One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
About the Kansas Abortion Vote
Aug 4, 2022 17:52:17   #
Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois
 
In the first statewide vote since Roe v. Wade was struck down, Kansas voters rejected a constitutional amendment that would have given the legislature the power to restrict abortion.

The amendment would have reversed a 2019 state Supreme Court ruling that the state constitution’s protection of “natural inalienable rights” including “personal autonomy” extended to the right to abortion. Voters rejected the amendment by 20 points. It’s not clear whether that’s an accurate reading of Kansans’ real beliefs about abortion, or if they were swayed by it being too soon since the Roe overturn and all the hysteria over it, or the millions of dollars spent on the race by abortion providers and proponents from outside the state.

While I’m saddened and disappointed by the outcome, this is something that pro-life-activists need to prepare for. If Roe v. Wade was ever overturned, the issue would return to the states where it belongs, and then the battle would move to a new front: winning over hearts and minds of the voters in each individual state. Just as the pro-abortion side will eventually have to stop screaming and threatening Supreme Court Justices and realize that they’ve got to make their case to state voters, the pro-life side needs to develop strategies to counter the tsunami of misinformation and obfuscation from the people who call killing babies in the womb “reproductive health care.”

It's going to be a long, 50-front campaign, and this vote was only the first skirmish.

Reply
Aug 4, 2022 19:26:19   #
son of witless
 
Parky60 wrote:
In the first statewide vote since Roe v. Wade was struck down, Kansas voters rejected a constitutional amendment that would have given the legislature the power to restrict abortion.

The amendment would have reversed a 2019 state Supreme Court ruling that the state constitution’s protection of “natural inalienable rights” including “personal autonomy” extended to the right to abortion. Voters rejected the amendment by 20 points. It’s not clear whether that’s an accurate reading of Kansans’ real beliefs about abortion, or if they were swayed by it being too soon since the Roe overturn and all the hysteria over it, or the millions of dollars spent on the race by abortion providers and proponents from outside the state.

While I’m saddened and disappointed by the outcome, this is something that pro-life-activists need to prepare for. If Roe v. Wade was ever overturned, the issue would return to the states where it belongs, and then the battle would move to a new front: winning over hearts and minds of the voters in each individual state. Just as the pro-abortion side will eventually have to stop screaming and threatening Supreme Court Justices and realize that they’ve got to make their case to state voters, the pro-life side needs to develop strategies to counter the tsunami of misinformation and obfuscation from the people who call killing babies in the womb “reproductive health care.”

It's going to be a long, 50-front campaign, and this vote was only the first skirmish.
In the first statewide vote since Roe v. Wade was ... (show quote)


A thoughtful commentary.

Reply
Aug 4, 2022 20:31:12   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Parky60 wrote:
In the first statewide vote since Roe v. Wade was struck down, Kansas voters rejected a constitutional amendment that would have given the legislature the power to restrict abortion.

The amendment would have reversed a 2019 state Supreme Court ruling that the state constitution’s protection of “natural inalienable rights” including “personal autonomy” extended to the right to abortion. Voters rejected the amendment by 20 points. It’s not clear whether that’s an accurate reading of Kansans’ real beliefs about abortion, or if they were swayed by it being too soon since the Roe overturn and all the hysteria over it, or the millions of dollars spent on the race by abortion providers and proponents from outside the state.

While I’m saddened and disappointed by the outcome, this is something that pro-life-activists need to prepare for. If Roe v. Wade was ever overturned, the issue would return to the states where it belongs, and then the battle would move to a new front: winning over hearts and minds of the voters in each individual state. Just as the pro-abortion side will eventually have to stop screaming and threatening Supreme Court Justices and realize that they’ve got to make their case to state voters, the pro-life side needs to develop strategies to counter the tsunami of misinformation and obfuscation from the people who call killing babies in the womb “reproductive health care.”

It's going to be a long, 50-front campaign, and this vote was only the first skirmish.
In the first statewide vote since Roe v. Wade was ... (show quote)


Very thoughtfull.

And on a political note, thinking they can outlaw abortion no matter what, that it is murder from the moment of conception, not even knowing for sure in God's eyes, they are setting themselves up to lose in November.

The dems are going to hang their hats on abortion in November. As awful as it sounds, to be able to abortion an unwanted pregnancy is more important than the economy, inflation, costs of gas, availability of basic necessities and the border.

Sad but true.

Reply
 
 
Aug 4, 2022 21:15:20   #
Marty 2020 Loc: Banana Republic of Kalifornia
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
Very thoughtfull.

And on a political note, thinking they can outlaw abortion no matter what, that it is murder from the moment of conception, not even knowing for sure in God's eyes, they are setting themselves up to lose in November.

The dems are going to hang their hats on abortion in November. As awful as it sounds, to be able to abortion an unwanted pregnancy is more important than the economy, inflation, costs of gas, availability of basic necessities and the border.

Sad but true.
Very thoughtfull. br br And on a political note, ... (show quote)


Your liberal wife has gotten the better of you!
Yes it sounds awful because it is awful.
Unwanted pregnancy cannot be the cause of murder!
By that premise, if I have an unwanted wife, I’ll just kill her.
Fight back against your loser wife!

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 12:07:32   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Marty 2020 wrote:
Your liberal wife has gotten the better of you!
Yes it sounds awful because it is awful.
Unwanted pregnancy cannot be the cause of murder!
By that premise, if I have an unwanted wife, I’ll just kill her.
Fight back against your loser wife!


She doesn't go so far as it being used for borth control. Just when there is reasonable medical necessity.

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 13:09:05   #
Marty 2020 Loc: Banana Republic of Kalifornia
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
She doesn't go so far as it being used for borth control. Just when there is reasonable medical necessity.


Consider this scenario.
The WEF believes that there’s too many people on earth.
They think they are entitled to decide who lives and who dies.
They decide you are inconvenient and sentence you to die.
You don’t get a say in it.
How is that different from abortion?

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 14:44:40   #
jimpack123 Loc: wisconsin
 
Marty 2020 wrote:
Consider this scenario.
The WEF believes that there’s too many people on earth.
They think they are entitled to decide who lives and who dies.
They decide you are inconvenient and sentence you to die.
You don’t get a say in it.
How is that different from abortion?


Marty go back to the future or back back to the past as your logic makes no sense. Kanas voters made the right choice. I believe that abortion should only be for health of the Mother or in cases of Rape

Reply
 
 
Aug 5, 2022 17:25:27   #
Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois
 
jimpack123 wrote:
Marty go back to the future or back back to the past as your logic makes no sense. Kanas voters made the right choice. I believe that abortion should only be for health of the Mother or in cases of Rape

Then we should have over 99% less abortions because in over 99% of abortions the mother's health isn't in danger.

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 17:39:41   #
jimpack123 Loc: wisconsin
 
Parky60 wrote:
Then we should have over 99% less abortions because in over 99% of abortions the mother's health isn't in danger.


I agree but rape and incest and the immediate health of the mother all 50 states should have the law stated as such in my opinion. That ten yr old would fall under those guidelines and she is real.

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 20:55:12   #
Marty 2020 Loc: Banana Republic of Kalifornia
 
jimpack123 wrote:
Marty go back to the future or back back to the past as your logic makes no sense. Kanas voters made the right choice. I believe that abortion should only be for health of the Mother or in cases of Rape


The point, Einstein, is that the baby has no say.
That’s the problem!
Are you worth $10 million or more?
If not, gates and soros and the asshole running WEF will after birth abort you.
You have no choice or defense.
You okay with that?

Reply
Aug 6, 2022 10:31:39   #
jimpack123 Loc: wisconsin
 
Marty 2020 wrote:
The point, Einstein, is that the baby has no say.
That’s the problem!
Are you worth $10 million or more?
If not, gates and soros and the asshole running WEF will after birth abort you.
You have no choice or defense.
You okay with that?


what about rape ding dong

Reply
 
 
Aug 6, 2022 13:56:04   #
Marty 2020 Loc: Banana Republic of Kalifornia
 
jimpack123 wrote:
what about rape ding dong


What about it?
I’m adopted and because my parents couldn’t have kids due to a WW2 navy injury, they happily adopted 3 kids. Who knows why we were available.

Reply
Aug 7, 2022 10:46:36   #
jimpack123 Loc: wisconsin
 
Marty 2020 wrote:
What about it?
I’m adopted and because my parents couldn’t have kids due to a WW2 navy injury, they happily adopted 3 kids. Who knows why we were available.


Well Marty I believe that there should be for rape, and incest and if the mothers immediate health dictates it with no other exceptions

Reply
Aug 7, 2022 19:42:24   #
Marty 2020 Loc: Banana Republic of Kalifornia
 
jimpack123 wrote:
Well Marty I believe that there should be for rape, and incest and if the mothers immediate health dictates it with no other exceptions


You’re assuming that incest involves a woman that said no.
You’re not from the backwoods are you?😂😂😂

Reply
Aug 8, 2022 08:21:47   #
jimpack123 Loc: wisconsin
 
Marty 2020 wrote:
You’re assuming that incest involves a woman that said no.
You’re not from the backwoods are you?😂😂😂


well your not sure where you are from Mcflie

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2022 IDF International Technologies, Inc.