Kansas voters block effort to ban abortion in state constitutional amendment vote

You're saying that the women in Kansas who are Republicans and just voted not to Constitutionally ban abortion in the state come November will vote for Republicans that want to keep Kansas' very restrictive abortion laws as is or even ban it completely?

State Facts About Abortion: Kansas | Guttmacher Institute

 

So, let's avoid the content at all costs. "Waaaah! The writer!"?

It's from the History Channel, ferfucksake. It's accurate.

 

I think a lot of people who post on political forums probably have their minds/positions more set than the general public who don't. I can see Rs voting for Ds on this issue just as I saw Ds voting Reagan/Schwarzenegger or Rs Obama.

 

Without the right to one’s own body all other rights are irrelevant.

 

That's what I'm saying.

 

I've had more than a few Leftists tell me we don't have any natural rights at all. They think rights are privileges granted to us by government and/or society - in other words, they don't have a clue what rights are at all.

And not long ago many of them were cheering as Democrats imposed individual HI/HC mandates and vaccine mandates on people. It's interesting that those hypocrites have suddenly discovered the value of the right to self-proprietorship but they'll abandon their support of that right as quickly as they embraced it.

 

I became so disgusted with my 3x Dem governor and the party that I voted for a Republican for governor and liked him so much I voted again for him and will again this November,

So yes..it does happen, lol

 

I'll get back to you on that come November.

It will be interesting to see how Kansas goes along with the other states that have very restrictive abortion laws.

 

It’s known as “The Big Switch.” That’s when Southern Democrat politicians converted to Republicanism and refashioned the G.O.P. into a racist political party.

The only problem? It’s not true. But first a little history.

The general narrative of this “switch” is capsulized in a 2017 History.com article.[1] The 30-something author documented how the Democratic Party–known for its historic racism–split in 1948 when Harry S. Truman (D-MO) first “introduced a pro-civil rights platform” into the Democratic Party. Strom Thurmond (D-SC) and a faction of Southern Democrats, consequently, bolted from Democrats to create the “States Rights” (Dixiecrat) party. The author then states these Dixiecrats eventually converted to Republicanism–along with Thurmond–in 1964. Later, Nixon’s “southern strategy” and Reagan’s conservatism moved the Democratic “blue” South to become a firm “red” Republican in the 1970s and 1980s.

Today, Democrats routinely finger Republicans as “racists,” pointing to occasional neo-Nazi politicians (David Duke, a one-term Louisiana state legislator), obscure racist organizations (Patriot Front) and Confederate flag-waving MAGA types. In fact, just wearing a MAGA hat is considered “racist” by many individuals on the left.

It’s a strong and divisive narrative…but what’s the TRUTH?

THE BIG SWITCH THAT WASN’T: THE DIXIECRATS, RACE AND 1964 - American 1

 

Crude closed under $89 per barrel and yes, fear the SCOTUS ruling knocking down ROW. Deflections are the only thing left to do but that's a daily occurrence with your posting MO.

 

Thank you for the quote
I will remind you in a few months

 

$50 American. BUT we must agree what "Sweep the board" actually means?

Got the link for those? And do you mean you don't believe Biden will run in 2024?

 

Then will you admit that your media theories have all been BS or will you just move on to some election fraud claims?

 

You are on - but make it $50 donation to the board itself.
I am predicting that unless something major occurs between now and then (I.e. Joe Biden sells America or Vladimir Putin for a handful of beads) that the Dems will actually pick up seats. Women are ANGRY about disruption in essential healthcare and the veterans are not going to forget the GOP stunt over the PACT act any time soon

 

You're on but again we must agree what "Sweep the board" means. I define it as the GOP gaining double digit majorities in both Congress and Senate and the presidency.

 

Hmmmm. Not betting on the presidential race yet - too many maybes - as the saying goes “A lot can happen in a year I might die, the King might die or the horse might talk”

This is essentially no different from anywhere in the world that has a UHC - as soon as it is threatened the party doing the threatening is voted out. This is HEALTHCARE. The horror stories are not going to stop. If you want to be cynical chalk that up to a media that has to feed its minions. Then look at what happened in Ireland and Argentina. There is a lot of simmering anger over a ten year old and do not tell me “she could have” this is not up to me - this is women looking at their sisters/cousins/daughters and wondering who will be next. Who will have to die before these oxygen bandits who wrote these idiot laws realise that abortion is NOT a dichotomy with a “right” and “wrong” side it is a complex issue with nothing but shades of grey

 

So a person on life support should not be seen as a person with rights?

 

Call it what you want but it is a human being once conception has taken place. And every human being has inalienable rights protected by the constitution.

 

That is a religious assertion, and not allowed in a court of law.

Btw, calling a day old fetus a human being is not entirely sane. You're conflating potential with the actual..

 

That is a science assertion. It is biology. It is a child/baby. You are insane for convincing yourself the fetus is not a human being the same way Nazi's convinced people Jews were not human.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=conception
con·cep·tion
[kənˈsɛpʃ(ə)n]
NOUN

1. the action of conceiving a child or of one being conceived:
   "an unfertilized egg before conception" ·
   conceiving · fertilization ·

 

It's a fetus, not a child, and not a baby.

Let me make it simple enough for you to understand. Inside is fetus, outside is baby. See? Even you can do it.

And you are avoiding the part where religion is not allowed... you are making an entirely religious argument.

 

Natural Rights is philosophy, legal rights are a result of your legal system.

They are not the same.

The Right seems to be using Natural Rights as a wishing well. Good luck with that.

 

BS source it, don't give me one politician, show me the political stance of the party. Sure as heck seems the Republican politicians are happy the states get to decide, after that I don't see the "party" leaning towards anything.

 

So Kansas has 495,000 registered dems to 852,000 Republicans
The vote tally was 542k to 347k.
So, if every registered Dem in the state voted, which we know didn't happen, they still couldn't have passed it. Yes, Republicans supported and passed this in Kansas.

 

Hmmm sounds like the Right's position on vaccines. I agree though.