Why not start with what the legislation proposed? Why not ask the people interviewed what about it was unacceptable? I bet you would have found that most Kansans are still pro life, but there was something too extreme about the bill to pass it. Why not ask what would have made it passable? Oh right, because that’s not the point. The point is to conclude, yes, even those Bible thumping Kansans are pro abortion.
Problems with Roe v Wade is not that it approved abortion itself, but how it was done => Reading rights (by unelected activist judges with no term limits and no mandate to legislate) from the constitution that clearly don't exist in the document and people who wrote original document would certainly not include abortion as constitutional right. By doing this supreme court at time of decision of Roe v Wade has circumvented every possible democratic safeguard as the decision was made by 9 unelected judges (at this point you could also say unelected kings, since they cant be removed by people) with no mandate to legislate.
Kansas just proves the point that the Roe v Wade was not necessary, and that given the chance states and citizens would themselves legislate laws that they want to be governed by. Roe v Wade only legacy will be, that it created division in US society for 50+ years, and its collateral damage will be felt for decades to come. If the Roe v Wade was not pushed trough supreme court, topic of abortion would be settled on state level decades ago, and this would be non-topic in US as it is non-topic in rest of the world.
There is no greater danger for the republic than activist judges with zeal to legislate, since they pervert laws to the way they see it fit, while at same time having no mandate from the people to legislate.
I'm not impressed with the choices this author made for her interviews. Democrats? Former Republicans? Unconventional folks who nevertheless consider themselves Christians? And a pastor who feels compelled to remind the author that pro-life people aren't monsters?
The only thing I learned from this article is that the wording of the referendum was sufficiently confusing that some people voted no because they thought they were voting against abortion. And that is something I had already suspected.
What I got from the article was how thoroughly out of touch most elites are from the folks in flyover country. I've live in Michigan (both urban and rural), Colorado, NOLA, Vegas, upstate NY and now Iowa. The people aren't much different, but the political cultures are.
If you were to do a legitimate poll across the country of whether abortion should be legal with 15-20 week limits, and exceptions for complications, I have to believe that in excess of 90% would support it.
But the left fails to see that people didn't like the SCOTUS legislating a 'right' to abort a fetus as it was crowning. I don't believe that's a left/right position, and don't believe it can just be waved away by the left as gaslighting.
Finally, I found the condescending tone of the author, who treated this like some kind of anthropological mission to study some foreign tribe, distasteful. But it did give me a glimpse of how out of touch the elites (sorry, I couldn't come up with a better term, even though it's rather trite) are with actual US citizens.
“I will not vote for any Republican that backs Trump or MAGA,” Mike says. In 2020, he voted for Joe Biden. - Ah another person that just could not see past personality to make security and economic decisions with their vote. The author could have said "In 2020, he decided to use his vote to destroy the economy". Part of this has to do with how culture is elevating positions to cult-like status. The president is the CEO of the United States, he/she is not a messiah that comes to solve all problems.
The article is really lazy and uses abortion rights (what use to be called choice) as a way to show disdain for Republicans and the virtuous nature of Democrats. Just take a look at some of the lines below and the overall tone of the article that is so clearly a service announcement for the Democratic party.
1. “Everybody in America thinks Kansas is so conservative, but Kansas is pretty staunchly anti-government,” Alie Scholes, an emergency medicine doctor, tells me. (Interpretation: Kansas isn't really conservative we're open minded because we believe in abortion. Do you think Alie is a registered Democrat? Hmmmm)
2. “My entire street is all registered Republicans, except for us, and they all had ‘Vote No’ signs out in their yards.” (Interpretation: See how virtuous I am, the lone oppressed Democrat standing up against tyranny.)
3. Back then, he was a “loyal Republican...I will not vote for any Republican that backs Trump or MAGA,” Mike says. (Interpretation: This is Nancy's real point, avoid Trump (and Republicans in general) no matter the cost. You too can switch your registration.)
4. She says she was an independent until the abortion vote, when she switched her registration to Democratic. “I’ve never had a sign in my front yard ever—we’re not the type to do that,” she says. “We did have a sign up for this.” They both voted no. (Interpretation: You too can become a Democrat and be part of the virtuous party.)
It could have been such a good piece but it didn't address the real questions, what was it about the bill that didn't sit right with those who voted no? What was it about the bill that sat right with people who voted yes?
The article doesn't cut the mustard for Common Sense; it's a veiled PSA.
"Anyway, abortion. He’s for it. Or, at least, the right to have one. He thinks people make mistakes, things happen—he should know—and anyway, who is Jesse Geffs to tell a woman what to do with her body?" - My ongoing question here is why all these people get to tell the female fetus what to do with her body? What bodily autonomy does "that woman" have? At what point during gestation does the fetus become a woman with all the rights that the angry, already born ones have?
We are putting too many people in boxes. I know many Christian conservative republicans that are pro choice with limits. This really isn’t surprising in the least. I would bet that the majority of those few states that are anti abortion will overturn/change to make it legal w restrictions within the next election cycle. Then, maybe some congress person will have the courage to suggest a constitutional amendment that all the states can agree on…. No that would be expecting to much of our elected officials- courage. It’s easier to hide behind executive orders and Supreme Court decision rather than create legislation.
I'll probably get pilloried here for saying so, but I really object to the mystified, almost baffled, tone to articles such as this that reflect that people who possess a sincere faith can actually have thoughtful, nuanced views on complex social issues. It reflects, in my opinion, an utter dearth of people of faith in the daily life of the reporter. Christians, of which I am one, are seen by writers like this one as an oddity, a throwback, a relic of a bygone age with irrational beliefs and a cult-like fealty to whomever is in the pulpit of wherever we kneel on Sundays, whose orders we follow with blind passion. That perception of me, and people like me is a caricature, which can be found I admit, yet a cartoonish depiction of the way most people of faith approach trying to live their lives, trying to sort complex issues in the light of sincere spiritual beliefs. Now I know how the animals at the zoo feel when people come to observe them. Maybe that is why I am increasingly not a fan of zoos.
I take issue with the optimistic framing of this article for the future of Kansas as a pro-choice state. It seems the author relied largely upon anecdotes about her wealthy Republican neighbors opposing the initiative to suggest this is a sea change. It's not. Research on state ballot initiatives consistently shows that voters have a status quo bias. They're reluctant to vote to overturn any law, especially when confronted with a ballot question that is vague or confusing. The Kansas ballot initiative is word salad. Run it again with a specific restriction on abortion access, say, after a 8 weeks and I guarantee it would be enacted.
All intellectually honest people recognized that Roe was legally poorly decided. Now it goes to the states and the people. This is an issue of life not choice, and we should all be careful with taking innocent life.
I read the Kansas amendment and couldn’t understand it at all. I don’t think this is as earth shattering as you do.
I had problems with the perspective on this article because right away, you assumed that everybody who was pro-choice was Democrats and everybody who was anti-choice was republican. You did that by indicating the number of Republican and Democratic voters. Shouldn't the point of your whole journey to Kansas have been an open-minded perspective to see how it is that people feel about this issue despite their religion or political preference?
Rommelmann appears to be attempting to shape, rather than report the news about Roe v. Wade in Kansas. She neglects to provide the reader with specifics - do Kansans want abortion to be available during the entire pregnancy, as was the case with Roe, or do Kansans favor limiting abortion to a specific number of weeks or months? Rejecting Roe as a constitutionally-guaranteed right in *no way* is a Handmaid’s Tale-style rejection of abortion. Unconstitutional law from activist judges is out; state-determined approaches now are and should always have been determinative.
I am pretty conservative, but having considered the abortion question for a really long time (I'm 79.5 years old), it seems to me that there is no "correct" answer to this problem. BUT, having said that, I add that the slogan, "A woman has a right to do with her own body as she pleases." is vapid and intellectually lazy. The moral issue apart, the State (i.e. the governmental authority) has an interest in life and death matters. That is why the State takes an interest in murder, rape, incest, euthanasia, and abortion...all personal matters that happen to ordinary citizens. Therefore, the pronouncement that the woman does have a "right" to "her own body" belies the interest of the State. The objective truth is that her body is housing a second body...her child. There are three conflicting interests here: the woman's, the fetus's, and the State's. Whose rights take precedence? In a democracy we work out such a fraught issue by voting...which Kansas has done. I think Kansas has done about as well as we can. The Roe vs Wade decision of the Supreme Court was apparently a poor decision that sought the "correct" answer by a reasoning that has not stood the test of time and perspective. That Kansas has found its own solution...so be it.
This absolutely confirms for me the sad truth about how people “on the left”, like this writer, lump people into groups erroneously. Just because you’re a Republican doesn’t mean you’re anti abortion. Because I voted for Trump I am now a racist, sexist, homophobic. I am so sick of this mentality. It has infected our culture to the point of tearing families apart. It’s time to look in the mirror and really see the carnage this divisiveness caused. Very disappointed in Bari Weiss for running this BS.
I defend the SCOTUS ruling. I also think these trigger warnings and total bans on abortion are reaching too far. The Dems swung too far and even celebrated late-term abortions. Disgusting. Now many Republican legislators are swinging too far the other way and banning all abortions. Before 6 weeks? Really? After 20 weeks? Really? I hope it would only be to save the mother’s life. Let’s all exercise some moderation here.
Oh good grief. What drivel.
Why not start with what the legislation proposed? Why not ask the people interviewed what about it was unacceptable? I bet you would have found that most Kansans are still pro life, but there was something too extreme about the bill to pass it. Why not ask what would have made it passable? Oh right, because that’s not the point. The point is to conclude, yes, even those Bible thumping Kansans are pro abortion.
Bari, I deserve better, please.
No it doesn't.
Problems with Roe v Wade is not that it approved abortion itself, but how it was done => Reading rights (by unelected activist judges with no term limits and no mandate to legislate) from the constitution that clearly don't exist in the document and people who wrote original document would certainly not include abortion as constitutional right. By doing this supreme court at time of decision of Roe v Wade has circumvented every possible democratic safeguard as the decision was made by 9 unelected judges (at this point you could also say unelected kings, since they cant be removed by people) with no mandate to legislate.
Kansas just proves the point that the Roe v Wade was not necessary, and that given the chance states and citizens would themselves legislate laws that they want to be governed by. Roe v Wade only legacy will be, that it created division in US society for 50+ years, and its collateral damage will be felt for decades to come. If the Roe v Wade was not pushed trough supreme court, topic of abortion would be settled on state level decades ago, and this would be non-topic in US as it is non-topic in rest of the world.
There is no greater danger for the republic than activist judges with zeal to legislate, since they pervert laws to the way they see it fit, while at same time having no mandate from the people to legislate.
I'm not impressed with the choices this author made for her interviews. Democrats? Former Republicans? Unconventional folks who nevertheless consider themselves Christians? And a pastor who feels compelled to remind the author that pro-life people aren't monsters?
The only thing I learned from this article is that the wording of the referendum was sufficiently confusing that some people voted no because they thought they were voting against abortion. And that is something I had already suspected.
What I got from the article was how thoroughly out of touch most elites are from the folks in flyover country. I've live in Michigan (both urban and rural), Colorado, NOLA, Vegas, upstate NY and now Iowa. The people aren't much different, but the political cultures are.
If you were to do a legitimate poll across the country of whether abortion should be legal with 15-20 week limits, and exceptions for complications, I have to believe that in excess of 90% would support it.
But the left fails to see that people didn't like the SCOTUS legislating a 'right' to abort a fetus as it was crowning. I don't believe that's a left/right position, and don't believe it can just be waved away by the left as gaslighting.
Finally, I found the condescending tone of the author, who treated this like some kind of anthropological mission to study some foreign tribe, distasteful. But it did give me a glimpse of how out of touch the elites (sorry, I couldn't come up with a better term, even though it's rather trite) are with actual US citizens.
“I will not vote for any Republican that backs Trump or MAGA,” Mike says. In 2020, he voted for Joe Biden. - Ah another person that just could not see past personality to make security and economic decisions with their vote. The author could have said "In 2020, he decided to use his vote to destroy the economy". Part of this has to do with how culture is elevating positions to cult-like status. The president is the CEO of the United States, he/she is not a messiah that comes to solve all problems.
The article is really lazy and uses abortion rights (what use to be called choice) as a way to show disdain for Republicans and the virtuous nature of Democrats. Just take a look at some of the lines below and the overall tone of the article that is so clearly a service announcement for the Democratic party.
1. “Everybody in America thinks Kansas is so conservative, but Kansas is pretty staunchly anti-government,” Alie Scholes, an emergency medicine doctor, tells me. (Interpretation: Kansas isn't really conservative we're open minded because we believe in abortion. Do you think Alie is a registered Democrat? Hmmmm)
2. “My entire street is all registered Republicans, except for us, and they all had ‘Vote No’ signs out in their yards.” (Interpretation: See how virtuous I am, the lone oppressed Democrat standing up against tyranny.)
3. Back then, he was a “loyal Republican...I will not vote for any Republican that backs Trump or MAGA,” Mike says. (Interpretation: This is Nancy's real point, avoid Trump (and Republicans in general) no matter the cost. You too can switch your registration.)
4. She says she was an independent until the abortion vote, when she switched her registration to Democratic. “I’ve never had a sign in my front yard ever—we’re not the type to do that,” she says. “We did have a sign up for this.” They both voted no. (Interpretation: You too can become a Democrat and be part of the virtuous party.)
It could have been such a good piece but it didn't address the real questions, what was it about the bill that didn't sit right with those who voted no? What was it about the bill that sat right with people who voted yes?
The article doesn't cut the mustard for Common Sense; it's a veiled PSA.
"Anyway, abortion. He’s for it. Or, at least, the right to have one. He thinks people make mistakes, things happen—he should know—and anyway, who is Jesse Geffs to tell a woman what to do with her body?" - My ongoing question here is why all these people get to tell the female fetus what to do with her body? What bodily autonomy does "that woman" have? At what point during gestation does the fetus become a woman with all the rights that the angry, already born ones have?
We are putting too many people in boxes. I know many Christian conservative republicans that are pro choice with limits. This really isn’t surprising in the least. I would bet that the majority of those few states that are anti abortion will overturn/change to make it legal w restrictions within the next election cycle. Then, maybe some congress person will have the courage to suggest a constitutional amendment that all the states can agree on…. No that would be expecting to much of our elected officials- courage. It’s easier to hide behind executive orders and Supreme Court decision rather than create legislation.
I'll probably get pilloried here for saying so, but I really object to the mystified, almost baffled, tone to articles such as this that reflect that people who possess a sincere faith can actually have thoughtful, nuanced views on complex social issues. It reflects, in my opinion, an utter dearth of people of faith in the daily life of the reporter. Christians, of which I am one, are seen by writers like this one as an oddity, a throwback, a relic of a bygone age with irrational beliefs and a cult-like fealty to whomever is in the pulpit of wherever we kneel on Sundays, whose orders we follow with blind passion. That perception of me, and people like me is a caricature, which can be found I admit, yet a cartoonish depiction of the way most people of faith approach trying to live their lives, trying to sort complex issues in the light of sincere spiritual beliefs. Now I know how the animals at the zoo feel when people come to observe them. Maybe that is why I am increasingly not a fan of zoos.
I take issue with the optimistic framing of this article for the future of Kansas as a pro-choice state. It seems the author relied largely upon anecdotes about her wealthy Republican neighbors opposing the initiative to suggest this is a sea change. It's not. Research on state ballot initiatives consistently shows that voters have a status quo bias. They're reluctant to vote to overturn any law, especially when confronted with a ballot question that is vague or confusing. The Kansas ballot initiative is word salad. Run it again with a specific restriction on abortion access, say, after a 8 weeks and I guarantee it would be enacted.
All intellectually honest people recognized that Roe was legally poorly decided. Now it goes to the states and the people. This is an issue of life not choice, and we should all be careful with taking innocent life.
I read the Kansas amendment and couldn’t understand it at all. I don’t think this is as earth shattering as you do.
I had problems with the perspective on this article because right away, you assumed that everybody who was pro-choice was Democrats and everybody who was anti-choice was republican. You did that by indicating the number of Republican and Democratic voters. Shouldn't the point of your whole journey to Kansas have been an open-minded perspective to see how it is that people feel about this issue despite their religion or political preference?
Rommelmann appears to be attempting to shape, rather than report the news about Roe v. Wade in Kansas. She neglects to provide the reader with specifics - do Kansans want abortion to be available during the entire pregnancy, as was the case with Roe, or do Kansans favor limiting abortion to a specific number of weeks or months? Rejecting Roe as a constitutionally-guaranteed right in *no way* is a Handmaid’s Tale-style rejection of abortion. Unconstitutional law from activist judges is out; state-determined approaches now are and should always have been determinative.
I am pretty conservative, but having considered the abortion question for a really long time (I'm 79.5 years old), it seems to me that there is no "correct" answer to this problem. BUT, having said that, I add that the slogan, "A woman has a right to do with her own body as she pleases." is vapid and intellectually lazy. The moral issue apart, the State (i.e. the governmental authority) has an interest in life and death matters. That is why the State takes an interest in murder, rape, incest, euthanasia, and abortion...all personal matters that happen to ordinary citizens. Therefore, the pronouncement that the woman does have a "right" to "her own body" belies the interest of the State. The objective truth is that her body is housing a second body...her child. There are three conflicting interests here: the woman's, the fetus's, and the State's. Whose rights take precedence? In a democracy we work out such a fraught issue by voting...which Kansas has done. I think Kansas has done about as well as we can. The Roe vs Wade decision of the Supreme Court was apparently a poor decision that sought the "correct" answer by a reasoning that has not stood the test of time and perspective. That Kansas has found its own solution...so be it.
This absolutely confirms for me the sad truth about how people “on the left”, like this writer, lump people into groups erroneously. Just because you’re a Republican doesn’t mean you’re anti abortion. Because I voted for Trump I am now a racist, sexist, homophobic. I am so sick of this mentality. It has infected our culture to the point of tearing families apart. It’s time to look in the mirror and really see the carnage this divisiveness caused. Very disappointed in Bari Weiss for running this BS.
I defend the SCOTUS ruling. I also think these trigger warnings and total bans on abortion are reaching too far. The Dems swung too far and even celebrated late-term abortions. Disgusting. Now many Republican legislators are swinging too far the other way and banning all abortions. Before 6 weeks? Really? After 20 weeks? Really? I hope it would only be to save the mother’s life. Let’s all exercise some moderation here.