KCUR57%

Kansas Gov. Kelly blocked a bill protecting anti-abortion centers. Lawmakers overrode her veto 78%

By Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga0%

3/31/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Hasty Generalization, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 20.8% saturation with 133 hits. Analysis detected 1,058 faulty-reasoning hits from 639 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69% and a BS Rank of 78% (4,984 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.20% of the article peer group.

Hours after Democratic Gov. 
Laura Kelly vetoed a bill aimed at protecting crisis pregnancy centers, Republican lawmakers reversed the veto, citing a desire to preserve life in the state. 
Republican lawmakers in Kansas say they overrode Democratic Gov. 
Laura Kelly’s veto on a bill that protects crisis pregnancy centers late last week because they want to preserve life. 
Democratic opponents who were against the override, meanwhile, say the bill further erodes abortion access in the state. 
Crisis pregnancy centers, also known as pregnancy resource centers, counsel women against abortion. 
The bill shields them from regulations requiring them to provide information about abortions, procedures or medication, or abortion referrals or counseling. 
“Basically, all it does is it ensures that the more than 50 pregnancy centers serving women and families across Kansas cannot be targeted or forced by government officials to act against their beliefs,” he said in a Senate proceeding Friday. 
The bill creates the Pregnancy Center Autonomy and Rights Expression Act, or CARE Act. 
It also allows crisis pregnancy centers to sue people or government entities who violate it, and allows appointed legislators to intervene in any court proceedings. 
Passage of the bill was one of Kansans For Life’s top legislative priorities this year. 
The organization, the state’s leading anti-abortion group, released a statement applauding lawmakers’ veto override, saying the bill will protect pregnancy resource centers from government discrimination. 
“Kansans should remember who voted against these protections and went on record supporting government harassment of the pregnancy centers that provide women and families with real, tangible help,” the statement reads. 
In a February interview with the Kansas News Service, Jeanne Gawdun, director of government relations for Kansans for Life, said it’s important to protect these centers. 
“We're seeing in other states that there are some government elected officials who are actually using public funds to spread misinformation about pregnancy resource centers,” she said. 
Democratic state Rep. 
Heather Meyer, who was against the override, said the bill will get in the way of people receiving accurate information about pregnancy and pregnancy-related services. 
“The other thing about this is it prioritizes institutional ideology over individual rights,” Meyer said in a House proceeding Friday. 
She said the bill gives special legal protections to pregnancy centers that other nonprofits, hospitals and counseling centers do not have and goes against Kansans’ 2022 vote to protect abortion. 
“This is getting into dangerous territory,” Meyer said. 
State Rep. 
Ford Carr, a Democrat from Wichita, criticized Republicans who claimed Kelly supports choice but not people who choose to give birth. 
“This entire side has not voted to give the kids even lunches or food,” Carr said, referring to Republican-led bills that would require schools to verify the income of students who qualify for free lunches. 
“Anyone that’s poor has been left out, and that’s what this is.” 
Sandy Brown is president of the Kansas Abortion Fund, a nonprofit that covers the cost of the procedure for Kansans. 
She says the bill is another attempt to restrict abortion. 
“They will be able to operate with less oversight which means less accountability for how they treat and care for women,” she said of crisis pregnancy centers. 
Brown said crisis pregnancy centers often pose as medical centers, which can be confusing for women and delay or restrict access to abortion. 
She said despite not being medical clinics, the centers provide information that is not accurate and can be dangerous. 
Since 2022, the Kansas Legislature has appropriated more than $7 million to these centers. 
Brown said the centers divert women from clinics that offer abortion services, which do not receive state funding. 
“Legislators want to scare abortion doctors out of practice. 
And they want to scare patients out of choosing abortion,” she said. 
“They're making it so difficult.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.1%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias12.1%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic6.6%This article: 2.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic2.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.3%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 4.3%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect18.3%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 6.1%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 1.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias8.8%This article: 20.8%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 5.2%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias20.8%This article: 5.5%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias5.5%This article: 2.8%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error2.8%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias5.5%This article: 3.3%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem4.9%This article: 5.5%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man5.5%This article: 4.7%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 3.2%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority4.7%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 4.2%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope4.2%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.3%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 4.0%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization16.3%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.9%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 5.9%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion6.9%This article: 4.7%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question4.7%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 3.3%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque3.3%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 2.5%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.6%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote5.6%This article: 6.3%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection6.3%This article: 1.1%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice1.1%This article: 4.9%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination4.9%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

639 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers60%attributed speech256writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageKansans For Life • 25 words • 0.0% coverageKansans For Life • 31 words • 100.0% coverageJeanne Gawdun • 26 words • 0.0% coverageJeanne Gawdun • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageHeather Meyer • 25 words • 0.0% coverageHeather Meyer • 20 words • 0.0% coverageHeather Meyer • 30 words • 0.0% coverageHeather Meyer • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageFord Carr • 21 words • 0.0% coverageFord Carr • 35 words • 0.0% coverageFord Carr • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageSandy Brown • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSandy Brown • 27 words • 0.0% coverageSandy Brown • 23 words • 0.0% coverageSandy Brown • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageSandy Brown • 18 words • 0.0% coverageSandy Brown • 9 words • 100.0% coverageSandy Brown • 12 words • 0.0% coverageSandy Brown • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kansans For Life

100%flagged-word coverage
56 attributed words15% of attributed speech59% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Indoctrination+55.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kansans For Life: 55.4%55.4%Quote-first Misdirection-15.6 ptsWriter: 15.6%Kansans For Life: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.7 ptsWriter: 2.7%Kansans For Life: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.