I’ve only skimmed over but it looks like results are pretty clear? (correct me if I’m wrong)
I’m not saying this just because I myself am pro-choice (I basically don’t care and will sleep either way, but I can’t with a straight face say that I want the govt the fuck out of my life and then turnaround and say it’s ok to tell women what to do)…But I’m bringing it up because I really think the right is fighting a losing battle and may even lose some of the middle over it.
Have said this for a long time now, including on this message board. America accepted abortion some time ago.
Agreed. Their constituency has spoken loud and clear.
The thing is, Kansas might be a bit of a bubble because they had already interpreted this state constitutional protection. I’m not sure how many other state constitutions match up.
But as far as the will of the people, I do think a full ban is a losing battle.
Well, let’s be real here. They will work on rewording language, spamming churches, and build support over time. Just like stacking the court took a few decades, they continue to do the lawds work.
So it’s not like Kansas just passed a law saying abortion rights were guaranteed.
Rather, the Kansas constitution also guaranteed abortion rights. Not explicitly, but similar to Roe, in that a State Supreme Court case found that their constitution gives women the right of autonomy over their body.
I would need to look it up to give more details (since believe it or not I don’t make a habit of staying current with Kansas law), but what happened is Republicans tried to remove the already-in-place protections, and voters resoundly voted against any changes.
So the outcome is less about something new and more about keeping things how they’ve been. There would need to be another Roe-like decision on the state level to change that.
It’s a silly decision if you ask me personally. The way I read it, if I understand it correctly, the decision hinges on the first of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution which reads:
Equal rights. All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Where they derive the “right to an abortion” out of this is beside me. I guess I have to go into their opinion for their justifications.
Yes. Essentially, they looked to the common-law definition of “natural rights” and translated that to a right of personal autonomy. From there:
Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights affords protection of the right
of personal autonomy, which includes the ability to control one’s own body, to assert
bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination. This right allows a woman to make
her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life—
decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy.
But the whole thing is similar to Roe, where that interpretation can change if suitably challenged. In other words, they don’t have an explicit “right to abortion” law on the books.
Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights affords protection of the right
of personal autonomy, which includes the ability to control one’s own body, to assert
bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination. This right allows a woman to make
her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life—
decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy.
The actual constitutional section is the part GSC quoted. The rest is newer than I thought.
In 2015, lawmakers in Kansas tried to pass an abortion ban. It failed, went to appeals, and failed again. Abortion was still legal. This went to their Supreme Court. In 2019 they finally ruled and gave their interpretation of natural rights in Section 1. That finally cemented abortion as a constitutional right in Kansas.
So I suppose lawmakers were trying to gut a 3-year-old right and failed.