I will vote for ...

[ShockerDropOut]

I am firmly planted in the right to life side of this arguement. I believe in the "less is more" side where it concerns government being involved it our daily lives and choices. I am a huge advocate against jucicial overreach. I trust any politician about as far as I can throw them, local, state or federal. This issue pitted several of my most deeply ingrained beliefs against each other. It was not an easy choice. At the end of the day I chose life and to give up a bit of control to an out of control government. That said, if this choice was that hard for me and my very solid core beliefs, I can see how this amendment failed miserably. Only by presenting an amendment that is very specific to the issue and the allowable exceptions, will this have any chance of being passed in the future. The fear of even our state government is real with many people, and IMO, rightly so. As Doc said:


The "hard right" asked the people of Kansas to write them a blank check. The people of Kansas said no, that's all.

[ShockerFever]

I just love how all the national media outlets played up their headlines as a “win” for abortion rights and how this was gonna help the Democrats win in November. No, it was a loss by a bunch of nincompoops that failed at crafting an amendment together.

[wichshock65]

This is the 22 week old "fetus" that Kansas says it's ok to abort. Fingers. Toes. Looks like a baby, no?

Disgusting and disturbing.

wbw-your-baby-2021-alt-w22-1200x1200.jpg

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

Don't tell me what to do with my body, unless it's Covid, then follow the science!!

[Dave Stalwart]

If it’s really true that the only reason “Yes” lost was due to poorly written stuff and confusing situations, then it’s only a matter of time till a new vote happens that is well done, utilizing what was learned.

If it’s actually true that the vast majority of people simply want abortions and disagree with the far right, running a better campaign won’t help

It seems to me like the people who would be “yes” but went “no” due to a problematic campaign may want to be pretty vocal about that so it gets done right for them next time

[Kung Wu]

They asked us to vote on a law that will allow us to vote on a law. That really just happened.

Anyway, if we are going to amend the constitution, then let's amend the constitution with a heartbeat law, so that our sometimes Dem governor and Dem minority can't whittle down and force compromise on a much weaker set of statutory laws like they ALWAYS do.

A heartbeat law is easy to understand, fair, has scientific merit, simple, doesn't attack contraceptives, doesn't attack the morning-after pill, doesn't prevent a rape victim from getting an abortion, doesn't prevent a mom who's life is in danger from getting an abortion, and you don't even have to have a reason for getting an abortion up until the fetus' heart starts beating.

Start there.

[Shockm]

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.

I agree with rape, incest, and other things you said, but the health of the mother is one of the most lied about reason for aborting babies in the past of doctors who become rich because of the abortion industry. That should require safeguards and strong documentation. Not the word of an abortionist by PPH.

[wufan]

I agree with rape, incest, and other things you said, but the health of the mother is one of the most lied about reason for aborting babies in the past of doctors who become rich because of the abortion industry. That should require safeguards and strong documentation. Not the word of an abortionist by PPH.

This is 100% correct. There are seriously risky pregnancies that need to be ended for the risk to life of the mother, then there are health issues such as post partum depression and unnecessary weight gain.

[1972Shocker]

This is false, as Kansas already has some restrictions on the books. They're not as strict as some would like, but it's also not as drastic as you say.

And the next step now for the pro-abortion side will be to challenge that existing legislated restrictions as being invalid as they are unconstitutional under Kansas Law. And I think they should prevail.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/26...on-supporters/

In a 6-1 decision, the Kansas Supreme Court held in Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, that the state constitution guarantees a right to abortion.

The named plaintiffs, Herbert Hodes and his daughter Traci Nauser, are two late-term abortionists who challenged Kansas’ ban on live dismemberment abortions—abortions which cause death by ripping the limbs and torso off of a fetus. Over the last several years, federal courts have declared similar bans on dismemberment abortions unconstitutional, but today’s decision is significant because, unlike other cases, it is based on a state constitutional right to abortion.

The Majority Opinion

The majority in Hodes, held that Section 1 of the Kansas Bill of Rights enshrine a right to abortion in the state constitution, by providing “All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This language, the Court concluded, guaranteed citizen “rights that preexisted the formation of the Kansas government,” and included in the “natural, inalienable rights” protected by Section 1 are “the right of personal autonomy, which includes the ability to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination.”

The Kansas Supreme Court reasoned:

“This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life—decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy. Although not absolute, this right is fundamental. Accordingly, the State is prohibited from restricting this right unless it is doing so to further a compelling government interest and in a way that is narrowly tailored to that interest.”

---

So the Supreme Court has prohibited the State from restricting the right to abortion with the only exception being a compelling state interest which must be narrowly construed and tailored to the specific interest. I interpret that to pretty mean Kansas currently is a state with no real abortion restrictions as a practical matter.

Does that mean the majority of Kansas support unlimited abortion? No and I don't think that is the case. If ballot initiative had been that there is a right to abortion in the first 22 weeks of a normal in utero pregnancy (the current Kansas law) and without restriction in cases or rape, incest, or valid medical reasons I believe would have passed at least 60-40. Maybe 70-30.

Personally, I would like to see less than 22 weeks. 16-18 weeks maybe.

Obviously, it appears that the voters were not convinced the legislature, either now or in the future, could be trusted to not enact much more restrictive law than currently exist or even a total ban. The fact that the anti-abortion supporters refused to even address this when asked was a big problem IMHO.

So IMHO we now have unlimited abortions in Kansas until the 2019 KSC decision is reversed or we vote on another constitutional amendment. Personally, I am opposed to abortion except for rape, incest and valid medical reasons. However, I am pragmatic enough to know that abortion is not going away. I think the best those who oppose abortion can hope for is to make it safe, early and as humane and rare as possible. I also do not want public funding of abortions. I have no problem promoting and encouraging birth control measures including tubal ligations and vasectomies.

I thought this issue was totally mishandled and mismanaged by the anti-abortion contingent this time around.

[1972Shocker]

At times I wished I lived in Louisiana just so I could vote for this guy:

[Shockm]

I may be naive, but I saw the vote only as a referendum only on the 9 robes who said the Kansas constitution stated that women/men have the right of abortion written in it. That is a lie and I challenge anyone to show me where it says that.

[WuShockFan]

Vote No is going to increase abortion in Wichita. After the Dobbs decision, the entire states of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri completely banned abortion. There are about 40 million people to the south of us whose closest abortion clinic is now Wichita. I thought after Tiller died, we were done being the abortion capital. Now I wonder how many new clinics are going to open up. We already have two. Abortion is going to become a budding industry in little ol' Ta Town.

I pray that God will have mercy on us and on the deluded people who voted for this.

[shox1989]

I am one of those NO voters. I am a life long Republican who doesn't like abortion. But I do not trust today's Republican elected officials. They are way too authoritarian for me. I became a Republican when I first registered to vote because I believe in Freedom and free markets. I have remained a Republican because I am too lazy to go down to the courthouse and change my registration to Libertarian or Unaffiliated.

Like I said I don't care much for abortion, but do realize there are instances where it is necessary. If they had just put on the ballot an actual proposal like No abortions except tin the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother (or something along those lines), I would have voted for it.

But I do not trust our current Republican leaders to give them a blank check. They didn't help themselves by refusing to say what they intended to do if the measure passed. They handled this badly and deserved to lose.

It would also be a big mistake for the left to go court and try to remove the current restrictions or to try to do it legislatively (like they would be even close to having the votes in the heavily Republican controlled legislature). It wouldn't surprise me if the left did try to this, but it would be at their peril. I believe the backlash from Kansans would be huge.

[Maizerunner08]

Ultimately, if there is any clear takeaway from this vote it would not using vague language with unclear ramifications.

People don't like voting on things that seem unclear. Uncertainty = status quo

I'm pro-life so the results were obviously disappointing. Ultimately, people will have to live with the decisions they make in regards to abortion.

The sad thing is more people would be upset over puppies being aborted than a human.

[WstateU]

Ultimately, if there is any clear takeaway from this vote it would not using vague language with unclear ramifications.

People don't like voting on things that seem unclear. Uncertainty = status quo

I'm pro-life so the results were obviously disappointing. Ultimately, people will have to live with the decisions they make in regards to abortion.

The sad thing is more people would be upset over puppies being aborted than a human.

... and upset over people refusing to get the jab; isn't it my body too?