The Kansas Abortion Shocker

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Earlier this summer, when the Supreme Court ended a 50-year federal right to abortion, Democrats had no choice but to place their faith in voters to rebel against the ruling. Until tonight, however, no one could definitively say whether Roe v. Wade outrage would carry over to the polls.

Tonight in Kansas, Americans got their first hint of that response, and it was a resounding victory for abortion rights. Voters there decisively rejected an amendment that would have allowed the state’s Republican-controlled legislature to ban abortion across the state. With more than three-quarters of precincts reporting, the “No” vote was leading by more than 20 points. The surprising result keeps abortion legal in a GOP stronghold, one of the few states in the region where conservative majorities have not already outlawed the procedure.

Politically, the outcome is sure to reverberate across the country and buoy the Democrats’ bid to capitalize on the overturning of Roe in the midterm battle for Congress this fall. It will lift the party’s hopes that anger over the Supreme Court’s decision will matter more than concerns about inflation and President Joe Biden’s leadership, allowing Democrats to maintain their narrow majorities on Capitol Hill. “This victory tonight confirms that abortion is popular in all states, not just on the coasts,” Elise Higgins, a lifelong Kansan who is the director of reproductive rights at the State Innovation Exchange, a progressive advocacy group, told me.

Tonight marked the first time that voters had a chance to weigh in directly on abortion since the Supreme Court scrapped Roe in its decision in Dobbs v. Mississippi Women’s Health Organization. Both public and private polls had shown the race to be close, and opponents of the anti-abortion amendment were cautiously optimistic in the closing days that they could pull out an upset victory.

Republican lawmakers in Kansas had put a constitutional amendment on the ballot long before the Supreme Court ruling, scheduling the vote to coincide a partisan August primary that they hoped would help the anti-abortion cause. For more than a year, it looked like that decision would pay off. But the June 24 decision in the Dobbscase galvanized abortion-rights supporters, who blanketed Kansas’s most populous counties with television ads that targeted not only Democrats but independent and Republican voters as well.

The amendment would have banned taxpayer funding of abortion and effectively invalidated a 2019 ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court that the state’s constitution protected abortion rights. Approval of the ballot measure would have given Kansas’s GOP lawmakers free reign to follow their counterparts in other conservative states, including Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas, and ban abortion without exceptions. Republicans have a supermajority in the Kansas legislature, meaning they would likely be able to override a veto by the state’s Democratic governor, Laura Kelly.

Drawing on polling data over the past several years, the “Vote No” campaign insisted that despite the state’s Republican leanings, support for abortion rights in Kansas extended nearly as broadly as it does in the nation overall. “The majority of Kansans want abortion to remain safe, legal, and accessible,” Higgins said.

Kansas’s abortion foes didn’t make much effort to dispute that assertion. Rather than campaign outwardly for voters to give them the right to ban abortion, the “Yes” side argued that the ballot initiative—named the “Value Them Both Amendment”—would merely take the decision away from the courts and return it to the public and elected representatives. Canvassers were instructed to make clear to voters that the amendment itself did not outlaw abortion, even though its passage would free the GOP-controlled legislature to do so.

At times, anti-abortion advocates clouded their pitch in the language of their opposition, using words like “choice” and “regulation.” That effort veered into outright misinformation a day before the election, when thousands of voters—including a former Democratic governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius—received a text message warning that women in the state “are losing their choice” on abortion. “Voting YES on the Amendment will give women a choice,” the text said. “Vote YES to protect women’s health.” The sender was unidentified, although the Washington Postreported that the group behind the texts is run by a former arch-conservative Kansas congressman.

Higgins was one of the voters who received the text on Monday. She sent “a strongly-worded reply” to the number, she told me, but got no further response. “I was really furious,” Higgins said. “It was part and parcel of the deceptive tactics that the anti-abortion movement is using in this fight.”

But Higgins also told me she was hopeful, seeing the desperation inherent in the misleading texts as evidence that abortion-rights supporters had already succeeded in overcoming their biggest challenge. They had mobilized voters to turn out in what was expected to be a sleepy summer primary in which many voters would otherwise have had no reason to participate. That initial victory was confirmed the moment the polls began to close tonight, when Kansas’s secretary of state, Scott Schwab, said turnout would likely shatter expectations and rival that of a presidential general election.

The question then became whether a surge in enthusiasm would be enough to carry the abortion-rights side in a state that Donald Trump won by 15 points just two years ago. Within a couple of hours, the answer became clear, and it wasn’t particularly close. Now, Democrats will try to replicate that winning strategy in another long-shot campaign: keeping control of Congress in November.

 
Better than judicial activism. I like letting states choose for themselves, and with something as controversial as abortion, it’s better this way.
 
Wanna know something weirdly co-incidental to this?

Chairman Meow of China's CCP just made abortion a "anti-civil activity" ie pretty much illegal (starting August 1) unless it's doctor and government approved. Also they're shutting down the increasingly popular male sterilization clinics. Having less then 3 kids is now considered to be "unsupportive of China" (rough translation) and "could have impact on your social credit score".

Funnily enough they also passed a resolution that if you have enought money in the bank and don't have a mortage your also "not supporting proper Chinese vaules" and thus your "not a properly focued citizen". You know despite more then 20 million chinks already paying a morage on housing not yet (and with the Evergrande crash most likely never built) homes.

I wonder if the just finished census of chinks has anything to do with this?

Not a word about this in the Western Press...funny huh? Makes you think.
 
So... have any evil anti-choice villains bombed vandalised any planned parenthood abortion shops yet?

Cause if not I know who the reasonable people are...
 
Hmm, yes, no deceptiveness or foul play here.
DE3F9C22-C7F7-4C5E-820D-62376D2FBFB0.jpeg
 
A thought occurs:

What stops the Republican-majority state legislature from altering their constitution to make whatever abortion restrictions they want? Lack of numbers? Maryland did the same not too long ago to ensure abortion according to their constitution. Was making this a referendum question meant to symbolize something?
Hmm, yes, no deceptiveness or foul play here.
View attachment 3559626
I don't think it's incomprehensible, but I do think it's a very badly constructed proposal if you're not already very aware of the context. I wonder who made it.
  • The first sentence is unnecessary filler.
  • The whole point of the proposal is that it's currently the state's supreme court's finding of abortion in their constitution that regulates that institution in their borders. Why is that not mentioned in the question?
  • "To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States" is unnecessary-- the federal constitution has no language governing abortion.
  • "including, but not limited to, laws...." is unnecessary. "Should the state legislature be allowed to pass laws regarding abortion, rather than the state supreme court making verdicts regarding it?"-- there, it's that simple a matter.
 
What stops the Republican-majority state legislature from altering their constitution to make whatever abortion restrictions they want? Lack of numbers? Maryland did the same not too long ago to ensure abortion according to their constitution. Was making this a referendum question meant to symbolize something?
It was passed by the pro-life supermajority in the Kansas legislature, but it also had to be approved by voters.
 
A thought occurs:

What stops the Republican-majority state legislature from altering their constitution to make whatever abortion restrictions they want? Lack of numbers? Maryland did the same not too long ago to ensure abortion according to their constitution. Was making this a referendum question meant to symbolize something?

I don't think it's incomprehensible, but I do think it's a very badly constructed proposal if you're not already very aware of the context. I wonder who made it.
  • The first sentence is unnecessary filler.
  • The whole point of the proposal is that it's currently the state's supreme court's finding of abortion in their constitution that regulates that institution in their borders. Why is that not mentioned in the question?
  • "To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States" is unnecessary-- the federal constitution has no language governing abortion.
  • "including, but not limited to, laws...." is unnecessary. "Should the state legislature be allowed to pass laws regarding abortion, rather than the state supreme court making verdicts regarding it?"-- there, it's that simple a matter.
that is ironic considering your posts are all pseudointellectual textwalls
 
This isn't really surprising, turns out the average American is middle-of-the-road on lots of things, including abortion, and will not vote for it up to 15 minutes after birth OR not at all for any reason.... most people are perfectly willing to compromise, if given a choice. (a PERSONAL compromise, not a the kind of "compromise" politicians want)

It's almost like the only "benefit" of Federalizing an issue is placating a small group of crazy people's feelings to the detriment of everyone else.... you get to put YOUR group's flag at the top of the hill and screw everyone else, right?

40 years of wasted time, pointless arguments, nitpicking and stalling at the Fed level trying to please everyone and constantly being derailed by fanatics who would not compromise, with absolutists who would only accept total ban and the death penalty for even CONSIDERING it on once side and "progressives" who practically want you handed a coupon book for 5 free abortions to everyone on their first day of school on the other...

And for all that, it took 2 months to get the first state to make a decision on it. and in the end, it stays, and no "insurrection" resulted.

Wow, almost like the country was DESIGNED to work that way instead of forcing ZEE VUN UND ONLY VUN VAY TO LIVE! on everyone from on-high, who knew?
 
Last edited:
This is being severely misconstrued. It doesn't actually change anything since this was an attempt at an amendment to the constitution that outright allows further restrictions basically, it's main point was to ensure there could be no constitutional right read out of it. Plus there was a lot of dem fearmongering etc. Abortion is still banned (outside of health exceptions) past ~20 weeks.
Kansas law allows for an abortion up to 20 weeks postfertilization (22 weeks after the last menstrual period). After that point, only in cases of life or severely compromised physical health may an abortion be performed

It ended up losing a lot closer vote than originally seemed (or described by mainstream media.) ~58%-42%

The whole thing from the beginning was a stupid overplay by idiots in their gov. Not a sign of anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom