What does it mean that Kansas decided in favor of women's choice 59% to 41%

Prove a miscarriage is not actually an abortion without an invasive pelvic exam for the woman - you can't
. You have to FORCE the woman to undergo that invasive exam - a violation of privacy doesn't get more obvious than that.

 

What it shows is that Democrats give more of a damn about abortion than Republicans do. And that was the only thing on the ballot.

 

No, our rights enumerated in the Constitution were legislated by our Founders. If we need additional rights, it is up to our legislators to legislate them. It is up to the SC to make sure our laws do not violate the Constitution. Period. They are, in effect, protecting the authority of our Constitution and the rights therein, and insuring that state and federal laws don't violate the Constitution. It is distinctly not the Court's primary job to protect the human rights of the people. We do that through legislation.

 

Actually what it means is that LW legend that all conservative oppose reasonable abortion laws is like so much of the liberal ideology.

 

If you have a brain tumor, or some other growth that could be hazardous to your health, would you want it's removal left up to a vote? It's living, human tissue, just like most aborted embryos and fetuses.

This isn't about removing life, it's about whether or not a state government can violate your right to keep your personal medical issues private. Please read the 4th Amendment, and Section 1 of the 14th.

 

What does conversion therapy have to do with how Kansas voted on abortion bans?

 

It demonstrates the principle that the state has the ability to regulate what medical care you can receive..

 

And the state can rummage through your personal belongings. But you may have a case that such an exam is forbidden by the fith amendment against self incrimination.

 

Do you want the state, any state, involved in your medical decisions?

 

ridiculous, seth. inenumerated rights are reserved to the people, not the states. amendment 9. if the founders thought for a minute that their privacy would be in question there would be no constitution.

i don't need the state to tell me what i can do in my own home.

 

Exactly. Or any government body. Especially an unelected one. It is good that SCOTUS sent the issue back to the PEOPLE.

 

Sure it is. But it wasn't always so.

Frank also claims a bitter divide between 'moderate' and 'conservative' Kansas Republicans (whom he labels "Mods" and "Cons") as an archetype for the future of politics in America, in which fiscal conservatism becomes the universal norm and political war is waged over a handful of hot-button cultural issues.

Not long ago, Kansas would have responded to the current situation by making the bastards pay. This would have been a political certainty, as predictable as what happens when you touch a match to a puddle of gasoline. When business screwed the farmers and the workers – when it implemented monopoly strategies invasive beyond the Populists' furthest imaginings – when it ripped off shareholders and casually tossed thousands out of work – you could be damned sure about what would follow. Not these days. Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, further to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics. Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO, and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed (unions, antitrust, public ownership), and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower.

— Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas? (2004), pp. 67–68
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What'...Won the Heart,of Kansas, Frank's native state.

 

BTW,

New polling from Monmouth University shows that Democrats are faring better in general than Republicans when it comes to who Americans believe should control Congress.

The poll, conducted between July 28 to August 1, asked respondents who they preferred to be in charge of the legislative branch. Democrats attained decisive support from 38 percent of respondents, with another 12 percent saying they leaned toward Democrats. Republicans, meanwhile, received 34 percent support, with an additional 9 percent saying they leaned toward them.

Overall, when general support for either party was combined with respondents who leaned each way, 50 percent of Americans say they want Democrats to control Congress after this year’s midterms – a 7 point lead over Republicans’ 43 percent.
https://truthout.org/articles/new-p...-by-7-points-in-generic-congressional-ballot/

 

kansas was founded on the no man's land of the civil war, and fought a bloody guerilla war vs missouri for years before ft sumpter.

 

Spare us the dilution and confusion.

The vote in Kansas primarily says that they recognize the values involved, the rights of the individual in personal choices. That's not political- or shouldn't be although it's being forced on America by the democrats.
And I don't know of any place where people object to rejecting racism- but a lot that object to teaching it, trying to make children of today feel guilty and responsible for things that happened centuries before their birth. Things, when we speak of slavery- that were imported here, not invented here... and were actually fueled by the fact that it was not white people capturing blacks and selling them into slavery- it was black people. You don't improve a nation by destroying it's spirit and pride- you only do that when you value power far more than people, and think only of yourself and right now.

If the left actually gave a damn about the people and the nation, they would be working to solve legitimate problems fairly instead of distorting facts and inventing them, muck raking and redefining the english language to dodge culpability- and label those who oppose them with unsavory titles. That is the definition of the democratic party today, as is being written by the actions of the democratic party today.

The only hope for such people is to double down and increase the deception and evasion that has sadly become their identity.

Many ex-democrats say "I didn't leave the democratic party; the party left me". Yes, they have left their best, their most honorable behind. They didn't have room for that in the democratic party of today.

 

Which is a standard not argued. An invention of speculation on your part. And frankly, begs credulity. Are you suggesting that we should now consider any miscarriage to be an act of medical abortion? Whom would you attach in such a claim? It seems transparently flimsy and vacuous. And no one, law of any state, is creating the condition which you find offensive.

Again, the claim was a forth amendment infringement. So far, you've not provided evidence of that. Sorry, your speculative fear doesn't count.

 

It means that the mid terms have to be about the SCOTUS ruling. Women will have to send a clear and loud message.

If they don't, they can't blame POTUS, the democrats and representative democracy when they end up bare foot and in the kitchen again.

 

Yeah... you carefully chose the words "actively oppose" on purpose to hide what the hell you're talking about. Normally I wouldn't even bother responding, but I have a few extra minutes. So I'll bite. But be aware that next time, I probably won't.

If you mean, for example, that they would support creating an Inquisition-type court that burns at the stake (or in any way punishes) any doctors who provides a medically necessary abortion after consulting with the mother, then they are most DEFINTELY fanatics. If you mean they wouldn't consent to an abortion of THEIR OWN fetus if the doctor tells them it could cost them their life, or that the fetus would suffer horribly if the pregnancy continued, then it would be a fuzzy area.... but I would be inclined to consider them fanatics too. But if they are victims of rape or incest and decide to not undergo an abortion because of their religious beliefs, I wouldn't say they're fanatics at all. Not to mention Catholics who don't agree with the Church dogma on this issue, and would have an abortion anyway...

 

Human rights should NOT be legislated. Much less voted on. The fact that the British legislated them is the STATED reason why the Founders declared an Independence from Britain and constituted a new Nation. Read the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. They make it VERY clear that Human Rights TRUMP any legislation.

 

So you agree that personal choices can be subject to vote, then. You'd be ok if we vote on how many children you can have. But you're white, so you wouldn't care if somebody decided to vote on whether or not black people are allowed to own a house. And you're probably a Christian, so you wouldn't mind if somebody were to put the right of Muslims to pray up for vote. It's no wonder that, being a man, you don't care if people vote to allow women to decide over what to do with their own bodies.

You have all the right conditions: a white Christian heterosexual adult male, who doesn't give a rat's ass if other vote to remove rights of people who the rights of those who don't have your "privileges". And is not afraid that voters might one day remove any of them. So yeah! Have at it! Put everybody else's personal rights to a vote.

 

Absolutely spot on! And it's an easy choice for women because they can see their rights removed. Hispanics, blacks, LGBTQs, Muslims, Jews, ... I wonder if they understand that women have the advantage of being a large group of people. If, under exactly the same SCOTUS decision that allowed this vote to happen, the rights of groups that are not as numerous are put up for vote, they will likely LOOSE.

They have put us on a clear path towards fascism. And we will ALL (right wingers and left wingers) see our rights restricted in one way or another if we don't stop it NOW.

 

HEAR HEAR

 

The Catholics are just as anti abortion and just as active as the other Christian faiths. If the other Christian faiths are fanatics based their beliefs on abortion, then the Catholics are also fanatics.

 

Women need to turn out in droves in Nov and simply vote their interest. PERIOD!

 

So we can agree then that its likely many of these voters didn't vote for what they thought they were voting for ...which means this vote was not an indication of how popular abortion is, as OP claims.