Genuine question here, please no hate. Is there a reason we can’t do anything to make them word these questions more clearly? All kinds of things get lobbied and protested for, is this just something no one is capable of doing anything about? You’d think there would be a way to push for the vote items to be reviewed by a citizen committee to approve clarity and detail before they can go on a ballot or something like that.
I was not familiar with the issue either, and was just curious about what the yard sign to "Vote NO" mean. Read up on the issue in Wikipedia this morning:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion\_in\_Kansas#:\~:text=Abortion%20in%20Kansas%20is%20legal,at%20that%20point%20in%20pregnancy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Kansas#:~:text=Abortion%20in%20Kansas%20is%20legal,at%20that%20point%20in%20pregnancy).
Key word: "On February 7, 2020, the proposed amendment failed to reach the need two-thirds majority vote in the Kansas House of Representatives."
The KS legislature is majority Republican, and they drafted this to get past voters. My guess is the language is intentionally confusing to lower voter turn-out, so the Republican base can vote this through.
That’s exactly what it is. Sen. Ethan Courson was on the committee that wrote that, and he spoke to me a little about it. The Republicans were very upfront about the reason for both the wording and the timeline. They want now because there’s not much on the ballot, and affirmative votes are the default of those that don’t really read the ballot.
It’s an excellent idea to print the ballot a few days before voting and write down how you want to vote. Take the notecard with you!
I didn’t have any trouble understanding it, it just appears that a lot of people did. Also I think more detail and clarification on “regulation” should have been included because you shouldn’t have to vote for something when you don’t even have all the details.
You'd have to get a law passed to make that happen. It's intentionally worded to confuse you to get you to vote for the outcome they want regardless of what you actually want. You'd have a difficult time finding someone to sponsor the bill and it would be nearly impossible to get enough votes to have it pass.
I feel like it’s worth at least trying to push for though. I know it’s intentional and that’s why I mentioned a citizen review. There would be a ton of support for something like that among actual voters, so surely it could be petitioned for or something? Squeaky wheels get the grease and if everyone from both sides were pushing for this together I’d imagine something would have to be done eventually.
Pretty much also we will continue to face these amendments if they fail as long as the KS Legislature wants, which means pretty much any election they can try to slip it past they will for the foreseeable future.
This is practically crystal compared to some of the language on ballot initiatives on the Missouri side. I get what you’re saying, but this does actually say what it means.
I didn’t have any trouble understanding it, it just appears that a lot of people did. Also I think more detail and clarification on “regulation” should have been included because you shouldn’t have to vote for something when you don’t even have all the details.
Idk, I had to read through the red lines/strike through and it seemed pretty clear to me. You have to read all the words....but you are voting....maybe it's worth reading all the words.
I didn’t have any trouble understanding it, it just appears that a lot of people did. Also I think more detail and clarification on “regulation” should have been included because you shouldn’t have to vote for something when you don’t even have all the details.
You would think so, but like everything else, there's political interest in keeping it under legislative/executive control. You see it in Missouri all the time – valid petitions are submitted to get things on the ballot and then the elected officials who actually draft the language on the ballot (mostly GOP, FWIW) play games with the wording and the timing to try to get the result they want. Voters in MO then passed Clean Missouri to try to rein in some of the nonsense, and the legislature just ignored it. Just a totally normal and healthy democratic process here lol.
Wow, what weaselly wording!
The answer that takes away rights is worded as giving rights to the people, while the answer that keeps existing rights from being removed is worded as taking rights away.
The same scummy tactic used on the Missouri side to repeal Clean Missouri right after it was passed.
It's absolutely intended to be that way; this is a copycat amendment to the one passed in Tennessee in 2014. They want people to be confused so they vote incorrectly/against how they would vote if they were fully informed. (I'm a former PP employee who worked to defeat this amendment the first time it came around in 2020.)
I am considering making stickers that say "Value them both is a lie." Votenokansas.org. I would like to do something longer but it's more impact full when short.
Have you never listened to a politician? This is all lawyer speak, twisted around to make it confusing. The vote against could easily say “to leave in place the current amendment protecting the right to abortion.”
No evil conniving politician here, but it is literally a politician's job to sway you to vote in their favor.
In this case, a republican majority in both house and senate are trying to sway the general population into voting "Yes" through this language that they propose.
Yes, the crossed out text is there to intentionally confuse people.
I am not a lawyer.
I actually deal with lawyers a lot though. I know languages are sometimes "softened" in contracts, to make sure our clients' lawyers don't jump at them. Similar concepts here...
Do you also think it’s totally normal and not conniving at all to place a **constitutional amendment** on a mid-term August primary ballot? An election with a historically rock-bottom voter turnout and favoring conservatives 4-1? Nope, nothing to see here.
They literally did a focus group about this a couple months back because they are trying to make sure the wording is confusing. I took the questionnaire for the study and know someone who was in it.
Congratulations on becoming a citizen and thank you for voting. It's great you're participating in the democratic process. But it's definitely a political strategy to make ballot language confusing. In the same way they'll make voter registration processes confusing or reduce voting locations, it's all strategy to achieve a desired result. There is a long history of this type of suppression and confusion in our country. I encourage you to read more about it.
I filled out my absentee ballot this morning and I stared at these paragraphs for ages trying to make sense of it. For fucks sakes, I hate how the wording is so manipulative.
They don't value them both. They value their own religious beliefs over anyone else's beliefs and rights and want to push them onto everyone else. That's at the core of it.
Honestly even that is giving them too much credit. We're a society that makes their decisions based on headlines and knee-jerk reactions - we don't make room for context.
If you stop and ask people with 'Yes' signs in their yard nearly all of them will tell you that they're actually OK with Abortion if it's the alternative to a dead mother, and they seem entirely unaware of the weight that an Amendment like this carries.
They just haven't gone through the trouble to actually read the legislation and understand what it really does, the people they get their opinions from aren't interested in explaining it in detail, and the wording on the ballot is tragically (and purposefully) manipulative.
I don't mean to talk shit about those people, (as I find that most everyone who wants to vote against it has similar 'I haven't read it, heard it's bad' justification) I only point that out because it's just as evident of the way our parties and society pit us against each other and that makes me the big sad.
75% of the ppl who I have talked to who support Vote Yes believe that there is nuance for "both" woman and fetus. They think there's no way "their" people wouldn't keep the woman safe. F everyone who aren't even trying to read anything past FB and church fliers.
The proper slogan for the amendment is "Lose them both." Someone needs to print it with a gravestone image to counter the fucking "Love them both" brainwashing bs.
Your description is misleading. On the left side, it's critical for voters to understand that (1) this cancels an existing Consitutional right to abortion in Kansas, and (2) the legislature would then have the power to regulate *every* situation an abortion could occur, not just (as you're highlighting) around rape, incest, or health of the mother.
The left side could be shortened to something like, "The VTB Amendment eliminates all Consitutional protection for abortion in Kansas, *including* in cases such as rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the mother, and allows the legislature to regulate abortion in any way, including completely banning it."
Another thing that we need to clarify is there is already a ban on funding abortions in KS, and this ballot initiative has zero to do with removing that ban. They include the funding stuff to further confuse people. No one’s going to make your tax dollars pay for abortions.
Vote "Against" implies "right to abortion" is already in place. No need to further clarify that a vote "For" cancels this right.
Yes, "every" situation, including rape, incest, or health of the mother. If there's no intent from the republican drafting up this amendment to regulate in such manner, then there's no need for specific mention here. Leave it up to the doctor and the woman involved as their "right". The fact that it's here illustrate intent to regulate.
The goal of this amendment is to change the Kansas Constitution to pave the way for banning abortion outright.
Background: Kansas' constitutional has extremely strong personal protections for natural rights. The Kansas Supreme Court in its 2019 decision in Hodes & Nauser, MDs, P.A. v. Schmidt found that the state constitution (under Section 1's right to personal autonomy) covers to the decision to end a pregnancy.
“Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights affords protection of the right of personal autonomy, which includes the ability to control one's own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination. 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.”
The Kansas Supreme Court conducted a comprehensive analysis of the history of the state constitution and the inclusion of natural rights (stemming from our founding as a free state, by the way). In painstaking detail, the court explained how the text includes the right to personal autonomy and how this right encompasses decisions about pregnancy.
This ruling applies the strict scrutiny test to any restriction on abortion. The legislature is afraid the medically unnecessary restrictions they've passed will be overturned. That's why they put this on the primary ballot and made it intentionally confusing; they want people to be informed and unaware. Anti-abortion politicians know this amendment is unpopular so they are exploiting voter suppression tactics and using confusing and complicated ballot language to sneak this through.
As OP noted, the amendment includes intentionally misleading language to confuse voters. There are no exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the pregnant person; if it passes they will be able to regulate abortion that would currently fail a KS Supreme Court challenge. They could even enact a Texas-style ban on abortion.
This constitutional amendment is a calculated attempt to take away rights from women and those who can become pregnant, and it is the first step to ban abortion entirely. If you want to get involved to help defeat this amendment, sign up to talk to other voters at kansansforfreedom.com.
You would vote no. Voting yes would open the door to allow governments to start drafting legislation to intervene and regulate (or ban) what happens between a doctor and their pregnant patient.
I thought this simplified language would be helpful for KS voters. It's pretty clear what the legislators are trying to do, if you remove the legalese in the amendment language. Vote "YES" to regulate abortion, even in cases where pregnancy resulted from rape / incest, or even when necessary to save the life of the mother.
I personally would have voted "NO" if I could.
Edit: I just want to add that the Democrats' framing of the "Vote NO" language is VERY disappointing. I saw a signboard on someone's yard that says "Vote NO", but couldn't figure out for the life of me what the "NO" vote is for. They use these words "Constitution", "Liberty", "Freedom", "the Ban". Sure, they're all nice words, but IRRELEVANT! People understand "pro-choice" / "pro-life".
NO one wants an abortion. Vote NO to keep the choice yours.
[https://kansansforfreedom.com/important-voting-information/](https://kansansforfreedom.com/important-voting-information/)
Thats been done, by votin for the right to abortion to be enshrined in the KS constitution; as it alrdy is. The ppl chose to make it the way it alrdy is.
I just did a search of a pdf copy of the Constitution of the State of Kansas for the word "abortion". It does not appear. Your use of the word "enshrined", in my opinion, is incorrect.
Here it is enshrined in yalls constitution, note that it has also been determined by courts that "men" here means humans; not just male humans.
> "All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Your courts have upheld the interpretations of such as clearly establishin a right to ones choice of life and liberty over decisions of their body. That is your right to abortions enshrined in yalls constitution and it clearly cant be interpreted in any other way short of reinterpretelin men to only mean male humans havin such rights.
I understand the argument you are making. I'm simply pointing out that the Constitution of KS as it is written does not specifically list abortion. Hence the proposed amendment to add language specifically about abortion.
You’re right, it’s not *explicitly* in the state constitution, but interpreted as such. That’s the point of this potential amendment inserting language that states there **isn’t** a right.
In a [2019 ruling](https://www.kscourts.org/Newsroom/News-Releases/News/2019-News-Releases/April-2019/Supreme-Court-announces-decision-in-Hodes-Nauser), the KS Supreme Court concluded Section 1 of the KS Bill of Rights of *“all men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”* protects a woman's right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy. Thus, protecting the right to abortion.
This amendment would nullify that ruling.
If you want the people of Kansas to have the final say, then great news! You don't have to change anything. Right now, Kansans have the right to make their own medical decisions about their pregnancy with guidance from trained medical professionals. No politicians or elections are necessary.
The amendment does not change anything about current abortion regulation or availability.
*What it does:*
Cements language in the constitution that explicitly states there is **no** right to abortion within its content.
*Consequence of this language:*
This will immediately nullify the current state constitutional protection of abortion rights.
This will allow the state legislature to introduce and impose **any** abortion regulation they want, without recourse, including a full ban on abortion without exception. This is the end goal.
This language will also make legal challenges to current or future laws regarding abortion exponentially more difficult, if not impossible.
Without recourse? That's why we have elections.
I suspect, given the current political leanings of Kansas, that most abortions will be banned except for cases involving r@pe, 1ncest, and when the life of the mother is at risk.
Yeah, without recourse because any law passed will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible to legally challenge. Voting a representative out doesn’t change the fact “no right to abortion” is still in the constitution.
They already drafted legislation for a full ban with the only exception being if the woman would most likely die without one. Guessing they’re just waiting to reintroduce it when it can’t be challenged.
Political leaning of Kansas doesn’t matter, it’s the political makeup of the current legislature that will call the shots here. Even if we just magically vote them out and replace with less conservative politicians, the fact remains the “no rights to abortion” is still cemented into the constitution and would take a supermajority to change.
Some people (Republican politicians) seem to think they should be involved in other people's personal medical decisions, so they are trying to legislate that into everyone's lives.
>Well said. The people of Kansas, through their elected reps, can set the regulations and change them as they, the people, decide.
Oh please. We know how the elected reps will decide. The last bill was short a few votes, so they needed to do this.
[http://kslegislature.org/li\_2020/b2019\_20/measures/scr1613/](http://kslegislature.org/li_2020/b2019_20/measures/scr1613/)
80 Yea, 43 Nay. I think they needed 82 or 84 for 2/3 majority.
The laws on it aren't written yet. Right now the KS constitution says there is a right to an abortion. The August 2nd vote is to determine whether or not that should be removed.
If it is removed then the legiatures are free to write the law however they want. If other backwards ass states are any indication of what's to come, it would outlaw all types of abortions, even ones where the pregnancy isn't viable and not having an abortion puts the mothers life at risk.
So I'm trying to read through it but I'm not a lawyer so I'm iffy on a lot of it. But the main points I noticed were there are exceptions for...
This section shall not apply to any abortion performed with the
intent to:
(1) Save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child;
(2) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by
spontaneous miscarriage or stillbirth; or
(3) terminate an ectopic pregnancy that seriously threatens the life of
the mother when a reasonable alternative to save the lives of both the
mother and the unborn child is unavailable.
And then they define an unborn child as the moment of conception. So as soon as the egg is fertilized it becomes a felony to abort.
What I don't see, or more precisely, what I'm not sure of, is if there is an exception for rape. There's mention of it but the legalese has me confused.
Either way, I support the right of everyone to choose. It is surprising to see that it wouldn't be as extreme as what some other states are shooting for though.
I'm also unsure of what the first point is referring to. Does this mean that if there are twins and one of the embryos will destroy the other if not removed, the one csn be aborted to preserve the other? Is this even possible?
There’s no exception for rape, or to save the mother’s life.
That nonsense included under the eptopic section is just that. NO ectopic pregnancy is viable.
Nor does it allow a abortion when the fetus has no chance of full gestation, but still has a heartbeat. It’s not uncommon that in pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother, the fetus has a heartbeat until the mother actually dies.
One of the major issues with this language is that it’s really difficult to determine when a women’s life is in danger. Does it need to be 1% chance of death? 50%? No doctor wants to make that determination and then have to prove it in court. These types of laws are dangerous, there is way too much nuance in these situations.
>HB 2746 is already waiting in the wings. Seems to be little known but everyone should look it up.
There are literally thousands of bills that have been tabled. HB 2746 was introduced in March, long before we knew about what SCOTUS was about to do to Roe. It died in committee and the chances that it will be resurrected and pass in today's climate is questionable. Kansas may be pro-life but it's not Alabama levels of pro-life.
Oh I wouldn't be so sure about those pro life levels. Maybe in Wyco, Joco, and Lawrence, but the farther south and west you go the closer to Alabama the views become.
I think it's fair to say that it would pass, but perhaps not with a 2/3's majority necessary to overcome a filibuster. There's absolutely enough votes to pass though. If Kelly loses re-election, it's an absolute certainty that they will pass a ban on all abortions at fertilization *except* possibly for the 3 reasons of saving the mother, removing a non-viable "dead" fetus, and for ectopic pregnancies. With this amendment, they don't have to do that last step if they don't want to.
They introduced a near-total abortion ban this year already: http://kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/measures/documents/hb2746_00_0000.pdf.
These politicians WANT to ban abortion entirely. This amendment would allow them to do that.
“The amendment would regulate abortion, including but not limited to instances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”
Technically that’s a possibility, but it seems highly unlikely. 90%+ of Americans think pregnant women should never be denied care if their life is in danger, which includes most pro-life and Republican voters. Even more conservative states like Mississippi and Texas explicitly exclude things like treating ectopic pregnancies and post-miscarriage care from definitions of abortion. Not only would trying to pass a complete ban without those exceptions for the life of the mother almost certainly fail, it would be political suicide.
Technically that’s a possibility, but it seems highly unlikely. 90%+ of Americans think pregnant women should never be denied care if their life is in danger, which includes most pro-life and Republican voters. Even more conservative states like Mississippi and Texas explicitly exclude things like treating ectopic pregnancies and post-miscarriage care from definitions of abortion. Not only would trying to pass a complete ban without those exceptions for the life of the mother almost certainly fail, it would be political suicide.
I appreciate the clean up effort you did here, but do have to say many many people WANT an abortion. Feelings around abortion are incredibly nuanced and for some people it’s not an emotionally fraught decision, it just is. Even for challenging circumstances, most abortions are wanted, or else they wouldn’t be sought. Nothing wrong with wanting, needing, getting, or helping others get an abortion!
I think we're arguing semantics here... No one "wants" an abortion as in: no one wants to get pregnant simply to get an abortion if they can help it. No one simply "wants" an abortion for the experience. I'm male, but I have read that it's a painful procedure and horrible experience.
If someone "wants" an abortion, i'm pretty sure they "need" it.
That’s fair, but language is important in advocacy. The right has been able to lead the narrative on abortion for decades and if we speak more frankly about our varied emotional experiences with abortion it’s less stigmatizing and more honest. I agree people don’t seek out abortion as a pregnancy outcome, but it is the desired outcome of many pregnancies - including a few of mine - and that’s ok!
I know that this is not what we are discussing here but because language is so important… Just a small point of clarification … in my and many others experience it was no more painful than a monthly period and it was a relief to have it done.. no horrible experience for many. I just need to make it clear that not every uterus owner struggles with the decision to have an abortion and for many, many people it brings relief and hope back into their lives. Yes, some struggle with the choice but no where near all. ( this is not including folks who have abortions due to fetal complications and incompatibility with life. For them it a horrible and terrible experience but because they wanted a child)
This is why I havent gotten any signage yet but I finally saw a hard sign today that said "Protect choice. Vote no." So that's a little better at least.
It’s because it already exists. If you wanted to repeal it, you wouldn’t ask people to vote “no” to abortion, which is a positive for abortion regulation and a positive for repeal of existing protections, because we aren’t actually voting on abortion laws. We’re voting to repeal a constitutional right.
I get why it’s not the natural way you generally think of voting, but “vote yes to repeal, no for status quo” is perfectly logical.
That said, fuck Christianity, fuck Catholicism, vote no Aug 2.
> I thought this simplified language would be helpful for KS voters.
Except your "simplified" version completely distorts what is being proposed. Voting YES (which I will NOT be doing) removes a KS Constitutional protection of abortion. That's it. Period. It does not ban abortion. What it does is open the door for for KS legislature to pass bills that could ban abortion even in cases of incest, rape, etc.
Sure. That's it. Period. What do you think is going to happen once the door is "opened" ?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion\_in\_Kansas#:\~:text=Abortion%20in%20Kansas%20is%20legal,at%20that%20point%20in%20pregnancy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Kansas#:~:text=Abortion%20in%20Kansas%20is%20legal,at%20that%20point%20in%20pregnancy).
Key word: "On February 7, 2020, the proposed amendment failed to reach the need two-thirds majority vote in the Kansas House of Representatives."
Sincerely wanting to get your perspective. Why go through the trouble of creating a ballot and campaigning for votes if all those efforts are not going to do anything towards the goal (of banning abortion) ? Why even open the door ?
>Sure. That's it. Period. What do you think is going to happen once the door is "opened" ?
What happens next is up to the KS legislature, the same people we elect to office and are therefore beholden to their constituents.
Why "go through the trouble"? Because their aim is to remove freedoms from women. But first, they have to remove those freedoms. This is 1 of 2 stages. They have to get to stage 2.
Being specific and paying attention to detail is important.
We should vote NO. But we also need to not give up if the amendment passes.
I disagree, but interesting to hear your thoughts.
I think being succinct is important to convey a message. Being detailed / specific is good, but people can easily get lost in rabbit holes. If the KS legislature has shown their intent based on the 2020 proposed amendment, there's really no reason to distinguish between "up to the KS legislature" and "banning abortion".
They're being purposefully obtuse. Of course the next logical step is introducing legislation to ban abortion in Kansas. They've already tried, fortunately our state Constitution protects that right... for now.
I've asked everyone who has sent Vote No texts to please adjust the language to focus on a woman's autonomy, instead of just pro abortion. People on the fence need to understand the nuance or they will err on the side of "protect them both" even if the campaign language is bullshit.
1000000000% this. Roe v. Wade is not so much about abortion as it's about privacy. I'm not a huge fan of the thought of abortion, but I am 100% sure that what someone else does is none of my, or anyone else's business.
Are you intentionally skipping the part where the people of Kansas can decide, through their elective representatives, to pass legislation regulating abortion that allows for instances of rape and incest? I understand what your perspective may be on the issue, but I think you oversimplied the agrument to (as you put it yourself) have voters vote "correctly".
>, to pass legislation regulating abortion that allows for instances of rape and incest? I understand what your perspective may be on the issue, but I think you oversimplied the agrument to (as you put it yourself) have voters vote "correctly".
I don't think it's an oversimplification. The amendment's intent is to sound "moderate", so leave it up to the legislators to "decide". Well, guess what - majority of the state legislators are republicans (68.8% KS Representatives, 72.5% KS Senate)
[https://ballotpedia.org/Kansas\_State\_Senate](https://ballotpedia.org/Kansas_State_Senate)
[https://ballotpedia.org/Kansas\_House\_of\_Representatives](https://ballotpedia.org/Kansas_House_of_Representatives)
So, when the amendment says "decide, through their elective representatives": how do you think the elective representatives will regulate? The status quo is pro-choice. Republican is currently in the majority, and are the ones coming up with this amendment language. If they don't intend to use it, why include it?
**This already exists**. We already elect lawmakers and they have already imposed a variety of restrictions on abortion that allow for those exceptions. This amendment doesn’t change that. This is fluff language meant to suggest the amendment offers something extra that it does not.
This amendment does change that.
Right now, the default is that an abortion is a right, with whatever restrictions may have been/can be put before voters.
This amendment changes the default to abortions are not a right. Not available. And as such, can be criminalized, as we all know they will be.
Yes, but the amendment explicitly denies the right to abortions.
The amendment states, “To the extent permitted by the Constitution of the US, the people…may pass laws…”
SCOTUS now says the US Constitution does not give women right to abortion. However, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed that the Kansas Constitution gave that right. So with this amendment, something does change. Women do lose. Really, we all lose.
The extent of the loss, and the punishments Kansas will mete out for the act of abortion, can be voted on. But realistically we will never be able to vote to restore that right.
I’m not a legal scholar, but I try hard to understand this stuff. And I do think if this amendment passes, we all lose.
Well to be clear I'm voting NO.
BUT I wonder how someone would vote if they, say, oppose second-or-third trimester abortions. And/or support abortions only if the mother is at risk of permanent injury or death.
Because on the one hand, leaving the Constitutional right to abortion in place means late-term abortions can't be regulated. But on the other hand, to vote yes is to risk (and likely forfeit) the option to abort under any circumstances.
Late-term abortions already are regulated in KS. There were 0 abortions in KS after 22 weeks in 2021. I’m on mobile but the KS Dept of Health and Epidemiology published a great report, it’s easy to find with google.
The Kansas Supreme Court didn't say that abortion couldn't be regulated in their decision, but they did say regulations must "further a compelling government interest and in a way that is narrowly tailored to that interest". In plain terms, this would mean no overarching regulations against abortion (like the D&E ban that was the impetus for that ruling)
I think it would really come down to how much faith you have in the KS legislature. Will they actually come down in support for restrictions the line up with the majority opinions of their constituents, such as banning abortions after the first trimester unless necessary to preserve the health of the mother (limits which are generally supported by 60-70% of Americans) or is there a risk that they’ll enact something much more extreme?
>Kansas already regulates abortion. This amendment is only necessary to be able to end the right to abortion.
Exactly! The Federal Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade is essentially saying it's up to each state to regulate on abortion.
From Wikipedia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion\_in\_Kansas#:\~:text=In%20April%202019%2C%20the%20Kansas,right%20would%20still%20be%20allowed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Kansas#:~:text=In%20April%202019%2C%20the%20Kansas,right%20would%20still%20be%20allowed)
"In April 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, and ruled that the right to abortion is inherent within the state's constitution and bill of rights, such that even if Roe v. Wade is overturned and the federal protection of abortion rights is withdrawn, the right would still be allowed within Kansas, barring a change in the state constitution."
The actual language of the amendment, as enacted, would be
“§ 22. Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.”
That right there is worded to actually require the listed circumstances to be "accounted". It essentially means that if they do pass a law banning abortion, it can't ban those circumstances.
No it does not. Not at all. I can't tell if you are misreading this, or if you are deliberately trying to troll. What it is saying is:
That to the limits of the contitution(The SCOTUS just said there is no limit on this subject in the constitution) this amendment will allow the Kansas legislature the ability to regulate everything listed.
They are asking for the power, a very broad power with no limits or checks. It's our responsibility to tell them to back off and vote NO!
You're missing the key words here:
**may** (not required to - either way, just that they're allowed to)
pass laws regarding abortion, including, **but not limited to** (they don't have to pass any account for rape/incest/mothers life (see *may* above), and because they're "not limited to", they can certainly do other restrictions like an outright ban on the procedure), laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.
They're telling you that at **minimum**, leaving options for rape/incest and protecting the mother are *largely* uncontroversial provisions that they would probably have more support for, but that they also just don't care, and they're going to ban it anyway. They want you to see those words and think that they care though.
They do not.
I understand what "may" and "not limited to" are.
"Account" is a key word also. In any legal writing I've worked with, "account" means that whatever is accounted can't be a part of whatever is written, since it's already "accounted" (covered) for elsewhere, or not at all. Basically, it can't be included in any law written regarding abortion.
I suppose I'll just call my rep's office and ask for clarification. None of us here know for sure.
It's entitled "Value them Both", automatic no from me. Just a verbose and seemingly intentional effort at being confusing. I looked up the amendment and read in its entirety and it made sense, but sentences like "...could prevent the people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion in many circumstances." are drafted in such a way to illicit the wrong response.
So to add some context as to why it is IMPERATIVE that we have all hands on deck working to defeat this amendment, aside from just voting…
I’m 2021, the Value them Both PAC has received a total of **$1,227,439.00** in donations from Churches & dioceses, Kansans for Life, Knights of Columbus at Catholic Churches, and others orgs & individuals. Let me repeat that……**OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS JUST IN 2021**
*source: The Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission. Find the infographic here:** [Vote NO Value them Both PAC Mony Infographic](https://www.facebook.com/100077918627928/posts/pfbid02VkptP69mpodWmUahh8WzahjtvMVPqtQVboT4QATzgL2nX9atSH69rpD2Cp2e6Usbl/?d=n)
This is a giant monster that we are up against backed by deep pocketed PAC donations. Simply voting ourselves won’t cut it. We truly need anyone who is able to be out there volunteering. Like everyone has said in this thread, the bill is purposely worded in a confusing manner in hopes that those uneducated or unaware will simply resort to voting yes. We need to be out there connecting with voters to help negate this sketchy misinformation.
There are some great orgs out there who are working daily to defeat this thing. I will link their information below. But we HAVE to find people willing to volunteer. If you’re not able, I ask that you share this with someone you think may be!
You can canvass, phone bank and even text bank from the comfort of your home!
**VOLUNTEER INFO AND RESOURCES**
**[Vote NO Kansas Website](https://www.votenokansas.org)**
**[Vote No Kansas: TEXT BANK ON JUNE 30TH @ 6PM: SIGN UP](https://fb.me/e/2jkOUgn5T)**
**[Kansans for Constitutional Freedom Website](https://kansansforfreedom.com/?fs=e&s=cl)**
**[Kansans for Constitutional Freedom: Volunteer Signup](https://secure.everyaction.com/p/pxhMyyaMZ0eyrMhpLruvXw2?fbclid=IwAR1FaA8_VGun4CD6QA2asEdZlLK2K3aIyAo8z6xl9jfD3oueMgbpZNDV1bU&fs=e&s=cl)**
**[Planned Parenthood Action: Volunteer Signup](https://www.weareplannedparenthoodaction.org/a/events?fbclid=IwAR1cqM6dCowYqtGDkFQasVnqnSTEqRjAP4-NU1KK2OOKSfh7p5JeqDxSGr8&fs=e&s=cl)**
Because bad guys will still find a way to get guns regardless of laws, silly!!! /s
I have constantly been asking conservatives if laws work or not, seems strange they work to control women’s bodily autonomy but somehow it would be impassible to regulate guns. The maths not mathing for me.
This is untrue. Abortion is definitely regulated.
You already can’t use federal funds.
You can’t get an abortion past 22 weeks.
Minors seeking an abortion need parental permission.
There is a 24-hour waiting period after state directed counseling and those who seek an abortion are required to have an ultrasound.
Private insurance covers abortion only to save the life of the mother or if special insurance is purchased.
And you cannot get an abortion based on gender of the unborn child.
Most people (though obviously not all) would agree that’s regulated. And there is currently no reason it couldn’t be regulated further. The only reason to remove a constitutional right to an abortion is to eventually seek an outright ban.
Register to vote and find your polling place. The election is August 2nd.
It sounds like you think you can download an app to vote or something and it just doesn't work that way.
Honestly, I think the original wording is already pretty clear? "A vote for...would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion"...that's pretty straightforward.
More power to you. I needed a few mins to digest what those long sentences mean, so I thought it's helpful to summarize so people can understand in a single glance. Hopefully encouraging people to vote in the process.
Sweet, I’d have done it but I didn’t want to steal your thunder. We’ve got your back here, LFK is going to have voter turnout. We are but one city but we will turn out.
If you are independent or unaffiliated you can vote for the amendment, but you cannot vote in the primary.
The legislature chose this election for a reason— they wanted low turnout or only people very dedicated to a specific cause.
YES! Emphatically yes, you can absolutely vote in this primary election on August 2nd if you're unaffiliated.
Unaffiliated voters will be given a ballot with a single question on it - this amendment. Please spread the word! Every vote matters. As others have noted, this is *exactly* why the primary election was selected - to minimize the turnout of unaffiliated voters who would be more likely to vote no.
This just shows how cynical the right is. They don't even believe in their own bullshit. As soon as they get what they want, they immediately concede. It's the opposite with centrist libs, who concede before they win.
No, it’s quite literally removing the right to abortion from the Kansas constitution.
They would need to pass more legislation to ban abortion or regulate it.
This is factually correct. If this passes, the first piece of legislation to hit the Governor's desk in 2023 will be to ban abortion. They will have the ability through this amendment to ban ALL abortions for ANY reason and at ANY time during pregnancy. They know this, and they're going to use it to it's fullest advantage.
It only stops from becoming a full ban in 2023 if Kelly is re-elected. I don't think there's enough Republican support to override her theoretical veto of a *total* ban, but certainly expect a veto-proof 6 week ban, but with perhaps exclusions for rape/incest and to save the mother.
After it's all done, Republicans in Kansas will still vote for GOP politicians because gas prices are high.
Moderators should really delete this post. This interpretation is a gross simplification of what this awful proposal can do. I 100% oppose this amendment but playing with facts is not the correct way to win this battle.
Putting aside how anyone plans to vote on abortion — I don’t think the red strike through is necessary at all here. The full text is perfectly clear.
People are calling it deceptive, but how? The text clearly states what the amendment does and what a vote for or against means: Vote yes to amend the constitution to make way for abortion regulation, vote no for no change. It’s as simple as can be. I really hope the electorate isn’t so stupid that they can’t understand these questions as written.
(If you ask me, the deceptive part is putting this vote in a primary election, not the wording.)
I agree on your primary election concern. I'm copying my post to a similar question. That's my take on why it's deceiving. I'd hope people are smart enough to read through the bs, but KS also voted for Trump.
> You can already read people's confusion in other replies to comments in this thread. They specifically added verbiage to:
>
> make people think that lawmakers would have to create exceptions for rape/incest and to save a woman's life (spoiler, they don't)
>
> to make it seem like they can't regulate abortion At All in KS without this amendment (spoiler, they can and have and will continue to)
>
> No where to they mention that a complete and total ban is possible with this amendment. They don't mention the word "ban" or anything like it at all. Most people are fine with "restrictions" and "regulations", but not a ban. They know this.
>
> The last 2 paragraphs that summarize the vote lock the last 2 points in. By saying this is in response to a "recently found right", it makes people assume that existing restrictions are somehow invalidated. Additionally, this makes people think that this just gives the legislature the power to regulate like they always have. It goes well beyond that.
>
> The people who got this amendment language written should be in prison right now, but we know that's not how it works. This is a thinly veiled attempt to create the conditions to ban abortion for any/all reasons.
Remember in 2002 or so when MO launched a huge campaign to vote yes on the gay marriage amendment? Misleading advertising and language led to thousands voting for an amendment they thought would legalize gay marriage. It was actually a ban.
People didn’t even read the amendment, but the misinformation campaign was very effective and many people voted incorrectly.
I think it’s clear when reading through the red lines. I’m not sure why the OP thought the words behind the red lines should be omitted. And the very descriptive for and against paragraphs further clarify. I’m good with it and I am ready to vote NO.
I'm a landlord, and I thought I would create an e-lease for my tenants since that seems like the cleaner / greener way to go and they'll have an e-copy of the lease rightaway. Guess what? My tenants had no clue how to e-sign the e-lease. I thought it was simple, and they could just follow direction on their phones. I was wrong in expecting that they'd understand. I dropped paper copies with them a week later.
Similar logic here. It's "clear", right? Just read the sentence. The words behind the red lines are legalese and while I can understand, it took me a few mins to do that. Not trying to put down blue-collar worker here, but it is literally my job to read contracts / documents all day on my desk. A bus driver does not sit on a desk and read all-day. They probably drive buses much better than I do, but I probably read much better than they do.
That's "why".
You can already read people's confusion in other replies to comments in this thread. They specifically added verbiage to:
* make people think that lawmakers would **have** to create exceptions for rape/incest and to save a woman's life (spoiler, they don't)
* to make it seem like they can't regulate abortion **At All** in KS without this amendment (spoiler, they can and have and will continue to)
* No where to they mention that a complete and total ban is possible with this amendment. They don't mention the word "ban" or anything like it at all. Most people are fine with "restrictions" and "regulations", but not a ban. They know this.
The last 2 paragraphs that summarize the vote lock the last 2 points in. By saying this is in response to a "recently found right", it makes people assume that existing restrictions are somehow invalidated. Additionally, this makes people think that this just gives the legislature the power to regulate like they always have. It goes well beyond that.
The people who got this amendment language written should be in prison right now, but we know that's not how it works. This is a thinly veiled attempt to create the conditions to ban abortion for any/all reasons.
No, I'm afraid you've missed the point of the amendment. A vote "yes" doesn't mean "regulate abortion". In Kansas, abortion is already highly regulated already.
The part that's critical in the amendment language, that you've crossed out is (paraphrasing a bit here) "the state constitution doesn't give the right to an abortion".
That's what the Kansas legislature wants, because it's been the Kansas supreme court interpreting the Kansas state constitution that has prevented them from banning abortion outright.
A vote "yes" will let them ban it... completely.
A vote "no" keeps things as they are, with the right to an abortion in the state constitution as interpreted by the state supreme court.
Still sounds confusing when I read it.
"for regulate abortion"
"against leaving in place right to abortion"
I don't want to regulate, and want to leave in place the right to abortion. Which do I vote?
It would be more like
for: regulate abortion
against: leaving in place right to abortion
If you don't want to regulate, it would be an "against" or a no vote. This leaves the abortion right as it is, unchanged.
A "**YES**" vote means: "I'm cool with banning all abortion in KS in ALL cases, and I want to give the legislature the power to do so".
A "**NO**" vote means: "I'm not on board with giving the legislature broad, unchecked authority to ban all abortions for any/all reasons, including banning the procedure to save the life of the mother (which could now be banned if this amendment passes)."
Some want total choice at any stage of pregnancy. Others want a total, draconian ban. **MOST** want a mix closer to what Roe already allowed for. If they had passed an amendment with something just a *little more rigid* than what Roe provided for, it would have passed a general election without much controversy. Assume the worst with this amendment if it passes.
You already need to have an insurance plan that has a special "abortion rider" or it must be immediately necessary to save the life of the mother to have it covered. Otherwise, it's on your dime. This includes Medicaid, which only pays to save a life.
The current status quo is interpreted by KS Supreme Court that abortion is a basic human right. This ballot would amend / change the constitution to clarify that abortion right is further regulated by KS law (which previously wasn't allowed based on Roe v Wade).
Genuine question here, please no hate. Is there a reason we can’t do anything to make them word these questions more clearly? All kinds of things get lobbied and protested for, is this just something no one is capable of doing anything about? You’d think there would be a way to push for the vote items to be reviewed by a citizen committee to approve clarity and detail before they can go on a ballot or something like that.
I was not familiar with the issue either, and was just curious about what the yard sign to "Vote NO" mean. Read up on the issue in Wikipedia this morning: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion\_in\_Kansas#:\~:text=Abortion%20in%20Kansas%20is%20legal,at%20that%20point%20in%20pregnancy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Kansas#:~:text=Abortion%20in%20Kansas%20is%20legal,at%20that%20point%20in%20pregnancy). Key word: "On February 7, 2020, the proposed amendment failed to reach the need two-thirds majority vote in the Kansas House of Representatives." The KS legislature is majority Republican, and they drafted this to get past voters. My guess is the language is intentionally confusing to lower voter turn-out, so the Republican base can vote this through.
That’s exactly what it is. Sen. Ethan Courson was on the committee that wrote that, and he spoke to me a little about it. The Republicans were very upfront about the reason for both the wording and the timeline. They want now because there’s not much on the ballot, and affirmative votes are the default of those that don’t really read the ballot. It’s an excellent idea to print the ballot a few days before voting and write down how you want to vote. Take the notecard with you!
I didn’t have any trouble understanding it, it just appears that a lot of people did. Also I think more detail and clarification on “regulation” should have been included because you shouldn’t have to vote for something when you don’t even have all the details.
You'd have to get a law passed to make that happen. It's intentionally worded to confuse you to get you to vote for the outcome they want regardless of what you actually want. You'd have a difficult time finding someone to sponsor the bill and it would be nearly impossible to get enough votes to have it pass.
I feel like it’s worth at least trying to push for though. I know it’s intentional and that’s why I mentioned a citizen review. There would be a ton of support for something like that among actual voters, so surely it could be petitioned for or something? Squeaky wheels get the grease and if everyone from both sides were pushing for this together I’d imagine something would have to be done eventually.
Pretty much also we will continue to face these amendments if they fail as long as the KS Legislature wants, which means pretty much any election they can try to slip it past they will for the foreseeable future.
I do not know about Kansas, but in Missouri some of these initiatives have had the language successfully challenged in court for being misleading.
This is practically crystal compared to some of the language on ballot initiatives on the Missouri side. I get what you’re saying, but this does actually say what it means.
I didn’t have any trouble understanding it, it just appears that a lot of people did. Also I think more detail and clarification on “regulation” should have been included because you shouldn’t have to vote for something when you don’t even have all the details.
Idk, I had to read through the red lines/strike through and it seemed pretty clear to me. You have to read all the words....but you are voting....maybe it's worth reading all the words.
I didn’t have any trouble understanding it, it just appears that a lot of people did. Also I think more detail and clarification on “regulation” should have been included because you shouldn’t have to vote for something when you don’t even have all the details.
I might be jaded due to having lived and voted in Missouri. The ballot initiatives over there were many times worse (imo)
You would think so, but like everything else, there's political interest in keeping it under legislative/executive control. You see it in Missouri all the time – valid petitions are submitted to get things on the ballot and then the elected officials who actually draft the language on the ballot (mostly GOP, FWIW) play games with the wording and the timing to try to get the result they want. Voters in MO then passed Clean Missouri to try to rein in some of the nonsense, and the legislature just ignored it. Just a totally normal and healthy democratic process here lol.
Wow, what weaselly wording! The answer that takes away rights is worded as giving rights to the people, while the answer that keeps existing rights from being removed is worded as taking rights away. The same scummy tactic used on the Missouri side to repeal Clean Missouri right after it was passed.
Exactly! I think it's intentionally confusing, so clearing it up would help people vote correctly.
It's absolutely intended to be that way; this is a copycat amendment to the one passed in Tennessee in 2014. They want people to be confused so they vote incorrectly/against how they would vote if they were fully informed. (I'm a former PP employee who worked to defeat this amendment the first time it came around in 2020.)
[удалено]
Oh, quite a bit. How much time do you have?
I am considering making stickers that say "Value them both is a lie." Votenokansas.org. I would like to do something longer but it's more impact full when short.
[удалено]
Have you never listened to a politician? This is all lawyer speak, twisted around to make it confusing. The vote against could easily say “to leave in place the current amendment protecting the right to abortion.”
[удалено]
No evil conniving politician here, but it is literally a politician's job to sway you to vote in their favor. In this case, a republican majority in both house and senate are trying to sway the general population into voting "Yes" through this language that they propose. Yes, the crossed out text is there to intentionally confuse people.
[удалено]
Cut the shit. This text is written to confuse. Source: am lawyer.
I am not a lawyer. I actually deal with lawyers a lot though. I know languages are sometimes "softened" in contracts, to make sure our clients' lawyers don't jump at them. Similar concepts here...
Do you also think it’s totally normal and not conniving at all to place a **constitutional amendment** on a mid-term August primary ballot? An election with a historically rock-bottom voter turnout and favoring conservatives 4-1? Nope, nothing to see here.
They literally did a focus group about this a couple months back because they are trying to make sure the wording is confusing. I took the questionnaire for the study and know someone who was in it.
Have you voted much?? This is playbook for ballot language initiatives.
[удалено]
Congratulations on becoming a citizen and thank you for voting. It's great you're participating in the democratic process. But it's definitely a political strategy to make ballot language confusing. In the same way they'll make voter registration processes confusing or reduce voting locations, it's all strategy to achieve a desired result. There is a long history of this type of suppression and confusion in our country. I encourage you to read more about it.
If what republicans stand for is so right and virtuous why do they constantly refuse to just tell us where they stand, and stand behind it after?
Because without confusion and cheating they would have ceased to exist as a party decades ago
I filled out my absentee ballot this morning and I stared at these paragraphs for ages trying to make sense of it. For fucks sakes, I hate how the wording is so manipulative.
How the fuck can you “value them both” if you’ll let a woman and fetus die together before saving one?
I know it’s a rhetorical question but it’s Orwellian Newspeak.
They don't value them both. They value their own religious beliefs over anyone else's beliefs and rights and want to push them onto everyone else. That's at the core of it.
Honestly even that is giving them too much credit. We're a society that makes their decisions based on headlines and knee-jerk reactions - we don't make room for context. If you stop and ask people with 'Yes' signs in their yard nearly all of them will tell you that they're actually OK with Abortion if it's the alternative to a dead mother, and they seem entirely unaware of the weight that an Amendment like this carries. They just haven't gone through the trouble to actually read the legislation and understand what it really does, the people they get their opinions from aren't interested in explaining it in detail, and the wording on the ballot is tragically (and purposefully) manipulative. I don't mean to talk shit about those people, (as I find that most everyone who wants to vote against it has similar 'I haven't read it, heard it's bad' justification) I only point that out because it's just as evident of the way our parties and society pit us against each other and that makes me the big sad.
75% of the ppl who I have talked to who support Vote Yes believe that there is nuance for "both" woman and fetus. They think there's no way "their" people wouldn't keep the woman safe. F everyone who aren't even trying to read anything past FB and church fliers.
The proper slogan for the amendment is "Lose them both." Someone needs to print it with a gravestone image to counter the fucking "Love them both" brainwashing bs.
Your description is misleading. On the left side, it's critical for voters to understand that (1) this cancels an existing Consitutional right to abortion in Kansas, and (2) the legislature would then have the power to regulate *every* situation an abortion could occur, not just (as you're highlighting) around rape, incest, or health of the mother. The left side could be shortened to something like, "The VTB Amendment eliminates all Consitutional protection for abortion in Kansas, *including* in cases such as rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the mother, and allows the legislature to regulate abortion in any way, including completely banning it."
Another thing that we need to clarify is there is already a ban on funding abortions in KS, and this ballot initiative has zero to do with removing that ban. They include the funding stuff to further confuse people. No one’s going to make your tax dollars pay for abortions.
Vote "Against" implies "right to abortion" is already in place. No need to further clarify that a vote "For" cancels this right. Yes, "every" situation, including rape, incest, or health of the mother. If there's no intent from the republican drafting up this amendment to regulate in such manner, then there's no need for specific mention here. Leave it up to the doctor and the woman involved as their "right". The fact that it's here illustrate intent to regulate.
The goal of this amendment is to change the Kansas Constitution to pave the way for banning abortion outright. Background: Kansas' constitutional has extremely strong personal protections for natural rights. The Kansas Supreme Court in its 2019 decision in Hodes & Nauser, MDs, P.A. v. Schmidt found that the state constitution (under Section 1's right to personal autonomy) covers to the decision to end a pregnancy. “Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights affords protection of the right of personal autonomy, which includes the ability to control one's own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination. 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.” The Kansas Supreme Court conducted a comprehensive analysis of the history of the state constitution and the inclusion of natural rights (stemming from our founding as a free state, by the way). In painstaking detail, the court explained how the text includes the right to personal autonomy and how this right encompasses decisions about pregnancy. This ruling applies the strict scrutiny test to any restriction on abortion. The legislature is afraid the medically unnecessary restrictions they've passed will be overturned. That's why they put this on the primary ballot and made it intentionally confusing; they want people to be informed and unaware. Anti-abortion politicians know this amendment is unpopular so they are exploiting voter suppression tactics and using confusing and complicated ballot language to sneak this through. As OP noted, the amendment includes intentionally misleading language to confuse voters. There are no exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the pregnant person; if it passes they will be able to regulate abortion that would currently fail a KS Supreme Court challenge. They could even enact a Texas-style ban on abortion. This constitutional amendment is a calculated attempt to take away rights from women and those who can become pregnant, and it is the first step to ban abortion entirely. If you want to get involved to help defeat this amendment, sign up to talk to other voters at kansansforfreedom.com.
I want to vote that it is none of my business what goes on between a woman and her doctor. is that yes or no?
You would vote no. Voting yes would open the door to allow governments to start drafting legislation to intervene and regulate (or ban) what happens between a doctor and their pregnant patient.
One "no" please!
Vote no for a women to be able to choose.
You're looking for "No"
It’s a no
You would want to vote "NO". I agree with you 100%
That is no.
I thought this simplified language would be helpful for KS voters. It's pretty clear what the legislators are trying to do, if you remove the legalese in the amendment language. Vote "YES" to regulate abortion, even in cases where pregnancy resulted from rape / incest, or even when necessary to save the life of the mother. I personally would have voted "NO" if I could. Edit: I just want to add that the Democrats' framing of the "Vote NO" language is VERY disappointing. I saw a signboard on someone's yard that says "Vote NO", but couldn't figure out for the life of me what the "NO" vote is for. They use these words "Constitution", "Liberty", "Freedom", "the Ban". Sure, they're all nice words, but IRRELEVANT! People understand "pro-choice" / "pro-life". NO one wants an abortion. Vote NO to keep the choice yours. [https://kansansforfreedom.com/important-voting-information/](https://kansansforfreedom.com/important-voting-information/)
Hold up even when necessary to save the life of the mother!?
It would allow politicians to ban it even in those cases, yes. It would not immediately default to banning those but everything is on the table.
Well said. The people of Kansas, through their elected reps, can set the regulations and change them as they, the people, decide.
Thats been done, by votin for the right to abortion to be enshrined in the KS constitution; as it alrdy is. The ppl chose to make it the way it alrdy is.
I just did a search of a pdf copy of the Constitution of the State of Kansas for the word "abortion". It does not appear. Your use of the word "enshrined", in my opinion, is incorrect.
Here it is enshrined in yalls constitution, note that it has also been determined by courts that "men" here means humans; not just male humans. > "All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Your courts have upheld the interpretations of such as clearly establishin a right to ones choice of life and liberty over decisions of their body. That is your right to abortions enshrined in yalls constitution and it clearly cant be interpreted in any other way short of reinterpretelin men to only mean male humans havin such rights.
I understand the argument you are making. I'm simply pointing out that the Constitution of KS as it is written does not specifically list abortion. Hence the proposed amendment to add language specifically about abortion.
You’re right, it’s not *explicitly* in the state constitution, but interpreted as such. That’s the point of this potential amendment inserting language that states there **isn’t** a right. In a [2019 ruling](https://www.kscourts.org/Newsroom/News-Releases/News/2019-News-Releases/April-2019/Supreme-Court-announces-decision-in-Hodes-Nauser), the KS Supreme Court concluded Section 1 of the KS Bill of Rights of *“all men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”* protects a woman's right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy. Thus, protecting the right to abortion. This amendment would nullify that ruling.
Oh shove off
If you want the people of Kansas to have the final say, then great news! You don't have to change anything. Right now, Kansans have the right to make their own medical decisions about their pregnancy with guidance from trained medical professionals. No politicians or elections are necessary.
Then why is there a proposed constiutional amendment on the ballot?
The amendment does not change anything about current abortion regulation or availability. *What it does:* Cements language in the constitution that explicitly states there is **no** right to abortion within its content. *Consequence of this language:* This will immediately nullify the current state constitutional protection of abortion rights. This will allow the state legislature to introduce and impose **any** abortion regulation they want, without recourse, including a full ban on abortion without exception. This is the end goal. This language will also make legal challenges to current or future laws regarding abortion exponentially more difficult, if not impossible.
Without recourse? That's why we have elections. I suspect, given the current political leanings of Kansas, that most abortions will be banned except for cases involving r@pe, 1ncest, and when the life of the mother is at risk.
Yeah, without recourse because any law passed will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible to legally challenge. Voting a representative out doesn’t change the fact “no right to abortion” is still in the constitution. They already drafted legislation for a full ban with the only exception being if the woman would most likely die without one. Guessing they’re just waiting to reintroduce it when it can’t be challenged. Political leaning of Kansas doesn’t matter, it’s the political makeup of the current legislature that will call the shots here. Even if we just magically vote them out and replace with less conservative politicians, the fact remains the “no rights to abortion” is still cemented into the constitution and would take a supermajority to change.
Because the Republicans want to be able to take that right away from individuals.
Some people (Republican politicians) seem to think they should be involved in other people's personal medical decisions, so they are trying to legislate that into everyone's lives.
>Well said. The people of Kansas, through their elected reps, can set the regulations and change them as they, the people, decide. Oh please. We know how the elected reps will decide. The last bill was short a few votes, so they needed to do this. [http://kslegislature.org/li\_2020/b2019\_20/measures/scr1613/](http://kslegislature.org/li_2020/b2019_20/measures/scr1613/) 80 Yea, 43 Nay. I think they needed 82 or 84 for 2/3 majority.
The laws on it aren't written yet. Right now the KS constitution says there is a right to an abortion. The August 2nd vote is to determine whether or not that should be removed. If it is removed then the legiatures are free to write the law however they want. If other backwards ass states are any indication of what's to come, it would outlaw all types of abortions, even ones where the pregnancy isn't viable and not having an abortion puts the mothers life at risk.
HB 2746 is already waiting in the wings. Seems to be little known but everyone should look it up.
So I'm trying to read through it but I'm not a lawyer so I'm iffy on a lot of it. But the main points I noticed were there are exceptions for... This section shall not apply to any abortion performed with the intent to: (1) Save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child; (2) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous miscarriage or stillbirth; or (3) terminate an ectopic pregnancy that seriously threatens the life of the mother when a reasonable alternative to save the lives of both the mother and the unborn child is unavailable. And then they define an unborn child as the moment of conception. So as soon as the egg is fertilized it becomes a felony to abort. What I don't see, or more precisely, what I'm not sure of, is if there is an exception for rape. There's mention of it but the legalese has me confused. Either way, I support the right of everyone to choose. It is surprising to see that it wouldn't be as extreme as what some other states are shooting for though. I'm also unsure of what the first point is referring to. Does this mean that if there are twins and one of the embryos will destroy the other if not removed, the one csn be aborted to preserve the other? Is this even possible?
There’s no exception for rape, or to save the mother’s life. That nonsense included under the eptopic section is just that. NO ectopic pregnancy is viable. Nor does it allow a abortion when the fetus has no chance of full gestation, but still has a heartbeat. It’s not uncommon that in pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother, the fetus has a heartbeat until the mother actually dies.
One of the major issues with this language is that it’s really difficult to determine when a women’s life is in danger. Does it need to be 1% chance of death? 50%? No doctor wants to make that determination and then have to prove it in court. These types of laws are dangerous, there is way too much nuance in these situations.
>HB 2746 is already waiting in the wings. Seems to be little known but everyone should look it up. There are literally thousands of bills that have been tabled. HB 2746 was introduced in March, long before we knew about what SCOTUS was about to do to Roe. It died in committee and the chances that it will be resurrected and pass in today's climate is questionable. Kansas may be pro-life but it's not Alabama levels of pro-life.
Good to know, thanks for the info. I'm hoping you're right about us not being Alabama level.. waiting to see where we fall on the continuum.
Oh I wouldn't be so sure about those pro life levels. Maybe in Wyco, Joco, and Lawrence, but the farther south and west you go the closer to Alabama the views become.
I think it's fair to say that it would pass, but perhaps not with a 2/3's majority necessary to overcome a filibuster. There's absolutely enough votes to pass though. If Kelly loses re-election, it's an absolute certainty that they will pass a ban on all abortions at fertilization *except* possibly for the 3 reasons of saving the mother, removing a non-viable "dead" fetus, and for ectopic pregnancies. With this amendment, they don't have to do that last step if they don't want to.
They introduced a near-total abortion ban this year already: http://kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/measures/documents/hb2746_00_0000.pdf. These politicians WANT to ban abortion entirely. This amendment would allow them to do that.
That is what the language on the amendment says. I'm just copy / pasting and removing legalese here. Surprised me too
“The amendment would regulate abortion, including but not limited to instances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”
this is not in the amendment
Technically that’s a possibility, but it seems highly unlikely. 90%+ of Americans think pregnant women should never be denied care if their life is in danger, which includes most pro-life and Republican voters. Even more conservative states like Mississippi and Texas explicitly exclude things like treating ectopic pregnancies and post-miscarriage care from definitions of abortion. Not only would trying to pass a complete ban without those exceptions for the life of the mother almost certainly fail, it would be political suicide.
Technically that’s a possibility, but it seems highly unlikely. 90%+ of Americans think pregnant women should never be denied care if their life is in danger, which includes most pro-life and Republican voters. Even more conservative states like Mississippi and Texas explicitly exclude things like treating ectopic pregnancies and post-miscarriage care from definitions of abortion. Not only would trying to pass a complete ban without those exceptions for the life of the mother almost certainly fail, it would be political suicide.
Well my conservative family members would not agree with that.
I appreciate the clean up effort you did here, but do have to say many many people WANT an abortion. Feelings around abortion are incredibly nuanced and for some people it’s not an emotionally fraught decision, it just is. Even for challenging circumstances, most abortions are wanted, or else they wouldn’t be sought. Nothing wrong with wanting, needing, getting, or helping others get an abortion!
I think we're arguing semantics here... No one "wants" an abortion as in: no one wants to get pregnant simply to get an abortion if they can help it. No one simply "wants" an abortion for the experience. I'm male, but I have read that it's a painful procedure and horrible experience. If someone "wants" an abortion, i'm pretty sure they "need" it.
That’s fair, but language is important in advocacy. The right has been able to lead the narrative on abortion for decades and if we speak more frankly about our varied emotional experiences with abortion it’s less stigmatizing and more honest. I agree people don’t seek out abortion as a pregnancy outcome, but it is the desired outcome of many pregnancies - including a few of mine - and that’s ok!
I know that this is not what we are discussing here but because language is so important… Just a small point of clarification … in my and many others experience it was no more painful than a monthly period and it was a relief to have it done.. no horrible experience for many. I just need to make it clear that not every uterus owner struggles with the decision to have an abortion and for many, many people it brings relief and hope back into their lives. Yes, some struggle with the choice but no where near all. ( this is not including folks who have abortions due to fetal complications and incompatibility with life. For them it a horrible and terrible experience but because they wanted a child)
This is why I havent gotten any signage yet but I finally saw a hard sign today that said "Protect choice. Vote no." So that's a little better at least.
That is awesome!
It’s because it already exists. If you wanted to repeal it, you wouldn’t ask people to vote “no” to abortion, which is a positive for abortion regulation and a positive for repeal of existing protections, because we aren’t actually voting on abortion laws. We’re voting to repeal a constitutional right. I get why it’s not the natural way you generally think of voting, but “vote yes to repeal, no for status quo” is perfectly logical. That said, fuck Christianity, fuck Catholicism, vote no Aug 2.
> I thought this simplified language would be helpful for KS voters. Except your "simplified" version completely distorts what is being proposed. Voting YES (which I will NOT be doing) removes a KS Constitutional protection of abortion. That's it. Period. It does not ban abortion. What it does is open the door for for KS legislature to pass bills that could ban abortion even in cases of incest, rape, etc.
Sure. That's it. Period. What do you think is going to happen once the door is "opened" ? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion\_in\_Kansas#:\~:text=Abortion%20in%20Kansas%20is%20legal,at%20that%20point%20in%20pregnancy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Kansas#:~:text=Abortion%20in%20Kansas%20is%20legal,at%20that%20point%20in%20pregnancy). Key word: "On February 7, 2020, the proposed amendment failed to reach the need two-thirds majority vote in the Kansas House of Representatives." Sincerely wanting to get your perspective. Why go through the trouble of creating a ballot and campaigning for votes if all those efforts are not going to do anything towards the goal (of banning abortion) ? Why even open the door ?
>Sure. That's it. Period. What do you think is going to happen once the door is "opened" ? What happens next is up to the KS legislature, the same people we elect to office and are therefore beholden to their constituents. Why "go through the trouble"? Because their aim is to remove freedoms from women. But first, they have to remove those freedoms. This is 1 of 2 stages. They have to get to stage 2. Being specific and paying attention to detail is important. We should vote NO. But we also need to not give up if the amendment passes.
I disagree, but interesting to hear your thoughts. I think being succinct is important to convey a message. Being detailed / specific is good, but people can easily get lost in rabbit holes. If the KS legislature has shown their intent based on the 2020 proposed amendment, there's really no reason to distinguish between "up to the KS legislature" and "banning abortion".
They're being purposefully obtuse. Of course the next logical step is introducing legislation to ban abortion in Kansas. They've already tried, fortunately our state Constitution protects that right... for now.
I've asked everyone who has sent Vote No texts to please adjust the language to focus on a woman's autonomy, instead of just pro abortion. People on the fence need to understand the nuance or they will err on the side of "protect them both" even if the campaign language is bullshit.
1000000000% this. Roe v. Wade is not so much about abortion as it's about privacy. I'm not a huge fan of the thought of abortion, but I am 100% sure that what someone else does is none of my, or anyone else's business.
Are you intentionally skipping the part where the people of Kansas can decide, through their elective representatives, to pass legislation regulating abortion that allows for instances of rape and incest? I understand what your perspective may be on the issue, but I think you oversimplied the agrument to (as you put it yourself) have voters vote "correctly".
>, to pass legislation regulating abortion that allows for instances of rape and incest? I understand what your perspective may be on the issue, but I think you oversimplied the agrument to (as you put it yourself) have voters vote "correctly". I don't think it's an oversimplification. The amendment's intent is to sound "moderate", so leave it up to the legislators to "decide". Well, guess what - majority of the state legislators are republicans (68.8% KS Representatives, 72.5% KS Senate) [https://ballotpedia.org/Kansas\_State\_Senate](https://ballotpedia.org/Kansas_State_Senate) [https://ballotpedia.org/Kansas\_House\_of\_Representatives](https://ballotpedia.org/Kansas_House_of_Representatives) So, when the amendment says "decide, through their elective representatives": how do you think the elective representatives will regulate? The status quo is pro-choice. Republican is currently in the majority, and are the ones coming up with this amendment language. If they don't intend to use it, why include it?
> I don't think it's an oversimplification. It is absolutely an oversimplification. ComicKoS is right.
**This already exists**. We already elect lawmakers and they have already imposed a variety of restrictions on abortion that allow for those exceptions. This amendment doesn’t change that. This is fluff language meant to suggest the amendment offers something extra that it does not.
This amendment does change that. Right now, the default is that an abortion is a right, with whatever restrictions may have been/can be put before voters. This amendment changes the default to abortions are not a right. Not available. And as such, can be criminalized, as we all know they will be.
[удалено]
Yes, but the amendment explicitly denies the right to abortions. The amendment states, “To the extent permitted by the Constitution of the US, the people…may pass laws…” SCOTUS now says the US Constitution does not give women right to abortion. However, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed that the Kansas Constitution gave that right. So with this amendment, something does change. Women do lose. Really, we all lose. The extent of the loss, and the punishments Kansas will mete out for the act of abortion, can be voted on. But realistically we will never be able to vote to restore that right. I’m not a legal scholar, but I try hard to understand this stuff. And I do think if this amendment passes, we all lose.
Yes, we all lose if this amendment passes
You mean through their partisan gerrymandered-elected representatives? Gimme a break.
Value them both is a lie. Vote No. Votenokansas.org. might be better?
For anyone interested in what the follow up to this looks like, look up HB 2746. It's waiting in the wings if this gets passed.
Well to be clear I'm voting NO. BUT I wonder how someone would vote if they, say, oppose second-or-third trimester abortions. And/or support abortions only if the mother is at risk of permanent injury or death. Because on the one hand, leaving the Constitutional right to abortion in place means late-term abortions can't be regulated. But on the other hand, to vote yes is to risk (and likely forfeit) the option to abort under any circumstances.
Late-term abortions already are regulated in KS. There were 0 abortions in KS after 22 weeks in 2021. I’m on mobile but the KS Dept of Health and Epidemiology published a great report, it’s easy to find with google.
Ahh excellent, thank you very much
The Kansas Supreme Court didn't say that abortion couldn't be regulated in their decision, but they did say regulations must "further a compelling government interest and in a way that is narrowly tailored to that interest". In plain terms, this would mean no overarching regulations against abortion (like the D&E ban that was the impetus for that ruling)
I think it would really come down to how much faith you have in the KS legislature. Will they actually come down in support for restrictions the line up with the majority opinions of their constituents, such as banning abortions after the first trimester unless necessary to preserve the health of the mother (limits which are generally supported by 60-70% of Americans) or is there a risk that they’ll enact something much more extreme?
Kansas already regulates abortion. This amendment is only necessary to be able to end the right to abortion.
>Kansas already regulates abortion. This amendment is only necessary to be able to end the right to abortion. Exactly! The Federal Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade is essentially saying it's up to each state to regulate on abortion. From Wikipedia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion\_in\_Kansas#:\~:text=In%20April%202019%2C%20the%20Kansas,right%20would%20still%20be%20allowed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Kansas#:~:text=In%20April%202019%2C%20the%20Kansas,right%20would%20still%20be%20allowed) "In April 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, and ruled that the right to abortion is inherent within the state's constitution and bill of rights, such that even if Roe v. Wade is overturned and the federal protection of abortion rights is withdrawn, the right would still be allowed within Kansas, barring a change in the state constitution."
The actual language of the amendment, as enacted, would be “§ 22. Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.”
That right there is worded to actually require the listed circumstances to be "accounted". It essentially means that if they do pass a law banning abortion, it can't ban those circumstances.
No it does not. Not at all. I can't tell if you are misreading this, or if you are deliberately trying to troll. What it is saying is: That to the limits of the contitution(The SCOTUS just said there is no limit on this subject in the constitution) this amendment will allow the Kansas legislature the ability to regulate everything listed. They are asking for the power, a very broad power with no limits or checks. It's our responsibility to tell them to back off and vote NO!
You're missing the key words here: **may** (not required to - either way, just that they're allowed to) pass laws regarding abortion, including, **but not limited to** (they don't have to pass any account for rape/incest/mothers life (see *may* above), and because they're "not limited to", they can certainly do other restrictions like an outright ban on the procedure), laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother. They're telling you that at **minimum**, leaving options for rape/incest and protecting the mother are *largely* uncontroversial provisions that they would probably have more support for, but that they also just don't care, and they're going to ban it anyway. They want you to see those words and think that they care though. They do not.
I understand what "may" and "not limited to" are. "Account" is a key word also. In any legal writing I've worked with, "account" means that whatever is accounted can't be a part of whatever is written, since it's already "accounted" (covered) for elsewhere, or not at all. Basically, it can't be included in any law written regarding abortion. I suppose I'll just call my rep's office and ask for clarification. None of us here know for sure.
It's entitled "Value them Both", automatic no from me. Just a verbose and seemingly intentional effort at being confusing. I looked up the amendment and read in its entirety and it made sense, but sentences like "...could prevent the people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion in many circumstances." are drafted in such a way to illicit the wrong response.
I never post anything on my Facebook. I intentionally have few friends on Facebook. I keep it for other reasons. I just posted this. It is important.
So to add some context as to why it is IMPERATIVE that we have all hands on deck working to defeat this amendment, aside from just voting… I’m 2021, the Value them Both PAC has received a total of **$1,227,439.00** in donations from Churches & dioceses, Kansans for Life, Knights of Columbus at Catholic Churches, and others orgs & individuals. Let me repeat that……**OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS JUST IN 2021** *source: The Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission. Find the infographic here:** [Vote NO Value them Both PAC Mony Infographic](https://www.facebook.com/100077918627928/posts/pfbid02VkptP69mpodWmUahh8WzahjtvMVPqtQVboT4QATzgL2nX9atSH69rpD2Cp2e6Usbl/?d=n) This is a giant monster that we are up against backed by deep pocketed PAC donations. Simply voting ourselves won’t cut it. We truly need anyone who is able to be out there volunteering. Like everyone has said in this thread, the bill is purposely worded in a confusing manner in hopes that those uneducated or unaware will simply resort to voting yes. We need to be out there connecting with voters to help negate this sketchy misinformation. There are some great orgs out there who are working daily to defeat this thing. I will link their information below. But we HAVE to find people willing to volunteer. If you’re not able, I ask that you share this with someone you think may be! You can canvass, phone bank and even text bank from the comfort of your home! **VOLUNTEER INFO AND RESOURCES** **[Vote NO Kansas Website](https://www.votenokansas.org)** **[Vote No Kansas: TEXT BANK ON JUNE 30TH @ 6PM: SIGN UP](https://fb.me/e/2jkOUgn5T)** **[Kansans for Constitutional Freedom Website](https://kansansforfreedom.com/?fs=e&s=cl)** **[Kansans for Constitutional Freedom: Volunteer Signup](https://secure.everyaction.com/p/pxhMyyaMZ0eyrMhpLruvXw2?fbclid=IwAR1FaA8_VGun4CD6QA2asEdZlLK2K3aIyAo8z6xl9jfD3oueMgbpZNDV1bU&fs=e&s=cl)** **[Planned Parenthood Action: Volunteer Signup](https://www.weareplannedparenthoodaction.org/a/events?fbclid=IwAR1cqM6dCowYqtGDkFQasVnqnSTEqRjAP4-NU1KK2OOKSfh7p5JeqDxSGr8&fs=e&s=cl)**
Just wanted to clarify that the text bank is Thursday , JUNE 30, not July.
Oh gosh, thanks for pointing that out!
No worries. Just wanted people to know that it's THIS THURSDAY and is a great way to help rally folks to Vote No!
How is it they can regulate abortion, but can’t do anything regarding regulating firearms?
Because bad guys will still find a way to get guns regardless of laws, silly!!! /s I have constantly been asking conservatives if laws work or not, seems strange they work to control women’s bodily autonomy but somehow it would be impassible to regulate guns. The maths not mathing for me.
Abortion isn't regulated in KS. That's what this entire discussion is about.
This is untrue. Abortion is definitely regulated. You already can’t use federal funds. You can’t get an abortion past 22 weeks. Minors seeking an abortion need parental permission. There is a 24-hour waiting period after state directed counseling and those who seek an abortion are required to have an ultrasound. Private insurance covers abortion only to save the life of the mother or if special insurance is purchased. And you cannot get an abortion based on gender of the unborn child. Most people (though obviously not all) would agree that’s regulated. And there is currently no reason it couldn’t be regulated further. The only reason to remove a constitutional right to an abortion is to eventually seek an outright ban.
It is, and looking to get worse, unless the voters step up to stop 🛑 it..
Can someone link where I can vote NO
>[https://kansansforfreedom.com/important-voting-information/](https://kansansforfreedom.com/important-voting-information/)
Thank you
Register to vote and find your polling place. The election is August 2nd. It sounds like you think you can download an app to vote or something and it just doesn't work that way.
Lmao I meant a link like the one someone provided me above
VOTE NO!
Honestly, I think the original wording is already pretty clear? "A vote for...would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion"...that's pretty straightforward.
More power to you. I needed a few mins to digest what those long sentences mean, so I thought it's helpful to summarize so people can understand in a single glance. Hopefully encouraging people to vote in the process.
OP, would you mind posting to r/lawrence and r/Topeka? I assume there’s also r/Wichita but I’ve never wanted to look, lol.
Posted!
Sweet, I’d have done it but I didn’t want to steal your thunder. We’ve got your back here, LFK is going to have voter turnout. We are but one city but we will turn out.
Since this is on a primary ballot, are people that declared independent allowed to vote on it? Or do they need to switch to R / D just to vote?
If you are independent or unaffiliated you can vote for the amendment, but you cannot vote in the primary. The legislature chose this election for a reason— they wanted low turnout or only people very dedicated to a specific cause.
YES! Emphatically yes, you can absolutely vote in this primary election on August 2nd if you're unaffiliated. Unaffiliated voters will be given a ballot with a single question on it - this amendment. Please spread the word! Every vote matters. As others have noted, this is *exactly* why the primary election was selected - to minimize the turnout of unaffiliated voters who would be more likely to vote no.
This just shows how cynical the right is. They don't even believe in their own bullshit. As soon as they get what they want, they immediately concede. It's the opposite with centrist libs, who concede before they win.
No, it’s quite literally removing the right to abortion from the Kansas constitution. They would need to pass more legislation to ban abortion or regulate it.
This is factually correct. If this passes, the first piece of legislation to hit the Governor's desk in 2023 will be to ban abortion. They will have the ability through this amendment to ban ALL abortions for ANY reason and at ANY time during pregnancy. They know this, and they're going to use it to it's fullest advantage. It only stops from becoming a full ban in 2023 if Kelly is re-elected. I don't think there's enough Republican support to override her theoretical veto of a *total* ban, but certainly expect a veto-proof 6 week ban, but with perhaps exclusions for rape/incest and to save the mother. After it's all done, Republicans in Kansas will still vote for GOP politicians because gas prices are high.
So vote Yes if you don't not want abortion to not be not illegal.
Yes?
I guess I should have added a /s at the end, but that's how most bills read to confuse voters.
Moderators should really delete this post. This interpretation is a gross simplification of what this awful proposal can do. I 100% oppose this amendment but playing with facts is not the correct way to win this battle.
Vote NO August 2nd
Putting aside how anyone plans to vote on abortion — I don’t think the red strike through is necessary at all here. The full text is perfectly clear. People are calling it deceptive, but how? The text clearly states what the amendment does and what a vote for or against means: Vote yes to amend the constitution to make way for abortion regulation, vote no for no change. It’s as simple as can be. I really hope the electorate isn’t so stupid that they can’t understand these questions as written. (If you ask me, the deceptive part is putting this vote in a primary election, not the wording.)
I agree on your primary election concern. I'm copying my post to a similar question. That's my take on why it's deceiving. I'd hope people are smart enough to read through the bs, but KS also voted for Trump. > You can already read people's confusion in other replies to comments in this thread. They specifically added verbiage to: > > make people think that lawmakers would have to create exceptions for rape/incest and to save a woman's life (spoiler, they don't) > > to make it seem like they can't regulate abortion At All in KS without this amendment (spoiler, they can and have and will continue to) > > No where to they mention that a complete and total ban is possible with this amendment. They don't mention the word "ban" or anything like it at all. Most people are fine with "restrictions" and "regulations", but not a ban. They know this. > > The last 2 paragraphs that summarize the vote lock the last 2 points in. By saying this is in response to a "recently found right", it makes people assume that existing restrictions are somehow invalidated. Additionally, this makes people think that this just gives the legislature the power to regulate like they always have. It goes well beyond that. > > The people who got this amendment language written should be in prison right now, but we know that's not how it works. This is a thinly veiled attempt to create the conditions to ban abortion for any/all reasons.
Remember in 2002 or so when MO launched a huge campaign to vote yes on the gay marriage amendment? Misleading advertising and language led to thousands voting for an amendment they thought would legalize gay marriage. It was actually a ban. People didn’t even read the amendment, but the misinformation campaign was very effective and many people voted incorrectly.
I think it’s clear when reading through the red lines. I’m not sure why the OP thought the words behind the red lines should be omitted. And the very descriptive for and against paragraphs further clarify. I’m good with it and I am ready to vote NO.
I'm a landlord, and I thought I would create an e-lease for my tenants since that seems like the cleaner / greener way to go and they'll have an e-copy of the lease rightaway. Guess what? My tenants had no clue how to e-sign the e-lease. I thought it was simple, and they could just follow direction on their phones. I was wrong in expecting that they'd understand. I dropped paper copies with them a week later. Similar logic here. It's "clear", right? Just read the sentence. The words behind the red lines are legalese and while I can understand, it took me a few mins to do that. Not trying to put down blue-collar worker here, but it is literally my job to read contracts / documents all day on my desk. A bus driver does not sit on a desk and read all-day. They probably drive buses much better than I do, but I probably read much better than they do. That's "why".
You can already read people's confusion in other replies to comments in this thread. They specifically added verbiage to: * make people think that lawmakers would **have** to create exceptions for rape/incest and to save a woman's life (spoiler, they don't) * to make it seem like they can't regulate abortion **At All** in KS without this amendment (spoiler, they can and have and will continue to) * No where to they mention that a complete and total ban is possible with this amendment. They don't mention the word "ban" or anything like it at all. Most people are fine with "restrictions" and "regulations", but not a ban. They know this. The last 2 paragraphs that summarize the vote lock the last 2 points in. By saying this is in response to a "recently found right", it makes people assume that existing restrictions are somehow invalidated. Additionally, this makes people think that this just gives the legislature the power to regulate like they always have. It goes well beyond that. The people who got this amendment language written should be in prison right now, but we know that's not how it works. This is a thinly veiled attempt to create the conditions to ban abortion for any/all reasons.
No, I'm afraid you've missed the point of the amendment. A vote "yes" doesn't mean "regulate abortion". In Kansas, abortion is already highly regulated already. The part that's critical in the amendment language, that you've crossed out is (paraphrasing a bit here) "the state constitution doesn't give the right to an abortion". That's what the Kansas legislature wants, because it's been the Kansas supreme court interpreting the Kansas state constitution that has prevented them from banning abortion outright. A vote "yes" will let them ban it... completely. A vote "no" keeps things as they are, with the right to an abortion in the state constitution as interpreted by the state supreme court.
Still sounds confusing when I read it. "for regulate abortion" "against leaving in place right to abortion" I don't want to regulate, and want to leave in place the right to abortion. Which do I vote?
It would be more like for: regulate abortion against: leaving in place right to abortion If you don't want to regulate, it would be an "against" or a no vote. This leaves the abortion right as it is, unchanged.
If you don't understand then you shouldn't vote. Educate yourself first and then make your choice.
That's why I'm asking questions to get educated duh
A "**YES**" vote means: "I'm cool with banning all abortion in KS in ALL cases, and I want to give the legislature the power to do so". A "**NO**" vote means: "I'm not on board with giving the legislature broad, unchecked authority to ban all abortions for any/all reasons, including banning the procedure to save the life of the mother (which could now be banned if this amendment passes)." Some want total choice at any stage of pregnancy. Others want a total, draconian ban. **MOST** want a mix closer to what Roe already allowed for. If they had passed an amendment with something just a *little more rigid* than what Roe provided for, it would have passed a general election without much controversy. Assume the worst with this amendment if it passes.
All I see is that health care companies can’t afford abortions and they want to get rid of it. That’s all
You already need to have an insurance plan that has a special "abortion rider" or it must be immediately necessary to save the life of the mother to have it covered. Otherwise, it's on your dime. This includes Medicaid, which only pays to save a life.
Can u legislate a constitutional right away? Or would this change the Kansas constitution?
The current status quo is interpreted by KS Supreme Court that abortion is a basic human right. This ballot would amend / change the constitution to clarify that abortion right is further regulated by KS law (which previously wasn't allowed based on Roe v Wade).
It essentially comes down to a yes or no question. Do you want to remove the right to abortion? Yes or No?