MISSOURI RIGHT TO LIFE 2002 LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATE SURVEY

Thomas L. Knapp's Responses to the
MISSOURI RIGHT TO LIFE 2002 LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATE SURVEY

[Note: It is Tom Knapp's intention, as a candidate for public office, to respond as best possible to the surveys and questionnaires which PACs and interest groups send to such candidates, and to post his responses to the campaign web site. Responsiveness to these questionnaires and surveys is not intended to constitute an endorsement of any group or its program. Tom Knapp is not a member or financial supporter of Missouri Right to Life. The questionnaire is reproduced verbatim from the print copy sent to the candidate and formatted for display to simulate that print copy as closely as possible. Additional comments by the candidate were included in the written response sent to Missouri Right to Life.]

YES	NO

		1. I would VOTE FOR legislation to PROHIBIT abortion: A) under all circumstances B) except to save the mother's life (see candidate comment below) C) except mother's life or sexual assault D) none of the above Candidate's Comment: None of the answers offered accurately reflected my view; a more accurate statement is that I would vote for legislation to prohibit abortion except to save the mother's life or to prevent grievous bodily harm to the mother (the same criterion used in determining whether the use of deadly force is justified in other situations).
YES		2. Would you VOTE AGAINST state funding of agencies/organizations that perform, promote, or refer women for abortions that are not a medical emergency?
	NO	3. Would you VOTE FOR legislation requiring a 24-hour period of reflection after abortion providers give the patient alternatives, details about fetal development, and disclose physical and psychological risks of abortion before one is performed? Candidate's Comment: I have been specifically asked about this issue in conversation, and have given it much thought. I believe that abortion should be prohibited except in cases where not aborting a pregnancy is likely to result in death or grievous bodily harm (to the mother). Insofar as abortion is currently legal and treated like any other medical procedure, however, the criterion is informed consent. All relevant and factual information should be made available to the mother, but setting an arbitrary minimum time limit for her consideration of that information does not, in my opinion, make any sense. It is especially senseless given my policy recommendation, as an abortion performed to redress the risk of death or grievous bodily harm might be necessary immediately, and the question does not make an exception for that criterion.
YES		4. Would you VOTE AGAINST state funding of training programs that train medical students and residents in the techniques of elective abortion?
YES		5. Would you VOTE AGAINST "campaign finance reform" that regulates when and what an issue-advocacy organization, such as Missouri Right to Life, could say in public concerning a candidate's or officeholder's position or voting record?
	NO	6. Would you VOTE FOR legislation prohibiting human cloning in any form, including reproductive and so-called "therapeutic" cloning?
	NO	7. Would you VOTE AGAINST allowing a health care provider to purposely assist in, or hasten, the death of a patient?
YES		8. Would you VOTE AGAINST allowing a health care provider to remove or withhold ordinary means of sustaining life (food, water, medicines, sanitary care) without a patient's specific prior written directive (consent)? Candidate's Comment: This is another difficult question, and one to which there is no clear libertarian answer. After much consideration, I have concluded that a contract exists between patient and health care provider. In most cases, this contract is explicit: the patient is conscious and can give informed consent to procedures to save his or her life, and would be conscious and able to give informed consent to a cessation of care (for example, in the event that he or she were to be discharged after successful treatment), or to be notified if this cessation were involuntary (for example, the patient is being discharged because the provider cannot fulfill his or her needs, but is able and competent to seek other providers to do so). In other cases, the contract is implicit: the patient is unconscious and cannot give informed consent. The provider, under emergency conditions and/or with the informed consent of the patient's family, agrees to provide, and does provide, care. Having agreed to do so, and having done so, the provider does not have a right to then renege on the obligation it has implicitly undertaken to preserve the patient's life. My conclusion may be arbitrary, but is nonetheless my conviction: In some cases, consent to accept a contractual benefit may be assumed or delivered by proxy. In no case can consent to accept a cessation of contractual benefits be assumed or delivered by proxy. If a patient is not conscious and capable of informed consent, and if the patient did not promulgate a directive -- prior to becoming unconscious or incapable of informed consent -- allowing the cessation of care, then such consent does not exist and the provider is obligated to provide, or arrange for the provision of, that care.
YES		9. Would you VOTE AGAINST the support of research on human embryos or fetal tissue that results in, or requires, the intentional destruction of embryonic or fetal humans?
	NO	10. Would you VOTE AGAINST state ratification of the federal Equal Rights Amendment, the wording of which has been interpreted by some courts to require governmental funding of abortion? Candidate's Comment: The text of the Equal Rights Amendment is as follows: Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. I find nothing in the Equal Rights Amendment (or in the remainder of the Constitution) which could be reasonably construed to confer or protect a "right" to abortion, or a "right" to government funding of any medical procedure. If some courts have so interpreted it, then the problem is with those courts, not with the Equal Rights Amendment, and the voters or legislators responsible for the composition of the courts involved should consider prescribing mandatory courses in remedial reading and Constitutional history for the judges serving on them.