https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Kansas_Value_Them_Both_Amendment
-
I do not believe that most Republicans agree with banning abortion altogether. Even though the Amendment didn't ban abortion, I think the Kansas voters saw it in those terms. The Amendment lost because all of the Left voted against it, while the Right was split. It was not a "party line" vote.
-
I think the move by a number of Republican legislatures to enact total bans on abortion is bad politics that will cost the Right votes. I happen to support abortion, but only because it strongly reduces crime and other social ills. However, I think the bulk of the Right wants to see highly restricted abortion only allowed for 8-12 weeks or so, as opposed to a complete ban. So by moving aggressively with bans, the R legislatures are over-correcting and pushing a greater degree of restriction than even a lot of Republicans/conservatives agree with.
-
I do not agree with the prevailing Democrat talking point that the Kansas vote signals a blue backlash against Roe being overturned. I don't think Republicans are going to change their vote in the general election over abortion, however, I do think enacting total bans will cause some drag/backlash whereas the legislatures that have capped abortions at 8-15 weeks somewhere will not see backlash as those restrictions have broad support.
If you were opposed to ritual child sacrifice, would you vote yes or no to this?
I'm against abortion. Life begins at conception. We know this because SCIENCE tells us that a new person with DISTINCT DNA separate from that of their mother is created through reproductive acts.
That said, I can't fucking understand that ballot question, holy shit.
Had to read the question 4 times to parse it, and normally I'm pretty good at reading legalese.
It's a two-part question with opposite clauses asking a singular yes or no answer. Question 1 is "Do you want to forbid the possibility of Kansas funding abortions via government spending?"
Question 2 is a complete new thought, regardless of Q1 (but you only get one answer), "Do you want to allow Kansas to play wild west with the law?" Also, it spelled "circumstnces" wrong so they're definitely professionals.
There's no answer valid for "Forbid funding, forbid playing wild west with laws", and there's no answer valid for "allow funding, allow playing wild west with laws".
It's the lawyeryest of lawyerspeak, where "yes" means "give them powers to do what they want law-wise without repercussion or oversight", and "no" means "give them powers to do what they want funding-wise without repercussion or oversight".