do Kansas Republican lawmakers think works well? If the answer is none, how is that possible given their decades-long hold of legislative power?

House stop signs

Apparently, House Speaker Dan Hawkins’ dislike of journalists has been taken to a new level in the chamber he oversees.

As I tried to visit a House leadership office Friday, I was stopped by guards who said I couldn’t even knock on a door or see a secretary. I had to have an appointment, they said, or be called back. No, the fact that I was a journalist made no difference.

Let’s be clear: Every other representative has an office accessible through Statehouse hallways. On the other hand, House leaders’ offices are located at the front the of the chamber and overseen by these handful of brave souls.

What about Hawkins’ or Majority Leader Chris Croft’s constituents? Can they only glimpse the office doors in the distance as well?

Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.