I believe going forward the biggest challenge is defending those limitations and restrictions on the books and I think they will be subject to legal challenge and defending them going forward.
Defend existing abortion restrictions and limitations on the books against legal challenge.
Occurrences
Evidence
"the biggest challenge will be defending those restrictions and limitations that are already on the books," Schmidt said.
DEREK SCHMIDT, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Kansas, ... Appellants.
Appeal No. 114,153: Hodes & Nauser, MDs, PA, et al v. Derek Schmidt, et al. The Kansas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 95 in 2015. The Attorney General responded that no right to abortion exists under the Kansas Constitution. In the alternative, the Attorney General argued, even if the Kansas Constitution protects such a right, the bill did not violate it. The Attorney General appealed.
Kobach is inheriting the state's defense of existing abortion restrictions from his predecessor, Republican Derek Schmidt, who left office Monday after losing the race for governor in November.
A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion. A vote against the Value Them Both Amendment would make no changes to the constitution of the state of Kansas, and could restrict the people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion by leaving in place the recently recognized right to abortion.
Assessments
Schmidt promised to defend existing Kansas abortion restrictions against legal challenge, and the evidence shows he did so while serving as Kansas attorney general. He was the named appellant in Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, where the attorney general defended SB 95 and appealed adverse rulings, and AP reported that his successor inherited the ongoing defense of existing abortion restrictions from him. Because the promised action was legal defense rather than enactment of a new restriction, carrying and litigating that defense during his term satisfies the promise.
The promise was to defend existing Kansas abortion restrictions against legal challenge, and Schmidt directly did that as Kansas attorney general. The strongest evidence shows he was the named appellant in Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt defending state abortion laws, which is direct candidate action rather than indirect credit. Because the promise is about mounting the defense, not necessarily prevailing in court, his documented legal defense of those laws is sufficient for full delivery.
Schmidt explicitly promised to defend existing Kansas abortion restrictions against legal challenge, and the record shows he did so in his official capacity as Kansas attorney general in Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt. Because the promised action was legal defense rather than a guaranteed court victory or enactment of new restrictions, his direct participation as the named state appellant is sufficient for delivery. The timing fits his same state-office term rather than a later unrelated completion by other officials.
Schmidt promised to defend Kansas abortion restrictions already on the books against legal challenge, and the record shows he did so in his official capacity as Kansas attorney general, including as appellant in Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt defending state abortion restrictions. Because the promised action was to defend the laws, not necessarily to prevail in court or enact new restrictions, the available evidence supports delivery during the relevant same-term official capacity.