Kansas voters resoundingly decided against removing the right to abortion from the State Constitution... a major victory for the abortion rights movement in one of America’s reliably conservative states... The decisive margin — 59 to 41 percent, with about 95 percent of the votes counted — came as a surprise....
The overruling of Roe v. Wade was such a shock to supporters of abortion rights that many seemed to think — and this is what a lot of anti-abortion people imagined for so long — that to lose the constitutional right to abortion would be to recognize the right to life of the unborn, and that now, instead of the woman's having the right to destroy the unborn, the unborn would have the right to use the body of the woman without her consent.
But that was never true. Overruling of Roe v. Wade simply threw the issue into the political arena. That was experienced by many as an outrageous intrusion on women's autonomy. Abortion rights supporters did not want to have to give up the security of the right and to be forced to fight for that autonomy. You can lose a political fight.
But you can also win. And women's autonomy won — decisively — in Kansas. Perhaps, in the long run, political victory will bring the greatest security to women's autonomy. Roe v. Wade was always under threat. The threat finally arrived, and the political reckoning is upon us. And look what happened!
ADDED: "Here’s how abortion rights supporters won in conservative Kansas" (NYT):
In Hamilton County, which voted 81 percent for Mr. Trump in 2020, less than 56 percent chose the anti-abortion position on Tuesday (with about 90 percent of the vote counted there).
In Greeley County, which voted more than 85 percent for Mr. Trump, only about 60 percent chose the anti-abortion position....
From the bluest counties to the reddest ones, abortion rights performed better than Mr. Biden, and opposition to abortion performed worse than Mr. Trump....
[S]tatewide turnout was much higher than expected — nearly as high as it was in the last midterm election.... The voters who would have been expected to show up on Tuesday, under normal circumstances, would mostly have been Republicans. That is not only because registered Republicans significantly outnumber registered Democrats in Kansas, but also because most of the contested races on the ballot were Republican primaries, giving Democrats little reason to vote — except to oppose the constitutional amendment....
पोस्ट्स
१४२ टिप्पण्या:
Pro-lifers have always known that the fight would still go on at the state level. In this case, the pro-life side overreached, and now will regroup and figure out the next move. Most likely they'll continue to chip away, until an equilibrium around 15-16 weeks is achieved in most states.
Wasn't it the Kansas Supreme Court that precipitated this fiasco in the first place?
Don't worry, KS is not pro-abortion. Pyrrhic victory. A battlefield victory by an outmatched opponent in a losing war.
"The Supreme Court, in overruling Roe v. Wade, turned the question of access to abortion over to the people of the states."
Oh dear.
What other claimed fundamental rights do you think should be decided by popular vote? Contraception? Segregation? Same sex marriage? I though the whole point of rights was to protect the minority. Have you always taken the view Ann that Roe was wrongly decided?
"And women's autonomy won — decisively — in Kansas."
I agree, in general, that returning abortion to the political arena does not spell victory for pro-lifers.
But I think this interpretation of the Kansas vote is premature. For example, I would have had misgivings about treating abortion as a constitutional matter at all and about blanket rules beyond revision by the legislature. No doubt many people in Kansas give priority to "women's autonomy" over the life of babies, but in a mostly red state they needed conservative support, some of it unrelated to women's autonomy, to prevail.
Still a hell of a lot better than what was being contemplated, infanticide. Partial birth abortions and even have the baby born and then kill it.
Step 1. Abortion not illegal.
Now comes the messy part.
Could be anywhere between “fetal heartbeat” to “except in cases of gender selection”.
As though it would be possible to know.
And this is how it should be. Letting the people of each state decide. I know there are a handful of red states who's legislature is moving, or has already moved, to make it illegal to have an abortion. I think they're jumping the gun and need to let it go to referendum, but either way, the people will mass up- led by huge influxes of cash- to place abortion on ballots all over the country.
The howlers and screamers may yet end up being happy. Not that they'll recognize that the Supreme Court did the right thing.
Also in Michigan I see that Tudor Dixon won the GOP Primary for Gov and will go against Gretchen Whitmer. Dixon could be a strong candidate but for her abortion stance, which- from what I've read- is absolutist- no abortions, not even for rape or incest. She needs to corral that and restate it if she plans to be Governor. In all other areas, she'd be a positive for Michigan. But she won't get elected as an absolutist.
Our country is filled with people with very strong opinions. But the majority of people can see points on both sides and would prefer giving some ground in this case, to make it work for those in critical need. The 15 week standard is one most often mentioned. In those states where it's illegal, I project that those states will also have to change in time. The people will demand it. On the other hand, there are states such as CA and NY where it's very much a birth control method and the numbers of abortions are ridiculous. That, too, is in need of statewide referenda at some point in time.
Only the elite media would characterise this result as a 'surprise.' While polling has indicated no clear majority favoring specific regulations, the broad outline that most people want abortion handled like any other medical procedure, i.e. neither criminal nor totally unregulated, has been pretty clear.
"the unborn would have the right to use the body of the woman without her consent."
An odd phrasing. Except in the case of rape, isn't the woman ALWAYS "consenting" to the possibility of the "unborn"? Another instance of the abuse of language; abortion is hardly a "reproductive right," as it is clearly ANTI-reproduction.
Nevertheless, I'm personally glad that Kansas showed that it is possible to preserve "reproductive rights" in a red state. All the sturm and drang might actually go away eventually.
"Pro-lifers have always known that the fight would still go on at the state level."
Some have. Some haven't.
I was on a radio show once, explaining abortion rights, and the 2 hosts were both assuming the unborn's right to life would spring into existence if the woman's right were nullified. I had to explain on the air why this wasn't true to people who were shocked to hear what I was saying and resisted my explanation, which I tried to make as clearly as I could. I don't think I ever convinced them that I was getting it right, though I was the law professor and they (obviously) didn't understand much about law.
I have never forgotten that experience!
jim5301- Please define fundamental right. And then answer the question as to when the fetus has a fundamental right.
The point that abortion people constantly miss is that to those who are anti-abortion, it's not a female issue. It's a fetus/child issue. They literally believe that aborting a fetus is basically murder.
Convince them otherwise. And also please consider that they might be right and then live with yourself having condoned the murder of millions of children.
The voters that were motivated turned out to vote. In the next decision, it will be a different set of voters. Political parties that make the mistake of making abortion a keystone issue are going to exhaust themselves, and their funding. Smart political parties will instead include the issue in a platform of issues. The economy, stupid; uncontrolled immigration; inflation; expensive and unproductive foreign adventures; expensive and unproductive Green adventures; national debt. If you make elections single-issue, then you get the single-issue maniacs and fanatics. The party that wants to win, won't do that. They will establish an end goal policy and work towards it methodically, stepwise, over time.
’…the unborn would have the right to use the body of the woman without her consent.’
Sneaky little bastards!! How’d they get in there?
Okay, so define “abortion rights.” Limited to the first trimester? Up until the baby is born? Somewhere in between? If it specified in the article, I must have missed it.
"Have you always taken the view Ann that Roe was wrongly decided?"
What does "wrongly decided" mean?
"The threat finally arrived, and the political reckoning is upon us. And look what happened!"
What happened is that the majority of Kansas voters agreed that killing the state's "Posterity" is A-OK.
Not just kinda frightening, but downright frightening.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and [and only to ourselves], do ordain and establish this Constitution"
“The overruling of Roe v. Wade was such a shock to supporters of abortion rights that many seemed to think — and this is what a lot of anti-abortion people imagined for so long — that to lose the constitutional right to abortion would be to recognize the right to life of the unborn, and that now, instead of the woman's having the right to destroy the unborn, the unborn would have the right to use the body of the woman without her consent.”
And it’s true that many if not most anti abortion proponents thought that they were in the majority, this Kansas “No” win should disabuse them of that notion. Apparently even deep red Kansas recognized the overreach of the anti abortion movement and the USSC. They are extremists, most Americans aren’t. November is coming, a referendum on our ballot would be a very good thing.
The reasoning in Roe is egregiously deficient. Casey already overruled it. So we should be talking about Casey. There's so much "wrongness" in the area, but that doesn't mean women do not have a constitutional right to control their own bodies and to have access to a medical procedure that allows them to reject an unwanted pregnancy. And to say that doesn't mean that we would not have been better off if the right had developed through a political process that could have taken place in the 1970s.
As a person who actually lives in Kansas, this vote is much more nuanced than it may appear on the surface. There is still a lot of room for restrictions on abortion, although the limits have not yet been defined (by our elected representatives in the state legislature). I think most Kansans are pro-life, but an all-out ban is not palatable to the majority of the voting public.
Kansas voters resoundingly decided against removing the right to abortion from the State Constitution..
I would have voted against a Constitutional change to ban all abortions. There are probably a lot of people like me. But, allowing abortion up to 14 or 15 weeks, and then and then a ban after that...would see a different, tighter outcome. People understand abortions in the third trimester is infanticide. That's only popular in truly liberal communities like Madison, WI.
A majority of "conservatives" believe that is pragmatic and reasonable. If you perform abortions, or choose to have one, take it up with God.
Does the phrase "abortion rights" assume that abortion is a right? I don't know if that's better or worse than "pro-choice" but both terms have a bias.
"Some have. Some haven't."
Democracy is messy and meant to be so. Both sides have to actually make their case now and each will win some and lose some. Eventually we will eventually come to a consensus. It's just a shame we weren't allowed to start the process 50 years ago. It would have been settled by now.
“What does "wrongly decided" mean?”
Made up. Having no basis in the constitution. Legislating from the bench. Judicial activism. Harry Blackmun’s “splitting the baby” literally…
You’re playing those Professor games again. It’s not based on the constitution, history or tradition. So it’s wrongly decided. But you like the policy so you’re ok with it. Problem with that sort of viewpoint is that when 9 unelected people can legislate from the bench and deliver an opinion you like, they (or a different 9) can deliver an opinion you don’t like.
“And this is how it should be.”
Yup. In Kansas you can now get a By-God American abortion.
Althouse said: "the unborn's right to life would spring into existence if the woman's right were nullified."
That is really the crux of the matter. At what point does the unborn's right to life trump the woman's right to terminate its life?
14 to 15 weeks in seems reasonable. After that the you start getting into the fetus feeling pain as it is killed and viability. Third trimester abortions are infanticide.
The debate is in the second trimester.
Of course men have zero rights for the fetuses they sire...up until it comes time to pay $$$$.
@Althouse: "The reasoning in Roe is egregiously deficient. Casey already overruled it. So we should be talking about Casey."
And here's the rub. In 1973 the political debate was short circuited but inane logic. The US Congress very likely would, could, and "should" have voted on the topic. Then all the debate about the activist Supreme Court might have been avoided.
But, the ends justified the means....?
This also shows that much of the debate over the last 50 years has been hyped up in partisan echo chambers. The 2022 Dobbs ruling surely cleared out the clutter of the mangled post-1973 debates.
Text from the ballot measure:
"The Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion, including, but not limited to, in circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother."
So in this case, the voters of Kansas said no, we do not reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion. The voters of Kansas agreed to "make no changes to the constitution of the state of Kansas [in full recognition that this] could restrict the people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion by leaving in place the recently recognized right to abortion." (to quote from the winning no side of the ballot question).
Kansas Republicans did not craft the text to give Kansas voters a chance to call Dobb insane (since they crafted it before Dobbs), but that's what happened.
“The howlers and screamers may yet end up being happy.”
The howling and screaming about mask mandates topped the howling and screaming by people who are against being forced to carry an unwanted child to term and give birth. Wearing that little mask over your nose and mouth was so very terribly egregious, eh? You people are hypocrites.
Abortion rights people enjoyed the hysteria so much. What will they move onto now? The rights of trans men (or is it women?) to play in women's tennis tournaments?
"...but that doesn't mean women do not have a constitutional right to control their own bodies and to have access to a medical procedure that allows them to reject an unwanted pregnancy."
Sure it does. Women have the same right as men to control their own bodies. Like men they don't have the right to destroy someone else's.
Gradually, gradually, gradually, liberals are being compelled to stop saying that "the US Supreme Court has banned abortion".
"and they (obviously) didn't understand much about law."
They probably thought articulating it for them meant you were anti abortion rights. The horror! Because they can't even (find the words).
These people really aren't as sophisticated as they think.
The decisive margin — 59 to 41 percent, with about 95 percent of the votes counted — came as a surprise....
This isn't a surprise. The Red State Kansas vote was about a TOTAL ban. Most Republicans are more pragmatic and reasonable about the fact that abortion is here to stay. It's still voting on the fringes of the issue.
If a vote was on the ballot in Kansas to "allow abortion on demand up until the moment of birth" is would have been defeated.
It's not all about a woman's body autonomy. It is a societal issue. People can understand the difference between a clump of cells that cannot survive on it's own, and a baby that can.
Althouse's view and wording of this "victory" is more proof that we cannot reach a pragmatic compromise for the benefit of society. Something the smarmy Europeans seem to have figured out. It's gotta be all or nothing. That never solves anything. Sad really.
“The reasoning in Roe is egregiously deficient. Casey already overruled it. So we should be talking about Casey.”
Casey was overruled too, so we have to talk about Dobbs, which is the beginning but not the end for the conservatives on the Court. The Kansas referendum shows what can happen if the people are allowed to vote on abortion rights, but it’s mostly going to be state legislatures. It’s an open question whether the Althouses of this country will vote out the hard-line state legislators who want zero weeks with no exceptions,
Some have. Some haven't.
Interesting. Every pro-lifer I've known has viewed rolling back Roe as necessary, but not sufficient. There was always acknowledgement that it would merely toss the issue back to the states.
The decisive margin — 59 to 41 percent, with about 95 percent of the votes counted — came as a surprise
Came as a surprise to whom?
All the states will vote to allow abortion in the first trimester.
The people who want to ban all abortions do not have enough votes in any state.
I always wanted abortion returned to the political process and I never thought that that would mean immediate victory - anywhere. Victory is close when people stop saying "unintended pregnancy" and start saying "unintended child." But recognizing the humanity of the unborn child is a ways away. Abortion has to be in the political process to get the dialogue going.
But here's a point - why can't women retain their own autonomy and that of their children? We talk about reshaping society - why not reshape it so that having a job does not mean being as like a man as possible, especially in relation to a woman's ability to bear children. There've been hundreds of societies where women were the bread-winners -literally - because they were the farmers. And it was women who developed all the foods from Mexico and South America which are now feeding the world. Women developed corn, potatoes, tomatoes, chilies, chocolate, strawberries and more. They were natural geneticists, not merely workers wielding a hoe. So it can be done.
We all seem to forget that the Constitution itself can be amended. So just because the SCOTUS ruled that the right to abortion is not in the Constitution, it certainly could be there, if enough citizens want it there.
Make your case. Persuade. Don't seek to set up a new "King George", and have him or her rule for your cause. Get your neighbors to see it your way.
So, can women refuse to take a mandatory vaccine, if they have a constitutional right to control their own bodies?
"... instead of the woman's having the right to destroy the unborn, the unborn would have the right to use the body of the woman without her consent."
Because ... immaculate conception.
Lefty logic abides.
One other thought worthy of consideration: maybe your fellow citizens, your neighbors locally and in other states - maybe they aren't as evil and unreasonable as you imagine them to be - as the media and politicians want us to believe them to be.
"What does 'wrongly decided' mean?"
I mean that Roe should have lost the case.
You object to the reasoning of Row/Casey, but do you think the decisions reached the incorrect result?
Happy for Kansas and democracy. I support 15 to 20 weeks, and you can only get there if abortions are legal to that limit.
I thought with Dobbs the Supreme Court destroyed democracy; except apparently in KS.
I wonder how this will be spun on CNN and MSNBC.
"(It) doesn't mean that we would not have been better off if the right had developed through a political process that could have taken place in the 1970s."
This +++
Some might ask "What's the matter with Kansas?"
As a pro-abortion/anti-Roe (or Casey) person, this is the process I have wanted to see my entire life. The Kansas voters were not the "control women's bodies" extremists the left have been fantasizing about for fifty years. Most of them want abortion to be legal. They also probably don't want it to be infinitely legal. I expect there will be significant variation between the states, and some may temporarily be quite restrictive. Governing is harder than criticism though, and this will almost certainly moderate over time. Harsh anti-abortion laws were risk-free so long as Roe stood in the way. Now the Republicans will actually have to justify them.
It would be interesting to see some polling on why the amendment failed - why did people vote no? The text of the Amendment did not ban abortions. It said two things: 1. the Kansas constitution does not require abortion funding, and 2. to the extent allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court the Kansas legislature shall have the right to regulate abortion.
Kansas already regulates abortion. None are allowed after 22 weeks unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Pre-abortion ultrasound and counseling is required. Parental consent is required for minors to have an abortion. Abortion for sex selection is banned. State funding is only available if the life of the mother is in peril or in cases of rape or incest.
I think it is possible that many could have voted no simply because they thought the amendment was unnecessary. The Kansas legislature is already regulating abortion and Dobbs just affirmed that they can do so free of the magical shenanigans of "substantive due process."
Or they could have voted no because they read the amendment as taking away the state funding in cases for rape and incest. Allowance for abortion in cases of rape and incest consistently polls high among Republicans.
It is an interesting result but one that seems to have very little actual effect (the same being true had it passed).
The dog finally caught the car and doesn't know what to do now.
After running organizations and fundraising on full abortion bans for 50 years, it's hypocritical for the pro-lifers to allow it to 4 months and carve out exceptions ... and they're just starting to realize the corner they painted themselves into.
Probably could get support for bans after 16 weeks, but that's not what those leading their movement can stomach.
Vox has an article about the uncomfortable problem with Roe The article goes into (excruciating) detail about issues with relying upon substantive due process to protect civil rights. It’s quite a good read, if a bit unfair to Justice Alito.
I'm just a simple country Radiation Oncologist, not a legal scholar, but I reckon when your "reasoning is egregiously deficient," a wrong decision is the likely result.
Just sayin...
Well, if I was a hard core pro-choicer, the kind who insists that partial birth abortion be legal, the kind who believe that a mother should have a month (or two, or three) to decide whether to “abort” a living baby, then before I started turning cartwheels down the hall I would look at what the Kansas constitution actually says about abortion rights.
I think when the dust has settled and the overwrought rhetoric has (mostly) dissipated, we shall find that “We the People” accept the necessity of abortion, but subject to commonsense restrictions.
Just a minor victory at the start of a long drawn out slog. No reason for libtards to get all excited that this means the bible banger chokehold won't persist. The bitter klingons will fall back, regroup and counter attack. This is me not spiking the football on the 50-yardline.
Forget the borders, energy prices, inflation, military readiness, Democrat corruption, prosperity, free markets, crime, grooming, God, families and patriotism. Elections should now be about abortion, race, white guys, Trump, gender dysphoria and sexual disfunction.
The latter are, of course, the things our fathers fought and died for. /s
I don't think I ever convinced them that I was getting it right, though I was the law professor and they (obviously) didn't understand much about law.
I have never forgotten that experience!
There is so much that the Left firmly and passionately believes is true...but isn't.
I don't think I ever convinced them that I was getting it right, though I was the law professor and they (obviously) didn't understand much about law.
I have never forgotten that experience!
There is so much that the Left firmly and passionately believes is true...but isn't.
Ann said, "I was on a radio show once, explaining abortion rights, and the 2 hosts were both assuming the unborn's right to life would spring into existence if the woman's right were nullified. I had to explain on the air why this wasn't true to people who were shocked to hear what I was saying and resisted my explanation, which I tried to make as clearly as I could. I don't think I ever convinced them that I was getting it right, though I was the law professor and they (obviously) didn't understand much about law."
I've had the same experience explaining this legal situation to California licensed attorneys. Its difficult for some people to let go of their rage.
This is the problem with the american system. everything can - or possibly can - be a "constitutional right". in effect, five lawyers on the SCOTUS can do anything. Is there anything in the US constitution about abortion? No. And if you'd told the founding fathers or the drafters of the 14th admendment that people would use the language to mandate legalized abortion, they would've put language in the Constitution saying the exact opposite.
But abortion is a constitutional right? WHy not, Gay marriage is! States can't have school prayer? Violation of 1st admendment dontcha know. so why not stike down abortion laws. One's as nonsensical as the other.
As long as you believe in the crazy American system of Judicial supremacy, anything is possible. Other countries have wisely avoided this nonsense and are the better for it. Brexit for example would never have happened if UK had the American system. It would've been found "unconstituional".
Its good the people of Kansas have been allowed to speak on the issue.
The cutoff will wind up where the fetus becomes sonogram-cute. A matter of maximizing votes from both sides.
There's something to be said for protecting society's inclination to protect what's cute.
Pregnancy, like recession, is defined as two missed periods.
I've read about that amendment and cannot see that this vote changes anything. It still goes to the legislature, as I understand it. I guess the legislature cannot ban abortion completely. That's all I see.
“ I was on a radio show once, explaining abortion rights, and the 2 hosts were both assuming the unborn's right to life would spring into existence if the woman's right were nullified. I had to explain on the air why this wasn't true to people who were shocked to hear what I was saying and resisted my explanation, which I tried to make as clearly as I could. I don't think I ever convinced them that I was getting it right, though I was the law professor and they (obviously) didn't understand much about law.”
I’ve always found it curious that, though we live in a democracy where people make the laws, we need law professors to explain to us the laws we make.
Anyway, we can all rest easier knowing that our basic human rights are now in the hands of those paragons of probity and sincerity, state politicians.
RhHardin 10:36 - I agree.
It's not about the human life - is it a puppy!?!
Commenter Ohmaha1 is right. Kansas voters essentially voted to keep things the way they are / were pre-Dobbs, which legislative compromises are relatively RESTRICTIVE compared to many states considered "pro-choice".
Minor child females seeking abortion must have parental consent unless married. Married women seeking abortion must have spousal consent. There is a mandatory ultrasound exam to determine viability. Abortions on viable fetuss are prohibited. There is a 24 hour counseling period after lining up any needed consent, and actually participating in the procedure. Any claimed "medical necessity" (only to preserve the LIFE -- not "health" as in the Casey standard -- of the mother) must be attested by a 2nd in-state licensed doctor.
Imagine if all those pro-choice advocates celebrating the Kansas election were to advocate for implementing Kansas standards nation-wide.
The Amendment affirmed Dobbs
“If you perform abortions, or choose to have one, take it up with God.”
I agree. A woman who aborts her child in the majority of cases does it because she has given it a lot of thought and most women take so not take it lightly. Let her answer to God, who may well understand her reasoning far better than we mere humans.
Roe has not been overturned. In the worst case, the criteria for viability has changed to where baby meets granny in state, if not in process. However, with the practice of planned parenthood and planned parent/hood in several Democrat sanctuaries, the viability of granny has changed to meet fetus with social distancing. One step forward, two steps backward.
That said, human rights follows with consent given to sex (i.e. penis to vaginal penetration). Civilized society has compelling cause to discourage performance of human rites for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes. The Pro-Choice ethical religion denies women and men's dignity and agency, and reduces human life to negotiable commodities, formerly under the Twilight Amendment to the Constitution, NOW (pun intended) sustained with a "3/5 compromise".
The spread of slavery among the States was mitigated with a 3/5 compromise. Diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry) progresses with hyphenated labels, fractional value, and affirmative discrimination. Demos-cracy is aborted in darkness (i.e. murder).
Polarity reversal correction.
This vote means far less than many claim.
Basically, the only reason to vote yes was if you favored a total ban on abortion.
Anyone else should have, and mostly did, vote no.
The result would be unsurprising except that the national media misrepresented NO as a vote for unlimited abortion, which they now suggest won in Kansas.
"I though (sic) the whole point of rights was to protect the minority."
The individual not the minority, and not just for philosophical reasons. What constitutes "the minority" is a fairly fluid question, both situationally and temporally. But that the writer thought in group identity, rather than individual terms, is noted.
Kansas voters essentially voted to keep things the way they are / were pre-Dobbs, which legislative compromises are relatively RESTRICTIVE compared to many states considered "pro-choice".
This is the 2020 election all over again, also 2008 (e.g. allegations of diversity, foreign intrusion) where voting was influenced through NYT, WaPO, CNN, PBS et al conspiring with Democrats, foreign, and domestic special and peculiar interests to spread misinformation and disinformation, handmade tales, and steering through Umbrella Corporation, Yahoo, Twitter, etc.
That said, six weeks to viability, where baby meets granny in state, if not in process. A woman and man have four choices: sex or abstinence, contraception in depth, adoption, or compassion, and an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation.
#HateLovesAbortion
"You object to the reasoning of Row/Casey, but do you think the decisions reached the incorrect result?"
What is the "result"? There's some pretty complicated doctrine, and I doubt that's what you're referring to. In that context, "incorrect" is just too confusing to begin to address. What do you even think you are asking me? I'm not going to just guess. You seem to want a simple answer, but you're not asking a simple question.
I don't like a lot of things, but after 50 years of having a right, it's a big problem to take it away. It's not just about whether the case was "correctly" decided. That's why "stare decisis" means something. Are you asking me if stare decisis was properly analyzed in Dobbs?
It's not about the human life - is it a puppy!?!
She's a tribble, less the sympathetic cooing. Perhaps NASA can infer assumed function and color between the lines to produce a grand symphony.
Dead babies and mothers who want to kill their children.
Am sick to fucking death of this issue and many others.
Our country is now firmly in 'shithole' territory.
Trump can now add us to the list.
"Make America not a shithole country" would be a good slogan.
Not catchy, but accurate...
A lot of people, including a lot of commenters here, don't seem to understand what the amendment said, or what the state Constitution says (and the article I read was confusing too). They voted against letting the legislators vote on it. That's interesting.
The left/middle/right split is why it required a civil war to defeat slavery and diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism, sexism, genderism), later restored with the 14th, 19th, and inclusive under the Twilight amendments. Unfortunately, elective abortion a.k.a. human rites (e.g. Mengele mandates, Cecile cannibalism) a.k.a. the wicked solution is practiced in darkness, privacy, and like murder, cannot be wholly prevented, but rather its practice is or was discouraged in civilized societies.
It sounds like they prefer not letting their representatives decide this issue. Which again makes the point: Republican politicians really really need to take a step back and see what most Republicans and most Americans think about this. Till now it didn't matter. Now it is urgent.
Who could have predicted this? Democracy! Any comments, RvW hand-wringers?
Q1: what else is right with Kansas? [and Nebraska] AND I suppose [Missouri]
Q2: which one was supposed to be SLAVE and which one FREE and which one COMPROMISED
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
I don't like a lot of things, but after 50 years of having a right, it's a big problem to take it away.
How about an abused "right" that got pushed to infanticide ? What if divorce was eventually extended to a right to kill the other spouse?
I don't like a lot of things, but after 50 years of having a right, it's a big problem to take it away. It's not just about whether the case was "correctly" decided. That's why "stare decisis" means something. Are you asking me if stare decisis was properly analyzed in Dobbs?
The absurdity of Harry Blackmun's reasoning in Roe seems like plenty of reason to overturn the decision.
That you thought it was a "right" makes no sense if you believe that Roe was poorly reasoned.
Tell that to the people trying to take away our REAL right to own guns.
"that doesn't mean women do not have a constitutional right to control their own bodies and to have access to a medical procedure that allows them to reject an unwanted pregnancy"
OK, so everything SCOTUS said on the subject is BS, but there still might be a "right," somewhere, somehow, in the Constitution, never contemplated by the actual authors or understood as such by anyone voting for it, but there, anyhow--just look, right there.
"after 50 years of having a right, it's a big problem to take it away. It's not just about whether the case was "correctly" decided. That's why "stare decisis" means something."
Well, yeah, it's a big problem for people who false relied on a dishonest fabrication. The rest of us rejoice at the correction of the error. And actually, in law, the issue is whether a case is correctly decided. Sure, there's a lot of leeway in evaluating correctness, and I recognize the con in con law, but stare decisis is just a way of saying: we won, losers, and don't you dare fight back.
Sanger's diversity [dogma]. Cecile's cannibalism. Gosnell the ripper. Democrats bray handmade tales in progress.
Women, men, and "our Posterity" are from Earth. Feminists are from Venus. Masculinists are from Mars. Social progressives are from Uranus.
What has changed is Roe's regrets, Ruth's remorse, a wicked solution, a final solution, that is no longer obfuscated in darkness.
Althouse: "unborn's right to life would spring into existence if the woman's right were nullified."
It doesn't "spring into existence" because the unborn's right to life existed all along.
I don't like a lot of things, but after 50 years of having a right, it's a big problem to take it away.
Nobody has a "right" to kill an innocent.
Michael K making crazy claims again, just as unhinged as those suggesting removing right to abortion is one step away from jailing pregnant women to make sure they deliver.
"How about an abused "right" that got pushed to infanticide ? What if divorce was eventually extended to a right to kill the other spouse?"
That's some fine Republican logic right there lol.
“The reasoning in Roe is egregiously deficient.”
“It's not just about whether the case was "correctly" decided. That's why "stare decisis" means something. Are you asking me if stare decisis was properly analyzed in Dobbs?”
How “egregiously deficient” does it need to be to invalidate stare decisis?
"Kansas voters resoundingly decided against removing the right to abortion from the State Constitution..."
This is a lie.
The right to abortion is not granted in the Kansas Constitution.
It was determined to exist by the Kansas Supreme Court based on their interpretation of a cause referring to personal autonomy.
This was twisted into a right to abortion much as a right to privacy was twisted into a right to abortion by SCOTUS.
It suffers from the same overarching flaw in that it ignores the other life involved.
At the time of the Kansas SC ruling, Casey/Roe was in effect so this grant of a right did not allow for last day abortions. After Dobbs, it does.
Kansas can do what Kansas wants to do but it has become impossible to get honest reporting on the issue.
I would like to see, and expect to see in the future, a Kansas constitutional proposition that does not read like things were being taken away. For example, if the proposition used the language of "clarifying the constitution's intent regarding abortion"
Abortionists got their language because of the leftist state Supreme Court. When I read it, I was momentarily confused on consequences of a yes or no vote.
There's a couple factors at play here. First, in my experience it is harder to get people to change something than leave it alone. Although if that amendment was already in place, it suggests most people in Kansas favor some degree of access to elective abortion. This is more than simply "leave our state constitution alone". Second, since Roe v Wade was decided in 1972, a lot of people have grown up in a society in which legal elective abortion was just the way things are, the Court decision had an educative-formative effect on people. This might apply to far more than the people of Kansas.
It's remarkable that there are states in which a majority want to restrict access to abortion. Like standing in a rushing river for fifty years without being swept away.
Well AA, glad you waded in of this first of many States addressing abortion. However, you said very little about the confusion of the Proposition itself. Even the Guardian a Leftist Rag, stated that Yes, doesn't mean Yes, and No doesn't mean No. I'd like to see a Poll of the Voters who thought what they where voting for after the fact. Before we come to any conclusion of what actually happened?
Consent given to sex is consent given to "our Posterity"... baby. This is why human rites advocates tried to argue for systemic rape... rape-rape culture, the #MeToo then #HerToo boomerang, felt socially justified to conduct witch hunts and hold warlock trials, etc.
Here's the Kansas State Constitution:
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://www.kssos.org/other/pubs/KS_Constitution.pdf
As soon as you read it and can find a right to abortion in it let me know. You know, something expressed in plain language. like, for example, "Women have a right to abort their babies." Something that doesn't require the interpretation of a judge.
How a ballot issue is presented is 80 percent of the fight.
"I don't like a lot of things, but after 50 years of having a right, it's a big problem to take it away."
If Roe was decided incorrectly, the right you are claiming got taken away is yet to be proven a right.
"That's why "stare decisis" means something."
Except when it doesn't, as in the case of segregation.
Igna: "Let her answer to God, who may well understand her reasoning far better than we mere humans."
It's a certainty that she will answer to God who will have no trouble understanding her reasoning just as we have no trouble understanding her reasoning.
Raise your hand if you think abortion of one of his children will carry the day with God.
Exactly right. Rights through the political process are much more secure than those discovered by an appointed Court.
the unborn would have the right to use the body of the woman without her consent.
That's hilarious right there. Repeal the nineteenth.
I read the ballot description and didn't understand what exactly a yes vote would do. I would have voted no. I don't know how much explanation was available in Kansas media.
The problem is for all the conservative insistence that the original Roe v. Wade decision was outrageous and unsupported by the Constitution, the Dobbs decision is worse and is the worst decision I have ever read.
It articulates a reason for overruling Roe on one hand, then repeatedly says don't apply its reasoning in other cases. It argues that the abortion right is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and does an outrageous selection of history to back up that decision, including favorable cites of Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century jurist who conceived the notion that husbands can’t be prosecuted for raping their wives, who sentenced women to death as “witches,” and whose misogyny stood out even in his time.
Because the Constitution was written during a time when woman were second-class citizens it holds the law must go back to that standard. As the dissenters write: “When the majority says that we must read our foundational charter as viewed at the time of ratification (except that we may also check it against the Dark Ages,(i.e. Sir Matthew Hale), it consigns women to second-class citizenship.”
The praise for the decision is emotional high-fiving the overturning of Roe and not any reasoning in the decision.
The problem is for all the conservative insistence that the original Roe v. Wade decision was outrageous and unsupported by the Constitution, the Dobbs decision is worse and is the worst decision I have ever read.
It articulates a reason for overruling Roe on one hand, then repeatedly says don't apply its reasoning in other cases. It argues that the abortion right is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and does an outrageous selection of history to back up that decision, including favorable cites of Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century jurist who conceived the notion that husbands can’t be prosecuted for raping their wives, who sentenced women to death as “witches,” and whose misogyny stood out even in his time.
Because the Constitution was written during a time when woman were second-class citizens it holds the law must go back to that standard. As the dissenters write: “When the majority says that we must read our foundational charter as viewed at the time of ratification (except that we may also check it against the Dark Ages,(i.e. Sir Matthew Hale), it consigns women to second-class citizenship.”
The praise for the decision is emotional high-fiving the overturning of Roe and not any reasoning in the decision.
The most likely outcome of Dobbs will be a civil war on the Right between those favoring a total ban on abortion versus those favoring a heartbeat law. Before Dobbs it was easy to kick this can down the road, but no longer.
Kansas proposed amendment:
“§ 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.”
I would bet most voters read that, thought "I don't know what this means," and then instinctively voted "no."
Should something worded that vaguely have been allowed on the ballot?
Let’s not be obtuse and over intellectualize a simple, common sense question about whether you think Roe was “wrongly decided.” You know what he means. Answer him, or don’t, but non-answers are boring.
Women are big on autonomy now? Good to hear it, but in my experience they tend to be statists. Or was all that talk about the Gender Gap just piffle?
Pregnancy is at most 9 months.
Menopause extinguishes the ability to exercise the right to get pregnant. Men have no right here. This was a pregnant woman’s right.
The only reliance interest fertile women had were those who were pregnant when Dobbs was decided but who were ignorant that Dobbs was put on the SC docket before they became pregnant.
So Casey and Roe were weak cases for stare decisis. And there is no constitutional reasoning that ever supported them.
The Constitution itself allows for amendment. So there is no reason for judges to do what they think is best for society. Yet they all do.
But you can also win. And women's autonomy won — decisively — in Kansas. Perhaps, in the long run, political victory will bring the greatest security to women's autonomy. Roe v. Wade was always under threat. The threat finally arrived, and the political reckoning is upon us. And look what happened!
This is why I kept telling my gay friends pushing for the court to institute gay marriage as Constitutionally required were making a bad bargain. Such a win would mean they, even more that abortion rights activists, would tie their future to five judges.
Now they are afraid gay marriage is next. They had the support to start getting laws through legislatures, but choose the "easy" route instead. Now they'd best start working on the hard route now.
Blogger Mark said...
Michael K making crazy claims again, just as unhinged as those suggesting removing right to abortion is one step away from jailing pregnant women to make sure they deliver.
"How about an abused "right" that got pushed to infanticide ? What if divorce was eventually extended to a right to kill the other spouse?"
That's some fine Republican logic right there lol.
Lefty Mark keeps reappearing to offer what appears to be logic on the left. You don't think infanticide is one of the "Prochoice" options?
Overruling of Roe v. Wade simply threw the issue into the political arena.
Sorry. No. The original ruling threw it into the political arena and overturning threw it back where it belonged.
This says more about corporations and employers crushing religious faith than anything political or personal. See the statements by industries threatening to pull out, as it were, from pro-life states.
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed
stare decisis
---As the dissenters write: “When the majority says that we must read our foundational charter as viewed at the time of ratification (except that we may also check it against the Dark Ages,(i.e. Sir Matthew Hale), it consigns women to second-class citizenship.”
Except the decision does not consign women to anything, Gary. It simply says that use of this controversial medical procedure that involves a second, and unprotected, human life, must be decided by the people of each state through their duly elected legislatures. All the rhetoric in the world can't conceal this basic, common-sense action in keeping with American federalism.
Even Althouse is finding ways to agree with it, sort of.
Even the notion of Roe falling under the stare decisis designation is incorrect, when you think about it. As Justice Barrett remarked, it has never been a settled issue. It could not be a super-precedent given the amount of discussion and debate ongoing. Yes, it was decided for the abortion proponents, but the decision enflamed the debate. It did not settle it.
It’s great that the states are doing their jobs. I trust the people in each one to configure their laws as they see fit. The best thing is this process allows evolution of the laws going forward as new information becomes available and/or cultural shifts occur.
It is too soon - and this vote was too soon- to interpret anything from one state's vote. It is obvious that the question was at best obtuse and people being naturally conservative, and having very little time to argue the pros and cons subsequent to Dobbs, said no. Now a real debate can begin and Kansans can decide what they mean by "right to an abortion": heartbeat?; 15 weeks?; forever?
I keep thinking of the argument that a draftee is going to make about the government keeping its hands off his body and the importance of granting the potential draftee "bodily autonomy".
What does the denial of cert by the Supreme Court mean?
Nothing. It has no precedential effect. There are many reasons that the Court might say no to a petition for certiorari.
Now, what does the denial of a ballot proposal mean?
Let's just get something perfectly clear at the outset:
We conservatives WANT you liberals to be aborting your children. We want you in hell and we don't want any of your spawn around after you're gone.
We just want your politicians on record so we can target them. And that's what the Supreme Court did. They just put targets on all your politicians.
I would bet most voters read that, thought "I don't know what this means," and then instinctively voted "no."
Most likely right.
The ballot proposal should have started and ended with something simple, like: "Nothing in the Kansas state constitution creates a right to abortion or requires government funding for abortion."
If only God's biology didn't involve a certain interdependence of human lives, eh? Why'd the Big Guy do that?
We could all have been rugged individualists right to the bitter end! Libertarians! Doctrinairians! OK, say it, Abortionistas!
No, instead, those women got stuck with the awful burden of continuing human existence. What a drag. Cursed with the strong possibility of a baby. Men go to the dance, but the women are biologically fated to the mornings-after. The many mornings-after.
Sucks to be them, doesn't it?
I'll bet we could improve on this dumb system if we asked some good scientists for creative ideas. Like Fauci.....
Polls immediately before the vote show 47 percent in support and 43 percent in opposition, with 10 percent undecided. It looks like that undecided vote stayed undecided with a default "no."
What Kansas should do is keep hammering away at the Kansas Supreme Court case of Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt (2019) in light of the Mississippi focus on the arbitrary viability dividing line and historical analysis in Dobbs.
The most likely outcome of Dobbs will be a civil war on the Right between those favoring a total ban on abortion versus those favoring a heartbeat law. Before Dobbs it was easy to kick this can down the road, but no longer.
I am afraid you may be right Ernest. I made that argument many years ago arguing with liberals over Roe v. Wade. They did not seem to realize that such an act would be of benefit to the Left.
What does "wrongly decided" mean?
Roe had not cognizable reasoning underpinning it. It was made out of whole cloth.
After running organizations and fundraising on full abortion bans for 50 years, it's hypocritical for the pro-lifers to allow it to 4 months and carve out exceptions ... and they're just starting to realize the corner they painted themselves into.
And this is different from the no-restrictions side how?
Actually I can see one difference: the no-restrictions side did a whole lot of their fundraising on two things, "right to choose" and "rape, incest, and life of the mother." But their arguments just prior to and now, after, the USSC ruling are pretty clear that what they were going for all along was in fact no restrictions. How much money would they have raised from middle America - and even some debauched and decadent coastal types - if they'd told the truth about their intentions?
The no-abortion activists were truthful all along, and have been trying for fifty-plus years to convince Americans that abortion is killing a baby. They didn't lie by saying, "Hey, we just want reasonable restrictions." That they haven't convinced everyone simply reflects the fact that convincing people of a hard truth (as they see it) is hard.
The no-restrictions side, knowing that too, didn't even try; instead, they went with lying to those they wanted money and votes from, saying that they supported "choice" as they attacked pregnancy centers, pretending that rape and incest (what a stupid distinction that is!) and the life (or health) of the soon-to-be-non-mother are factors in some unstated but significant majority of the abortions being performed each year. Good God, what a horrific violent crime wave we must have been hiding for five decades!
You people are hypocrites.
No. A hypocrite is someone who's spent the last 50 years screaming, 'My body! My choice!" while now demanding mandates for people to get shot up with an experimental 'vaccine' that doesn't do jack.
Question for Althouse: is there a right to bodily autonomy for men in the Constitution?
An issue with this is that the Kansas Supreme Court had decided that the state constitution (written when abortion was illegal in the territory) contained absolute protections for abortion. This was another example of judiciary overreach. We can say to some extent that Kansans support abortion availability but the ability of the people to regulate this procedure has been hampered. How can there be any support or prohibition of abortion in a state constitution that was not explicitly put there by amendment?
I think most Kansans are pro-life, but an all-out ban is not palatable to the majority of the voting public.
In the end, most people don't want to live in the kind of country that would ban all abortions, even if they personally don't like it.
I have not read the comments and assume someone has made the point, but the pro-abortion groups ran false and very effectively advertisements claiming a yes vote would prohibit abortion to protect the life of the mother and prohibit abortions in the case of rape and incest. It was a blatant lie, taking language designed to expressly authorize such exceptions and falsely claiming the language prohibited such exceptions.
So, the pro-life side got played this time. I assume they will learn and do better next time. The politic of this have yet to play out. It is very hard to predict because a majority would approve abortion in the first 12 weeks, but neither party can support that line.
My guess is the pro-life people might reload with an amendment that prohibits abortions after 12 weeks except in the case of rape, incest or life of the mother - it would pass easily.
Look -- pro-lifers will get what they can when they can. They know that it is unlikely that they will protect all human life everywhere all at once. It will take incremental steps.
The pro-life community understands that Dobbs is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. It is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
Anyone who has been involved knows that.
Don't worry, RMc, I'm sure that there will still be some states where you can kill to your heart's content.
Now I read the comments. I did not see anyone who either referenced the lying ads or the true meaning of the amendment. The amendment simply provided that that abortion was not covered by the Kansas Constitution and was subject to the authority of the legislature.
Text from the ballot measure:
"The Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion, including, but not limited to, in circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother."
IOW, the text is such unintelligible crap that it deserved to lose
Here's how I would have written it:
1: The Constitution of Kansas neither requires abortion to be legal, nor requires it to be illegal
2: The Constitution of Kansas does not in any way require public funding of abortions
3: All the above are left to the law making process
And then campaigned on "abortion is for the Legislature, not the Courts".
In any event, when I lived in a State with an Initiative process, I would have looked at that mess and probably voted no just on general principles
So if you take this to mean "60%+ of Kansas voters want 25 week abortion", I think you will find you are sadly mistaken
"And this is different from the no-restrictions side how?"
People here like to pretend that the only abortion rights people are those who want abortion without restriction, and they are wrong.
Like what was voted on, you have been preaching to the choir so much that you fail to realize that the only binary position that was on this ballot was the pro-life one ... and that in a post-Dobbs world you no longer get to claim the people who are ok with 4.5 months of abortion as pro-life.
Those just became abortion rights voters a they believe in some/any right to abortion and the only people banging the drum and legislating are for less access than that.
You keep posting talking points handed down by your thought leaders, but the truth is that this discussion is now between any abortion access and zero (except for police reported rape/incest).
I am fine with you continuing to pretend this isn't true, Jamie, as that sets November up nicely for those who want reasonable abortion access.
LOL thank you, Beasts of England for your 9:26 am comment.
That quote from Althouse angered me but your humorous response was the perfect antidote. Sometimes mocking is the best way to make one’s point.
You finally get it.
The way I see it is that the battle for “hearts and minds” has just begun. The effect of Roe v Wade for all of these decades has been a devaluation of human life that has corroded the instinct to protect human lives at their most vulnerable time. As long as the charade of a Constitutional right to abort persisted, it wasn’t really possible to change people’s minds other than on a case by case basis- and even then the pro-abortion side did everything possible to impede those discussions. Even now, or maybe especially now, we see efforts by Sen Warren to shut down the nonprofit groups providing support for women who are dealing with unplanned pregnancies.
I’m conflicted about the compromise position on legal restrictions. The absolutist position is the only one that really affirms the reality, but I can concede that there is some need to weigh the burden of pregnancy and also that many people sincerely believe that killing of embryonic life shouldn’t be equated with murder. But I also know that any compromise legislation is still going to permit the vast majority of abortions that are currently occurring! As gruesome as the later stage abortions are, they still are only a small fraction of the death toll.
In addition, having the law represent a compromise lends moral authority to the premise that prenatal life is a continuum where the fetus has to reach a certain stage before obtaining the Constitutional right to life, and that is not altogether different than the situation under the previous court decisions which put the government’s thumb on the scale on the side opposing fetal rights.
But on the other hand, the political reality is such that the compromise reflects what most people believe and I think we probably need to start there and continue to work on changing people’s views over time.
"Mark" says "People here like to pretend that the only abortion rights people are those who want abortion without restriction, and they are wrong."
As usual, "Mark," you only end up causing confusion.
The pro-abortion crowd DOES want abortion without restriction - and they are mostly now being open and up front about it, with the exception of a few who are still fraudulently denying it, even lying to themselves.
The pro-aborts want abortion without restriction and without apology throughout pregnancy for the very logical reason that to allow for ANY restriction is to destroy their entire argument about bodily autonomy, it's a woman's right, etc.
That is what you are standing up for.
From the pro-life perspective, as was stated here before:
In any jurisdiction where it is legal to kill prenatal babies up until birth, which includes our nation's capital and neighboring Maryland, pro-lifers will support a 32-week bill.
Where it is legal through 32 weeks, pro-lifers will support a 24-week bill.
Where it is legal through 24 weeks, pro-lifers will support a 15-week bill.
Where it is legal through 15 weeks, pro-lifers will support a heartbeat bill (six weeks).
many people sincerely believe that killing of embryonic life shouldn’t be equated with murder
Of course, it bears pointing out that many people sincerely believed that Black people and Jews shouldn't be equated with full human beings.
The idea of two classes of humanity - one fully human with rights that should be respected, and the other untermenschen (subhuman) to be viewed as being reducible to chattel property or a social contagion to be eradicated - not to mention the related view that three generations of idiots are enough to justify forcible sterilization, is not an uncommon one in history.
It is also one that is repugnant to civilized society and every notion of true justice.
I'm cynical as to whether this vote means anything. The question is so poorly phrased, it's a gift to abortion supporters. It basically says: We're going to remove a right from the constitution and give legislators the power over it. Well gol-lee! That's about the worst thing you could say to a conservative American voter! You could be talking about the right to bugger young boys, but if you're taking something out of the constitution and giving it to politicians, the Ron Swansons of Kansas will say "Hell no!" In that context, the vote is completely unsurprising.
I'm reminded of that quote from the Matrix on Neo's failure to jump between buildings.
"What does that mean?"
"It doesn't mean a damn thing..."
"The pro-abortion crowd DOES want abortion without restriction"
The 14 week folks are pro-abortion too, and with restrictions, despite what you insist.
They sure aren't anti-abortion if they want to keep the right to abortion services.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा