I will vote for ...

[Kung Wu]

The vote yes proponents unintentionally put out a complete clusterf%!k of a message, that confused already rightfully skeptical people and turned them away. Voters are generally pretty savvy and if they don't readily understand something, they aren't going to vote for it.

On the other hand, the vote no proponents intentionally put out a sham of a message explaining how extreme the "vote yes" law was. True or false, that's easy messaging to understand -- especially when you are already confused as hell about what the proposed law is actually accomplishing.

When a straightforward and serious law is proposed that will actually have direct implications that Ma and Pa can readily understand -- instead of some vague political-maneuvering law -- then we will really see where Kansas stands on abortion.

[RoyalShock]

The reason it’s allowed is because businesses that operate in Kansas have a voice in the law. For instance, it was very much in PLanned Parenthood’s interest to maintain as many abortions as possible. PP is not headquartered in Kansas however.

And that's fine, up to a point. Just because PP has a couple of Kansas locations shouldn't allow them to funnel millions of donations from people on the west coast, for example, into lobbying for a bill that affects only the people of Kansas. Maybe they should only be allowed to spend an amount proportional to the revenue received from their operations in Kansas plus their donations from Kansas residents.

I was once going to donate to Rand Paul's senate campaign, but ultimately decided against it because it felt wrong for me, a citizen of Kansas, to have influence over the representation of the people of Kentucky.

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

Sad sad day for Kansas and unborn babies. Shameful really. Soros money wins again...

[atlwsu]

My wife was the assistant manager at a local Georgia poll for a democrat run off. 24 people showed up all day. Twenty Republicans who saw the "vote" sign and came in to do their civic duty only to be turned away. Four votes were cast. She and the Manger got a police escort to insure there was no fraud with those 4 voters

[RoyalShock]

My wife was the assistant manager at a local Georgia poll for a democrat run off. 24 people showed up all day. Twenty Republicans who saw the "vote" sign and came in to do their civic duty only to be turned away. Four votes were cast. She and the Manger got a police escort to insure there was no fraud with those 4 voters

That's comically pathetic.

[SB Shock]

I don't think so.

In reality it lost last night.

If the "yes" had won, the legislature could have taken up a debate on the "heart beat bill", but that window has now closed.

It now settled. Abortion has been affirmed by a large majority of the state that it is a protected constitutional right in Kansas.

[SB Shock]

When a straightforward and serious law is proposed that will actually have direct implications that Ma and Pa can readily understand -- instead of some vague political-maneuvering law -- then we will really see where Kansas stands on abortion.

I don't understand how anybody couldn't understand what this vote was about.

This vote was not about ending abortion or allowing abortion. It was to amend the constitution to correct unconstitutional overreach of the Kansas Supreme Court that has some how found a constitutional right for killing babies and decided to legislate it by fiat.

The "yes" vote would have corrected the KS supreme court overreach and allowed the legislature to take up the debate on what the abortion laws should be in Kansas. This is what actually the U.S. Supreme Court ruled when they made Roe vs. Wade void.

The voters have made it clear they would rather have unaccountable, non-elected judges decide what best for Kansas, than the elected representatives. I may not like the answer, but at least it got put to a vote - that what democracy. Those that voted "No" have blood on their hands. Those that voted "Yes" can have a clean conscience.

[pinstripers]

The No voters did not view it that way

[pinstripers]

https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/03/deception-drove-kansans-to-vote-down-pro-life-value-them-both-amendment/

good read

[wufan]

And that's fine, up to a point. Just because PP has a couple of Kansas locations shouldn't allow them to funnel millions of donations from people on the west coast, for example, into lobbying for a bill that affects only the people of Kansas. Maybe they should only be allowed to spend an amount proportional to the revenue received from their operations in Kansas plus their donations from Kansas residents.

I was once going to donate to Rand Paul's senate campaign, but ultimately decided against it because it felt wrong for me, a citizen of Kansas, to have influence over the representation of the people of Kentucky.

It’s hard to legislate against allowing interested parties to advertise, especially with such a short cycle as a referendum.

[Kung Wu]

https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/03...oth-amendment/

good read

Wow, it's what I said, except that gal got paid and knows how words work gooder.

[rrshock]

An amendment, presented to the voting populous, spelling out exactly what they want the law to have would have a better chance of passing. Many people didn't like the open ended wording. IMO, it was poorly written and had the legislature wanted it to have a better chance, would have put more thought in to this and actually put an honest law out there.

People can blame whoever they want to blame. It's how society is now. But all the anti abortion people, who are mad, should blame your state representatives for screwing the pooch. Not the 60% of people that had multitudes of reasons for voting no. I guarantee that there aren't 60% of Kansas Residents that are in favor of abortion. Many don't like the government having too much power. Many people feel representatives don't actually have the peoples best interests in mind. Others believe in Separation of church and state. The elected officials in Topeka need to pull their heads out of their rectal cavities.

[Maizerunner08]

I would have been curious if the wording would have said something about abortion only being allowed for rape, incest, and threat to the mother's life?

Find it hard to believe that it wouldn't have been closer to a 50/50 split. Again, who knows for sure.

[SubGod22]

We will see another vote of some kind in the coming years. I've seen a few things here and there that have talked about learning from this and using that to proceed differently in the future.

If abortion is brought up again for a vote in the future, I can almost guarantee it'll be more specific, with firm exceptions or time frames. Kansas currently has abortion available up to 22 weeks. I've seen some throw out 15 weeks as a future alternative. Some have talked about a heartbeat being the cutoff.

Any future vote for the people will have to have clear exceptions, health/life of mother, rape and such as well as a time frame of some sort. If that is presented, and it's clear, it has a much better chance to pass.

I heard a stat recently that I believe 63% of Americans support abortion with restrictions or some sort. Next time this comes up, those who write it will have to figure out where those lines need to be drawn, and if they do, it probably passes.

[WuDrWu]

The "hard right" (a group of which I am mostly a member) asked the people of Kansas to write them a blank check. The people of Kansas said no, that's all.