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

I have to admit, I was pretty pleasantly surprised to see this result. Perhaps things in the more conservative states aren't quite as bad as I imagined. This gives me a little bit of hope, but could also be a one-off.

 

huh?

this is how it is supposed to work. it's a state issue and the voters of the state decided. If you like dead babies, you can move to Kansas. if you don't, you can move out.

More things need to be tossed back to the state. Can you say dept of education

 

I'm not sure how this qualifies as political power.

Personally, I consider what you're talking about, as well as the imposition of individual HI/HC mandates and vaccine mandates, as an exercise in pure raw power. For the most part, all of these things boil down to destroying people's right to self-proprietorship and the freedoms/liberties that extend from that right, and both sides of the political (Dem/Left-Con/Right) aisle and their supporters do it. This transcends politics....

 

I never said “this is how personal bodily autonomy should be decided” — basic human rights should not be put to a vote.

Democracy though is allowing the people to vote which is something many gerrymandered states have removed from the people. People should have direct say over these fascist laws.

 

In the US, we have Freedom of Religion, not from it. People have a right to their faith and to live in a society where that right informs a person's society regarding moral imperatives, like bans on stealing, murdering, liberty and more. It was a major component of ending slavery and pushing civil rights by Baptist Minister Martin Luther King.

You may not like it, but acting like a believer should surrender their right to have an opinion is just... Stalinist.

 

I think many conservatives on pro-choice to some point. Me being a libertarian/conservative am just that. However, how Colorado codified abortion went extreme the other way.

 

His argument is an incredibly frivolous argument. Though the Idaho law doesn't cover it by language, it pretty much does by implication and that's all Idaho has to say in response to the frivolous suit. Although the frivolous suit does have some merit: It will help further clarify uncertainties in the law.

 

It is impossible to have freedom of religion without freedom from religion.

Murder, theft, owning a person — those are all infringements on the rights of another. Homosexuality, wearing mixed fabrics and eating shellfish are made up religious laws with no infringement.

You do not have the right to force belief on others or legislate morality. And when you attempt to do so society will eventually turn against you.

Believers in the supernatural are welcome to have opinions — it is when they try and encode that believe into law is when issues arise.

 

If that is what you took from my words then have at it. That religious people are unable to comprehend the difference between an actual infringement and make believe isn’t my problem.

 

That argument of basic human rights in regards to abortion always forgets the baby is a person and also has inalienable rights.

 

Pro-life has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with human rights. The mother's and the child's.

 

Until it can survive on its own it shouldn’t overrule the autonomy of the mother.

 

Yeah but sexual assault has been redefined so that could mean anything.

 

So why not allow infanticide?

 

Birth defects are nothing new.

 

All law restricts rights. My right to not be murdered restricts my right to kill people that bug me.
Religion informs people about what rights should be paramount.
I will note courts will strike down a law that has no "rational basis". So if I try to pass a law saying you cannot wear mixed fabrics because that would offend G-d, I think I'd lose that one. I vote down abortion law as my religion informs me that something precious is destroyed by abortion and society's values coarsened by a practice that could get me killed or neglected to death in this new, coarser society? That, I'd think, even if informed by religion, would pass muster.

 

The last poll I can find from pew said that only 23% of non-religious people believe abortion should be restricted so it is a minority of a minority that are both non-religious and believe they should be able to control women.

The mother has no real rights if she can be a forced incubator to the state under penalty of law or death.

 

Personal insults are the weapon of a weak mind.
“If you don't like it move” are the words of a imbecile.

 

But, this is democracy. What's the problem?

 

That's kind of a straw man isn't it?

We're talking about abortion, not marriage and contraception, and the SCOTUS leaned on the Fourteenth Amendment, not the First, to make the flimsy case it made in Roe for legalizing abortion. Unfortunately, your argument only serves to highlight and/or reinforce how flimsy the SCOTUS' case was in Roe.

I've argued that the Court would have had a stronger case to legalize abortion (within limits) if it had grounded it on the right to self-proprietorship instead of privacy and due process. The right to self-proprietorship has been recognized by the Supreme Court and most explicitly in Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford (1891), wherein Justice Gray stated the following for the majority, and I quote:

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. As well said by Judge Cooley: 'The right to one's person may be said to be a right of complete immunity; to be let alone.'

So we have a right that was recognized by the SCOTUS, guarded by common law and, as you can see in my signature, part of our history and the roots of our legal/rights traditions going back to mid-17th Century England.

To this day, I am astonished that men who were supposed to be the most brilliant and learned legal minds in America could have screwed up as badly as they did in Roe, but I have been reminded by legal scholars that they weren't the most brilliant and learned legal minds in America, and it showed in their ruling. You speak of penumbrae, but when the justices reached for them in Roe, they reached for the wrong rights.

It's my hope that one day, preferably soon, this will get rectified one way or the other, but if the Court had done it right the first time you and I might not be having this conversation.

 

I think today's reaction to this vote by many Republican state pols will be one of head-scratching bemusement. So much so that when the calls start coming in from so-called "pro-life" orgs and lobbyists they might choose to be "in a meeting" or "spending some time with their families".

 

You mean, this is how our republic was designed to operate. Right?

 

Quite literally, the hysterical cries about red states and abortion are proven false in this case.

So what does the left do? Somehow proclaim, based on this vote, that this proves it should be a federal issue?

It literally makes no sense.

 

Can you tell the difference between
and

Any difference in all about ability to sense their surroundings, feel, think or breathe?

 

The republic that was designed to treat humans as a partial person?

No, this isn’t what that republic was intended to do. Not even slightly.