Scumbag legislators in Kansas seek to add anti-abortion clause to state constitution with confusing language

The Republican-dominated legislature in Kansas passed an abortion restriction, which a judge tossed out as it violated the state's constitution. Tomorrow, voters in Kansas will vote on amending the constitution by adding an anti-abortion clause. However, the wording of the amendment is deliberately confusing. Voting for the amendment is anti-abortion; voting against it is pro-choice. See for yourself.

§ 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.

This makes it sound like abortion is already illegal in Kansas (which is incorrect), and voting for the amendment will secure a right to abortion with reasonable protections (rape, incest, and the mother's life). In reality, this amendment will allow Kansas to ban all abortions.

This weaselly language isn't the first time a ballot initiative has played the "yes means no and no means yes" game; it's just the latest. Hopefully pro-choice groups have publicized this and everyone casting their ballot tomorrow will at least know what they're voting for. This election is significant as it's the first post-Dobbs one where people are voting on whether to allow abortion in their state or not. In 2013, Kansas declared that "life begins at conception," so passage of this amendment could allow the state to ban all abortions, based on the "not limited to" wording.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

The girl from Kansas meets the scarecrow...

LeopoldBloom · M

@Thinkerbell What does a proposed constitutional amendment in Kansas have to do with Biden?

Is Biden in the room with you now, Karen?

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@LeopoldBloom

It has to do with Biden because every post you make is aimed at protecting Democrats in general and Biden in particular.

i.e., Democrats good, Republicans bad. 😂 😂 😂

LeopoldBloom · M

@Thinkerbell Every post? This one didn't mention Biden or Democrats, or even the federal government. I think Republicans are pieces of shit, independently of anything Biden or the Democrats are doing.

I also have non-political posts if you're keeping track.

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@LeopoldBloom

" I think Republicans are pieces of shit, independently of anything Biden or the Democrats are doing."

😂 😂 😂 That says it all, Leo, regarding your opinions.

Republicans = BAD (federal, state local, doesn't matter)

Democrats = GOOD, can do no wrong. 🤣 🤣 🤣

"I also have non-political posts if you're keeping track."

I'm not keeping track, so let's just say I've never by chance come across
one of your 'non-political' posts. 🤭

LeopoldBloom · M

@Thinkerbell You're making an unwarranted assumption. Just because I think most Republicans are pieces of shit (with a few exceptions like Liz Cheney), that doesn't mean I think the Democrats "can do no wrong." The Democrats have been way too cautious and have often let the Republicans take them by surprise.

I post a lot about politics because it's important to me. I don't expect you to randomly come across my posts, but here are a few non-political ones.

https://similarworlds.com/society/doing-good/3484724-Toward-a-rational-system-of-objective-morality

https://similarworlds.com/vehicles/bicycles/4391316-Buying-bicycles-on-ebay-One-frustrating-thing

https://similarworlds.com/food-drink/alcohol/4362009-Current-contents-of-liquor-cabinet-I-can-explain

https://similarworlds.com/self/childhood/4354255-The-Bus-Instructor-This-guy-named-Mike-White-would

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@LeopoldBloom

"...that doesn't mean I think the Democrats "can do no wrong." The Democrats have been way too cautious and have often let the Republicans take them by surprise."

Oh, I see... the Democrats do wrong only when they don't do enough of what they have been doing.
Wokeness, defunding the police, not prosecuting street criminals, gender reassignment, etc.
🙄 🙄 🙄

LeopoldBloom · M

@Thinkerbell Exactly. They're a huge disappointment.

Although, they did pretty well recently. We got:

The CHIPS Act
The PACT Act
The Inflation Reduction Act
The killing of Ayman Al-Zawahri
The abortion vote in Kansas
The DOJ turning up the heat in the insurrection probe
Seven federal judges approved since July 20, and another dozen expected by the end of the month

They're on a roll and I hope it continues.

"Wokeness" - awareness of U.S. history and how it impacts the present. So conservatives are "asleep."
"Defunding the police" - not actually happening. The DA in uber-liberal San Francisco just got booted over this.
"Not prosecuting street criminals" - yet the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
"Gender reassignment" - or, medical care for gender dysphoria. But it's not surprising you'd be opposed to it. Conservatives hate all medical care other than what they get personally.

No wonder your side is losing. You're focused on issues no one cares about.

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@LeopoldBloom

"No wonder your side is losing. You're focused on issues no one cares about."

Get back to me after Nov 8, Leo. 😂 😂 😂