Kansas overwhelmingly votes to protect Abortion access for women

I always felt like a good argument could be made for the 22 week cutoff. That's when the fetus develops the nervous system that can send pain signals to the brain through the spinal cord. Personally I think 22 weeks is maybe a touch on the too long side, but I am okay with the science.

 

There are almost no abortions after 22 weeks anyway. But I agree with your overall sentiment.

 

The intelligent ones among us will point out that this was all the Supreme Court wanted, to let states decide. If Kansas wants to make killing babies legal then that’s on them.

 

It was nearly 60% voting no in a very Republican state.

 

The more intelligent ones among us will point out that the Kansas Supreme Court issued their own version of the Roe v. Wade decision three years ago, and this vote was held specifically to decide whether to keep that decision or let the legislature decide what abortion restrictions to impose. Kansas voters overwhelmingly chose to keep their version of Roe v. Wade in place.

Something tells me if America had been allowed to vote on whether Republican SCOTUS should overturn Roe, we'd have seen this country vote to keep Roe v. Wade in place by a similar or greater margin. Your brand of Christofascism is unpopular. A supermajority of this country supports Roe.

 

I am purely speculating, but the issue has polled pretty consistently for decades. There are pluralities between 20 and 25% on either side for no limits, or for no abortion under any circumstances. Most are between that, wanting some limits but not total outlawing in all circumstances.

IMO, the current “face” of the pro-Life side, the face that is being displayed to the world, is that no access under any circumstances minority, maybe even a minority in a minority, in that they seem zealous and callous.

The current public facing side seems indifferent to the impact on women’s health in situations like problem pregnancies, or to unintended “collateral damage” like lack of access to protocol treatments for other conditions like Lupus. There is not even an attempt to address those issues, total indifference, almost cruelty. Add to that the vicious bounty system and signs of going after contraception, and you get results like Kansas.

 

Thinking Alito, Thomas and Barrett just wanted the states to decide is not intelligent, nor is referring to abortions as "killing babies."

 

The turnout among Democrats in Kansas does not bode well for Republicans in the midterm elections. Especially those who are staunchly against abortion. Some of them should be worried that so many Republicans in Kansas voted to keep abortion legal.

 

This is a real loser of an issue for Repubs. The SC overturning Roe was a terrible decision, but it was a real gift for Dems up for election in November.

 

Most people, regardless of debatable intelligence, understand that once you don’t control your person, persons are irrelevant.

 

Are you a medical doctor?

 

I still don’t like it just being decided by the whims of the people of a state, or through their representatives.

There should be a federal minimum time period that a host has bodily autonomy rights that supersedes the unborn’s right to life.

 

If your point is that the voters decided instead of 9 people sitting in Washington, then I agree. Isn't that the whole point of the SCOTUS decision anyway? Send it back to the States where it can be voted on? I see nothing wrong with that. If the majority of people are for abortion like you and others have said, then voting by the people should prove it.

 

Yes that was the point. The far lefties on here have their panties in a bunch still. They can't help it, they can't grasp the simple ruling.

 

Except there are plenty of states that wont be able to vote on it like this, and you will get plenty of places that enforce their own version of minority rule on people, which will create lots of antagonism between the states as some try to prevent travel or enforce their laws while others become havens for that. See: Slavery before the Civil War. Also not out of the question is simply using the federal government or courts to ban abortion period.

 

And I bet it would be the same in most every other state.
A little off topic but here is the biggest issue with most of the things in this country. Too many people are single issue voters. It seems like what this does is you vote for your own little pet issue but because of that, you get a whole lot of other things supported by the candidate that you may not agree with.

Could be abortion, or gay rights. Some people might support gay rights but not want trans women in their daughters sports etc. There's a lot of them, guns included. I think most people would be good with some common sense gun reform but because the single issue voter isn't evaluating a candidate based on priorities, you may not get what you want on all fronts.

I do like the ranked choice voting that some on here have presented. Seems like it would keep the fringes at bay and be more representative of the "normies" in the middle.

 

My point was that the voters were given the chance to decide whether they wanted the seven people on their state supreme court or their state legislature to decide, and they chose their state supreme court. I bet Americans would have made the same choice if they were allowed to vote on keeping Roe. Instead, they're stuck with gerrymandered legislatures deciding for them. Anybody who sees this vote as anything other than a repudiation of the Dobbs opinion is fooling themselves.

 

Hopefully this makes it to the ballot. I would vote for Fried

The outlook for an abortion rights amendment in Florida- POLITICO

Fried said she has put together a legal team to draw up language on a ballot initiative that would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.

Sense of urgency— Fried said such action was needed because she anticipates the Florida Supreme Court will eventually uphold the state’s new ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. She also expects it to reverse a previous high court ruling from 1989 that found that the state’s existing privacy clause applies to abortion rights. “We have to know that we’ve got to be taking proactive steps today. We can’t wait for the Supreme Court to come back and say we don’t have that right to privacy,” she said.

Not easy— The problem looming over all of this is that Florida’s citizen initiative process has been severely restricted in recent years by the Florida Legislature. The Republican-controlled Legislature — at the urging of groups such as the Florida Chamber of Commerce — have pushed to cut down on citizen initiatives after voters approved measures creating a $15 minimum wage, legalizing medical marijuana and restoring voting rights for many people with felony convictions.

Hurdles — Some of the changes include raising the threshold needed to pass an amendment to 60 percent. But more recent changes affecting how voter signatures are collected, how long the signatures remain valid, when the Supreme Court reviews the ballot language have also made it harder to make the ballot. An effort by the Legislature to limit campaign donations for citizen initiatives has been thrown out by a federal judge.

 

We shouldn't need it. Florida codified that right when it enacted its constitutional right to privacy in the years following Roe (a case that decided abortion was protected by the right to privacy). But I don't think anybody really believes the Republican-controlled Florida Supreme Court will follow the law on that.