Oct 21, 2021 9:00 PM

AG files motion to stay appeal of case that gave Kan. women right to abortion

Posted Oct 21, 2021 9:00 PM
 Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, who is running for governor in 2022, said, "“Proceeding with this appeal while a vote on the Value Them Both Amendment is pending risks needlessly wasting the time and resources of the parties and this Court."
Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, who is running for governor in 2022, said, "“Proceeding with this appeal while a vote on the Value Them Both Amendment is pending risks needlessly wasting the time and resources of the parties and this Court."

TOPEKA – The Kansas Supreme Court should put on hold further proceedings in an appeal regarding regulation of abortion in Kansas pending the outcome of the August 2022 vote on the Value Them Both constitutional amendment, according to a statement from Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt to the court released Thursday.

Click here to read a  copy of the motion for stay

Schmidt filed the motion this week in the appeal of Hodes & Nauser v Schmidt. In an earlier proceeding in the case, the Kansas Supreme Court in 2019 found a previously undiscovered right to abortion in the state constitution. Legislators responded earlier this year by placing before Kansas voters a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution that would reverse that ruling.

In the motion filed this week, Schmidt notes that the public vote is 10 months away and, if approved, would eliminate the legal basis for the suit.

“Proceeding with this appeal while a vote on the Value Them Both Amendment is pending risks needlessly wasting the time and resources of the parties and this Court. In addition, it is unlikely that this appeal will conclude before the August 2, 2022, election in any event,” Schmidt wrote the court. “If the Value Them Both Amendment is adopted, any additional proceedings will have been for nothing. A stay of proceedings is in the interest of judicial economy and would allow the people of Kansas to express their will on this important constitutional question before potentially unnecessary litigation occurs.”