goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Kat Kid on April 26, 2019, 05:56:12 PM
-
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/kansas-supreme-court-abortion-rights-case-roe-wade.html (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/kansas-supreme-court-abortion-rights-case-roe-wade.html)
I bet Wichita turns in to Northern Ireland during the Troubles any second.
-
Activist judges :angry:
-
Constitutional amendment time, baby.
-
Constitutional amendment time, baby.
What would said amendment say?
-
Constitutional amendment time, baby.
What would said amendment say?
Without giving this much thought, I think an amendment could be crafted that states that the definition of "inalienable rights" does not include an unfettered right to abortion.
There may be neater or better ways for the legislature to do it.
-
These liberal judges that we have had for at least a decade are going to find that abortion is a right guaranteed by the Kansas constitution now, though. :angry:
:surprised:
-
more like Rage Against the McKeestradamus
-
I’ve been seeing tons of signs in support of the KS abortion amendment when I’ve been out and about lately. Saw a sign for a group called Abortion Is Murder - Kansas in front of a church today. They are denouncing the amendment because it doesn’t explicitly outlaw abortion and provide criminal penalties to anyone involved (merely paves the way for reactionaries in the ksleg to write the most draconian laws possible). This group is explicitly promoting theocracy:
https://aimks.org/ (https://aimks.org/)
-
Most of the propaganda that I've come across regarding the amendment is trying to downplay it. Says things like the amendment doesn't actually ban abortion so more people will vote for it. As if banning abortion wouldn't be the very first thing the legislature does after it passes.
It's kind of ridiculous that anyone is wasting money on it, anyway. It's already on a primary ballot so it's going to easily pass. It probably wouldn't have much trouble passing on a general election ballot.
-
I’ve been seeing tons of signs in support of the KS abortion amendment when I’ve been out and about lately. Saw a sign for a group called Abortion Is Murder - Kansas in front of a church today. They are denouncing the amendment because it doesn’t explicitly outlaw abortion and provide criminal penalties to anyone involved (merely paves the way for reactionaries in the ksleg to write the most draconian laws possible). This group is explicitly promoting theocracy:
https://aimks.org/ (https://aimks.org/)
other anti-abortion groups are like "who wants to be the one to tell them"
-
https://fox4kc.com/politics/your-local-election-headquarters/voter-registration-up-more-than-1000-in-kansas-since-overturn-of-roe-v-wade/
“For Kansas and Missouri registrations, comparing Friday, June 17 to Friday, June 24, we saw a 1,038% increase in Kansas and a 627% increase in Missouri,” Nick Morrow, director of communications for Vote.org, said in an email Monday.
interesting
-
https://twitter.com/ameliatd/status/1549755437771366400
-
It may very well pass but I also think it's going to be a lot, lot closer than anyone will think
-
Definitely way more "vote no" signs where I live, but my congressional district is represented by a female, native american, homosexual.
I am a "vote no" supporter, and hope that "no" wins, but what's to stop the right wing from putting this up for vote on every election going forward if they don't win this one?
-
I still expect "yes" to win pretty convincingly, but I really hope that "no" wins.
-
we live in a disheartening time.
-
Definitely way more "vote no" signs where I live, but my congressional district is represented by a female, native american, homosexual.
I am a "vote no" supporter, and hope that "no" wins, but what's to stop the right wing from putting this up for vote on every election going forward if they don't win this one?
I would expect it to be put on every single ballot until the end of time until "yes" wins.
-
Definitely way more "vote no" signs where I live, but my congressional district is represented by a female, native american, homosexual.
I am a "vote no" supporter, and hope that "no" wins, but what's to stop the right wing from putting this up for vote on every election going forward if they don't win this one?
I would expect it to be put on every single ballot until the end of time until "yes" wins.
I don't think 2/3 of the state legislature will be able to keep putting a losing measure on the ballot and still hold onto their seats.
-
I have a shred of hope that this amendment fails but not more than a shred.
-
Everyone needs to get the word out to vote "NO". I myself have taken to Facebook for the first time in 6+ years, and I don't even live in Kansas.
-
I've always told myself that Kansas is mostly the way that it is politically because of all of the single issue abortion voters. It would be amazing to me to see more than 50% of a general population vote go pro-choice.
-
Also, the pro-life commercials come across as very strange to me. Talking about how the amendment doesn't actually ban abortion but allows our elected officials to place the common sense barriers to abortion that are already in place. I think they'd do better leaning in and claiming that this amendment will allow congress to ban all abortions in 2023.
-
Also, the pro-life commercials come across as very strange to me. Talking about how the amendment doesn't actually ban abortion but allows our elected officials to place the common sense barriers to abortion that are already in place. I think they'd do better leaning in and claiming that this amendment will allow congress to ban all abortions in 2023.
I'm pretty confident you are not their target audience.
-
Also, the pro-life commercials come across as very strange to me. Talking about how the amendment doesn't actually ban abortion but allows our elected officials to place the common sense barriers to abortion that are already in place. I think they'd do better leaning in and claiming that this amendment will allow congress to ban all abortions in 2023.
I'm pretty confident you are not their target audience.
I'm not, but I'm also pretty sure that their target audience wants more restrictions on abortion than we currently have. It's weird that they claim to not want that.
-
Also, the pro-life commercials come across as very strange to me. Talking about how the amendment doesn't actually ban abortion but allows our elected officials to place the common sense barriers to abortion that are already in place. I think they'd do better leaning in and claiming that this amendment will allow congress to ban all abortions in 2023.
I'm pretty confident you are not their target audience.
I'm not, but I'm also pretty sure that their target audience wants more restrictions on abortion than we currently have. It's weird that they claim to not want that.
It is not "weird" it is just that they are obviously lying.
-
Also, the pro-life commercials come across as very strange to me. Talking about how the amendment doesn't actually ban abortion but allows our elected officials to place the common sense barriers to abortion that are already in place. I think they'd do better leaning in and claiming that this amendment will allow congress to ban all abortions in 2023.
I'm pretty confident you are not their target audience.
I'm not, but I'm also pretty sure that their target audience wants more restrictions on abortion than we currently have. It's weird that they claim to not want that.
Where do they claim to not want that? My understanding is that they claim that the amendment will not ban abortion, which is true.
-
It’s like I always say when I’m holding someone at gun point: “pulling this trigger will not kill you, it will simply allow a bullet to fire in the direction in which I am pointing.”
-
Breaking one Commandment to enforce their stance on another Commandment.
Christianity!
-
It’s like I always say when I’m holding someone at gun point: “pulling this trigger will not kill you, it will simply allow a bullet to fire in the direction in which I am pointing.”
Yes. I would like to play high-stakes chess with these geniuses who can't think even one move ahead.
-
Breaking one Commandment to enforce their stance on another Commandment.
Christianity!
Which commandment is being broken?
-
It’s like I always say when I’m holding someone at gun point: “pulling this trigger will not kill you, it will simply allow a bullet to fire in the direction in which I am pointing.”
I'm pretty sure there is going to be a general election before any further changes to abortion laws could go into effect if the Value Them Both amendment passes. If it passes, Kansas voters will have the opportunity to vote for their elected representatives knowing that who they elect could mean changes to abortion laws.
-
Breaking one Commandment to enforce their stance on another Commandment.
Christianity!
Which commandment is being broken?
A eff ton of false witness
-
Breaking one Commandment to enforce their stance on another Commandment.
Christianity!
Which commandment is being broken?
A eff ton of false witness
From everything I have read and heard, the false witness is all on the part of the No campaign.
-
Breaking one Commandment to enforce their stance on another Commandment.
Christianity!
Which commandment is being broken?
A eff ton of false witness
From everything I have read and heard, the false witness is all on the part of the No campaign.
You aren’t paying attention. Read the fliers they mail.
-
Breaking one Commandment to enforce their stance on another Commandment.
Christianity!
Which commandment is being broken?
A eff ton of false witness
From everything I have read and heard, the false witness is all on the part of the No campaign.
You aren’t paying attention. Read the fliers they mail.
I've read them and read the information on their website. I don't think they are lying. I think the Kansas Supreme Court has called into question almost all abortion regulations that are on the books and especially restrictions on when abortions can occur. I do not think it is far-fetched to think that the current Kansas Supreme Court will dismantle the regulation of abortion in Kansas.
-
This is the exact flavor of dishonest dealing and bad faith the entire movement is built around.
-
It’s like I always say when I’m holding someone at gun point: “pulling this trigger will not kill you, it will simply allow a bullet to fire in the direction in which I am pointing.”
I'm pretty sure there is going to be a general election before any further changes to abortion laws could go into effect if the Value Them Both amendment passes. If it passes, Kansas voters will have the opportunity to vote for their elected representatives knowing that who they elect could mean changes to abortion laws.
you are smart enough to not pretend to be this dumb
-
This is the exact flavor of dishonest dealing and bad faith the entire movement is built around.
Do you ever make any actual arguments or do you just whine, moan and complain?
-
It’s like I always say when I’m holding someone at gun point: “pulling this trigger will not kill you, it will simply allow a bullet to fire in the direction in which I am pointing.”
I'm pretty sure there is going to be a general election before any further changes to abortion laws could go into effect if the Value Them Both amendment passes. If it passes, Kansas voters will have the opportunity to vote for their elected representatives knowing that who they elect could mean changes to abortion laws.
you are smart enough to not pretend to be this dumb
If Laura Kelly is reelected, do you think there is a 100% chance that abortion will be banned in Kansas in the next four years assuming VTB passes?
-
Yes of course it's 100%
There's a 95% chance a federal ban on abortion passes in the next four years, so it's all moot anyway.
-
It’s like I always say when I’m holding someone at gun point: “pulling this trigger will not kill you, it will simply allow a bullet to fire in the direction in which I am pointing.”
I'm pretty sure there is going to be a general election before any further changes to abortion laws could go into effect if the Value Them Both amendment passes. If it passes, Kansas voters will have the opportunity to vote for their elected representatives knowing that who they elect could mean changes to abortion laws.
you are smart enough to not pretend to be this dumb
If Laura Kelly is reelected, do you think there is a 100% chance that abortion will be banned in Kansas in the next four years assuming VTB passes?
There is always a very slight chance that the capitol building burns down with all of the representatives inside or something, so not quite 100%. God could still save abortion even if we don't.
-
Yes of course it's 100%
There's a 95% chance a federal ban on abortion passes in the next four years, so it's all moot anyway.
If a federal ban happens, I wonder what the impact would be on the youngest generation of voters? It seems like that might shove them toward the left.
-
I don’t understand the federal ban piece of this, how would that come to fruition?
-
I don’t understand the federal ban piece of this, how would that come to fruition?
Republican president, congress, and senate is the only way, but it absolutely will become criminalized nationally whenever that happens again.
-
I don’t understand the federal ban piece of this, how would that come to fruition?
Republican president, congress, and senate is the only way, but it absolutely will become criminalized nationally whenever that happens again.
Can’t that just be changed everytime one party has a simple majority in Congress and the white house?
-
I don’t understand the federal ban piece of this, how would that come to fruition?
Republican president, congress, and senate is the only way, but it absolutely will become criminalized nationally whenever that happens again.
Can’t that just be changed everytime one party has a simple majority in Congress and the white house?
Yeah, that's the future. If people are willing to open a business that is sure to get shut down by the government less than 10 years later, then it will come and go. Otherwise, it will mostly go.
-
I don’t understand the federal ban piece of this, how would that come to fruition?
Republican president, congress, and senate is the only way, but it absolutely will become criminalized nationally whenever that happens again.
Can’t that just be changed everytime one party has a simple majority in Congress and the white house?
No because we have decided that the filibuster is the 11th commandment and the rough ridin' senate parliamentarian is god almighty. Democrats would never let a policy win get in the way of a process concern.
-
What’s the o/u for tomorrow’s Kansas abortion vote? What you think will prob happen, not what you want to happen.
-
Yes will win
-
I don't follow this guy, but this showed up in my feed. Unsurprising.
https://twitter.com/BrianBookwalter/status/1554229670245273601
-
I saw some polling last week that showed “no” up by 4pts with 10pct “undecided”.
-
Yes is the slight favorite, but it could go either way.
-
What’s the o/u for tomorrow’s Kansas abortion vote? What you think will prob happen, not what you want to happen.
I would be surprised if "no" gets within ten points of "yes".
The amendment made the WSJ "Journal" podcast yesterday. Fairly quick, interesting listen:
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/kansas-big-abortion-vote/8FB25DDD-700B-47E6-8D35-57535AD2C04F (https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/kansas-big-abortion-vote/8FB25DDD-700B-47E6-8D35-57535AD2C04F)
-
The polls were pretty busy this morning. People are passionate about this vote.
-
I was absolutely busy when I went Friday, friend just told me in Joco along 99k early votes, 25k voted early in 2018. Yes may very well win but I really really think it's going to be super close
What’s the o/u for tomorrow’s Kansas abortion vote? What you think will prob happen, not what you want to happen.
I would be surprised if "no" gets within ten points of "yes".
The amendment made the WSJ "Journal" podcast yesterday. Fairly quick, interesting listen:
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/kansas-big-abortion-vote/8FB25DDD-700B-47E6-8D35-57535AD2C04F (https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/kansas-big-abortion-vote/8FB25DDD-700B-47E6-8D35-57535AD2C04F)
I seriously doubt that, it is bananas out there, and I look at this guy for voting stuff:
https://twitter.com/BACaskey
FTR, approx 560k voted in the 2018 primary all in, to get a flavor of numbers to look at:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/07/us/elections/results-kansas-primary-elections.html
The keys will be IMO:
How many more registered D's show up over 150k from 2018
What is that ratio of the undecided 40k (so far)
What is the ratio of the approx 313k pubs that would vote yes vs no (how many are RINOs or women/maybe men that think it's not wort the yes).
Totally anecdotal, but when Roe v Wade was overturned, it was mostly men, not women, even conservatives ones (save one) that was happy, and I know a lot of Catholic women, up to and including my cousin:
https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article263819783.html?fbclid=IwAR359PXH6cHueYFQaGpWl7zv-yBf-3gouHEUX4Fbfuy3MzfO6CR9y3yVDoM
-
I was absolutely busy when I went Friday, friend just told me in Joco along 99k early votes, 25k voted early in 2018. Yes may very well win but I really really think it's going to be super close
What’s the o/u for tomorrow’s Kansas abortion vote? What you think will prob happen, not what you want to happen.
I would be surprised if "no" gets within ten points of "yes".
The amendment made the WSJ "Journal" podcast yesterday. Fairly quick, interesting listen:
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/kansas-big-abortion-vote/8FB25DDD-700B-47E6-8D35-57535AD2C04F (https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/kansas-big-abortion-vote/8FB25DDD-700B-47E6-8D35-57535AD2C04F)
I seriously doubt that, it is bananas out there, and I look at this guy for voting stuff:
https://twitter.com/BACaskey
FTR, approx 560k voted in the 2018 primary all in, to get a flavor of numbers to look at:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/07/us/elections/results-kansas-primary-elections.html
The keys will be IMO:
How many more registered D's show up over 150k from 2018
What is that ratio of the undecided 40k (so far)
What is the ratio of the approx 313k pubs that would vote yes vs no (how many are RINOs or women/maybe men that think it's not wort the yes).
Totally anecdotal, but when Roe v Wade was overturned, it was mostly men, not women, even conservatives ones (save one) that was happy, and I know a lot of Catholic women, up to and including my cousin:
https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article263819783.html?fbclid=IwAR359PXH6cHueYFQaGpWl7zv-yBf-3gouHEUX4Fbfuy3MzfO6CR9y3yVDoM
I will admit that my perception of this may be colored by living in an very red area in Kansas. My prediction is that the amendment will pass easily and KS state legislators will try to outdo one another in a bid to craft the nation's most restrictive abortion law during the next session.
-
I was absolutely busy when I went Friday, friend just told me in Joco along 99k early votes, 25k voted early in 2018. Yes may very well win but I really really think it's going to be super close
What’s the o/u for tomorrow’s Kansas abortion vote? What you think will prob happen, not what you want to happen.
I would be surprised if "no" gets within ten points of "yes".
The amendment made the WSJ "Journal" podcast yesterday. Fairly quick, interesting listen:
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/kansas-big-abortion-vote/8FB25DDD-700B-47E6-8D35-57535AD2C04F (https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/kansas-big-abortion-vote/8FB25DDD-700B-47E6-8D35-57535AD2C04F)
I seriously doubt that, it is bananas out there, and I look at this guy for voting stuff:
https://twitter.com/BACaskey
FTR, approx 560k voted in the 2018 primary all in, to get a flavor of numbers to look at:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/07/us/elections/results-kansas-primary-elections.html
The keys will be IMO:
How many more registered D's show up over 150k from 2018
What is that ratio of the undecided 40k (so far)
What is the ratio of the approx 313k pubs that would vote yes vs no (how many are RINOs or women/maybe men that think it's not wort the yes).
Totally anecdotal, but when Roe v Wade was overturned, it was mostly men, not women, even conservatives ones (save one) that was happy, and I know a lot of Catholic women, up to and including my cousin:
https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article263819783.html?fbclid=IwAR359PXH6cHueYFQaGpWl7zv-yBf-3gouHEUX4Fbfuy3MzfO6CR9y3yVDoM
I will admit that my perception of this may be colored by living in an very red area in Kansas. My prediction is that the amendment will pass easily and KS state legislators will try to outdo one another in a bid to craft the nation's most restrictive abortion law during the next session.
And understand that, my perception is it's be within 5 points depending on my factors I pointed out. I'll be honestly shocked if the winning side wins by greater than 40k votes, if that
-
The restrictive abortion law is certainly what would happen - I have a little more hope (although know it's unlikely) that No can win.
I've seen a FB friend that has shared Dinesh D'Souza "docs" also post about voting no so that gave me some hope.
-
If it does pass, the governor's race will determine how insane the abortion law ends up being. It's hard to pass too much crazy when you need a 2/3 vote.
-
If it does pass, the governor's race will determine how insane the abortion law ends up being. It's hard to pass too much crazy when you need a 2/3 vote.
Republicans represent more than 2/3 of the house and senate.
-
I have hope for the "NO" vote. Even pro-Trumpers have a vote NO contingency. A lot of suburban wives are side-eyeing their husbands to ensure they don't eff this one up.
That being said, I'm surrounded by a decent amount of blue.
-
If it does pass, the governor's race will determine how insane the abortion law ends up being. It's hard to pass too much crazy when you need a 2/3 vote.
Republicans represent more than 2/3 of the house and senate.
Yeah, but not every republican would support a bill that punishes women who abort babies as first degree murderers, without any exceptions for rape, incest, or life of the mother. Probably a little more than half of them would.
-
I will admit that my perception of this may be colored by living in an very red area in Kansas.
it's pretty depressing in salina, feel like it's 20:1 yes:no yard signs
-
I will admit that my perception of this may be colored by living in an very red area in Kansas.
it's pretty depressing in salina, feel like it's 20:1 yes:no yard signs
A friend of mine visited her dad in lindsborg and said she was pleasantly surprised with the no support. She convinced him to put out a no sign and he's one of those crazy republicans with a literal armory bunker with hundreds of guns.
-
If it does pass, the governor's race will determine how insane the abortion law ends up being. It's hard to pass too much crazy when you need a 2/3 vote.
Derek Schmidt will win the governor's race easily. I would be shocked if he does not sign any bill that shows up on his desk. Will be interesting to see if he gives any specifics about restrictions that he would support during the general election campaign.
-
If it does pass, the governor's race will determine how insane the abortion law ends up being. It's hard to pass too much crazy when you need a 2/3 vote.
Derek Schmidt will win the governor's race easily. I would be shocked if he does not sign any bill that shows up on his desk. Will be interesting to see if he gives any specifics about restrictions that he would support during the general election campaign.
If Laura Kelly loses, it will be train-wreck interesting how slippery of a red slope KS will become.
-
If it does pass, the governor's race will determine how insane the abortion law ends up being. It's hard to pass too much crazy when you need a 2/3 vote.
Derek Schmidt will win the governor's race easily. I would be shocked if he does not sign any bill that shows up on his desk. Will be interesting to see if he gives any specifics about restrictions that he would support during the general election campaign.
Incumbents generally win.
-
If it does pass, the governor's race will determine how insane the abortion law ends up being. It's hard to pass too much crazy when you need a 2/3 vote.
Derek Schmidt will win the governor's race easily. I would be shocked if he does not sign any bill that shows up on his desk. Will be interesting to see if he gives any specifics about restrictions that he would support during the general election campaign.
Incumbents generally win.
Lol, that's some great copium
-
If it does pass, the governor's race will determine how insane the abortion law ends up being. It's hard to pass too much crazy when you need a 2/3 vote.
Derek Schmidt will win the governor's race easily. I would be shocked if he does not sign any bill that shows up on his desk. Will be interesting to see if he gives any specifics about restrictions that he would support during the general election campaign.
Incumbents generally win.
She was elected because the Republicans nominated reactionary nutcase Chris Kobach for the last general election. Again, my perspective may be skewed by the region of KS where I live but I don't think Schmidt will have any problem in the general election.
-
If it does pass, the governor's race will determine how insane the abortion law ends up being. It's hard to pass too much crazy when you need a 2/3 vote.
Derek Schmidt will win the governor's race easily. I would be shocked if he does not sign any bill that shows up on his desk. Will be interesting to see if he gives any specifics about restrictions that he would support during the general election campaign.
Incumbents generally win.
She was elected because the Republicans nominated reactionary nutcase Chris Kobach for the last general election. Again, my perspective may be skewed by the region of KS where I live but I don't think Schmidt will have any problem in the general election.
On the one hand, she cut taxes and balanced the budget. On the other hand, she suggested that people should wear masks during the pandemic and close the same businesses that every other state did. I think it probably will be pretty close.
-
She also received help from Greg Orman.
-
If it does pass, the governor's race will determine how insane the abortion law ends up being. It's hard to pass too much crazy when you need a 2/3 vote.
Derek Schmidt will win the governor's race easily. I would be shocked if he does not sign any bill that shows up on his desk. Will be interesting to see if he gives any specifics about restrictions that he would support during the general election campaign.
Incumbents generally win.
She was elected because the Republicans nominated reactionary nutcase Chris Kobach for the last general election. Again, my perspective may be skewed by the region of KS where I live but I don't think Schmidt will have any problem in the general election.
If you're going to change the number of Ks in Kobach's name, at least do it by adding one.
-
If it does pass, the governor's race will determine how insane the abortion law ends up being. It's hard to pass too much crazy when you need a 2/3 vote.
Derek Schmidt will win the governor's race easily. I would be shocked if he does not sign any bill that shows up on his desk. Will be interesting to see if he gives any specifics about restrictions that he would support during the general election campaign.
Incumbents generally win.
She was elected because the Republicans nominated reactionary nutcase Chris Kobach for the last general election. Again, my perspective may be skewed by the region of KS where I live but I don't think Schmidt will have any problem in the general election.
On the one hand, she cut taxes and balanced the budget. On the other hand, she suggested that people should wear masks during the pandemic and close the same businesses that every other state did. I think it probably will be pretty close.
This would be a good poll to make down here in the Pit.
-
I will admit that my perception of this may be colored by living in an very red area in Kansas.
it's pretty depressing in salina, feel like it's 20:1 yes:no yard signs
A friend of mine visited her dad in lindsborg and said she was pleasantly surprised with the no support. She convinced him to put out a no sign and he's one of those crazy republicans with a literal armory bunker with hundreds of guns.
Another, granted anecdotal point that makes me thing this will be very close.
I also know it's just my circle of friends on facebook, but I have a pretty significant group of Catholics in it, and again when Roe was overturned only a handful of people were happy, and none were women, and most did not say anything about it. In fact the only woman I know was happy is a fairly over religious lutheran.
Also had some friends report in on the day of election in lenexa, they said it was a lengthy wait to vote, which tells me turnout is going to be bananas, which given that 99k joco have already voted, may also push it over the edge.
-
I will admit that my perception of this may be colored by living in an very red area in Kansas.
it's pretty depressing in salina, feel like it's 20:1 yes:no yard signs
A friend of mine visited her dad in lindsborg and said she was pleasantly surprised with the no support. She convinced him to put out a no sign and he's one of those crazy republicans with a literal armory bunker with hundreds of guns.
Another, granted anecdotal point that makes me thing this will be very close.
I also know it's just my circle of friends on facebook, but I have a pretty significant group of Catholics in it, and again when Roe was overturned only a handful of people were happy, and none were women, and most did not say anything about it. In fact the only woman I know was happy is a fairly over religious lutheran.
Also had some friends report in on the day of election in lenexa, they said it was a lengthy wait to vote, which tells me turnout is going to be bananas, which given that 99k joco have already voted, may also push it over the edge.
It is kind of interesting. Abortion has been the number one issue for Republican primary voters in KS for as long as I can remember. Bill Graves is about the last Republican I can recall winning statewide office who was not explicitly pro-life. It will be interesting to see how big of an issue abortion is in terms of driving voter turn-out in the post-Dobbs world. My sense is that most people who feel strongly about abortion (pro-life or pro-choice) already vote at a pretty high rate.
-
I will admit that my perception of this may be colored by living in an very red area in Kansas.
it's pretty depressing in salina, feel like it's 20:1 yes:no yard signs
A friend of mine visited her dad in lindsborg and said she was pleasantly surprised with the no support. She convinced him to put out a no sign and he's one of those crazy republicans with a literal armory bunker with hundreds of guns.
Another, granted anecdotal point that makes me thing this will be very close.
I also know it's just my circle of friends on facebook, but I have a pretty significant group of Catholics in it, and again when Roe was overturned only a handful of people were happy, and none were women, and most did not say anything about it. In fact the only woman I know was happy is a fairly over religious lutheran.
Also had some friends report in on the day of election in lenexa, they said it was a lengthy wait to vote, which tells me turnout is going to be bananas, which given that 99k joco have already voted, may also push it over the edge.
It is kind of interesting. Abortion has been the number one issue for Republican primary voters in KS for as long as I can remember. Bill Graves is about the last Republican I can recall winning statewide office who was not explicitly pro-life. It will be interesting to see how big of an issue abortion is in terms of driving voter turn-out in the post-Dobbs world. My sense is that most people who feel strongly about abortion (pro-life or pro-choice) already vote at a pretty high rate.
Yeah, a whole lot of the republicans that I know have always described themselves as single issue abortion voters, so it's surprising to me, too.
-
I think KS has the largest ratio of single issue abortion voters in the USA.
-
I think KS has the largest ratio of single issue abortion voters in the USA.
Is it significantly different in Nebraska?
-
If it does pass, the governor's race will determine how insane the abortion law ends up being. It's hard to pass too much crazy when you need a 2/3 vote.
Derek Schmidt will win the governor's race easily. I would be shocked if he does not sign any bill that shows up on his desk. Will be interesting to see if he gives any specifics about restrictions that he would support during the general election campaign.
Conversing with my super Republican (texts me 5-7 pit worthy memes a week) about Governor race.
He shocked me by explaining that Schmidt is an idiot and Kelly had done nothing to disqualify her from a second term.
I was shocked.
So it will be interesting.
-
I think KS has the largest ratio of single issue abortion voters in the USA.
Well, if this amendment doesn't pass, we will know that most of the people who claim to be single issue abortion voters are actually full of crap.
-
I think less “full of crap” and more uninformed, which is what you would expect from a single issue voter.
Although to give them the benefit of the doubt, I think even most “single issue” abortion voters would have preferred a Supreme Court decision that still required abortion to be legal where a fetus was not viable or a mother’s health was determined by a doctor to be at risk.
-
https://twitter.com/BruneElections/status/1554564211090640901
-
I think less “full of crap” and more uninformed, which is what you would expect from a single issue voter.
it's easy to say you're a single issue voter. actually being one requires enormous discipline.
-
https://twitter.com/BruneElections/status/1554564211090640901
fantastic news for the yes'r's
-
https://twitter.com/BruneElections/status/1554564211090640901
fantastic news for the yes'r's
I don't think that's the side that is getting newly motivated voters
-
https://twitter.com/BruneElections/status/1554564211090640901
fantastic news for the yes'r's
I don't think that's the side that is getting newly motivated voters
Yeah, I don't think that bodes well for "yes"
-
The yard signs are out of control in my neighborhood
-
The yard signs are out of control in my neighborhood
sound rough
-
I’m managing just fine
-
Updated numbers if you are wanting to follow along
https://www.npr.org/sections/2022%20primary%20election%20results/2022/08/02/1108929419/kansas-primary-election-results
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Two more sources for following along:
https://ent.sos.ks.gov/kssos_ent.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/kansas-abortion-rights-vote-amendment-2-ballot-live-results-2022-8
-
Two more sources for following along:
https://ent.sos.ks.gov/kssos_ent.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/kansas-abortion-rights-vote-amendment-2-ballot-live-results-2022-8
That first one is great, thanks for that
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Hopefully joco isn't delinquent in getting stuff in this time
-
Riley county so far :surprised: :Woohoo:
-
Hopefully joco isn't delinquent in getting stuff in this time
I don't mind it once things start to tighten up. They're called dumps. Huge, massive dumps that will swing back towards the "NO" side.
-
Riley county so far :surprised: :Woohoo:
Douglas County is at 88% "NO" with 65% of votes in :drool:
We're doing our part. Need to build a huge lead before the pud county results trickle in.
Erstwhile, stevedaveland is at 77% "YES"
-
Riley county so far :surprised: :Woohoo:
Douglas County is at 88% "NO" with 65% of votes in :drool:
We're doing our part. Need to build a huge lead before the pud county results trickle in.
Erstwhile, stevedaveland is at 77% "YES"
:cheers: and still 60 votes in stevedaveland for no, but yeah, oh well
-
https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1554636579049771009?s=21&t=ZE5GxQ9cDY7Mm60UGKeWiQ
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Still far too early, but, that's exactly the vibe I'm getting
-
The liberal bastions of Salina (Saline) and Hutchinson (Reno) look to be breaking "NO" :sdeek:
-
https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1554639811595669505?s=21&t=ZE5GxQ9cDY7Mm60UGKeWiQ
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The liberal bastions of Salina (Saline) and Hutchinson (Reno) look to be breaking "NO" :sdeek:
i light bulb voted the eff out of saline county today, ama
-
kansas, you have shocked the world.
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1554639811595669505
-
I think if all states put it to vote, people would ne shocked. There are a lot of conservative dudes who support abortions on the downlow.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think if all states put it to vote, people would ne shocked. There are a lot of conservative dudes who support abortions on the downlow.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Which is why I am surprised people were surprised by my Catholic women friends being so quiet about it, all of them know the real deal
-
Motherfucking joco :Woot:
-
is Kobach gonna lose AGAIN, btw?
-
I think people seeing Missouri’s vague law resulting in hospitals being worried about getting sued for doing what was even allowed by the Catholic Church before caused some to balk at giving legislators carte blanche to do the same in Kansas.
-
Ellis county is 56/44 yes...
-
I look forward to this annual thread
-
I look forward to this annual thread
Biannual in off years.
-
I’ll take it
-
What an ass whooping
-
Kansas women showing that they are not to be taken lightly. Proud of Kansas, and proud that Kansas will be the bellwether for this issue post-Dobbs.
-
I look forward to this annual thread
After this ass whipping, the next constitutional amendment might only guarantee abortion up to the first heartbeat or something.
-
I look forward to this annual thread
After this ass whipping, the next constitutional amendment might only guarantee abortion up to the first heartbeat or something.
Do they even try? I'm sure they will, but they tried to stack the deck all they could, and it's 2-1.
-
I’m so happy and so rough ridin' proud of Kansas!
-
I’m so happy and so rough ridin' proud of Kansas!
Same! Never been prouder of Kansas in my lifetime, as far as I can remember. Unfortunately, I now suspect that similarly situated states will not try this kind of direct democracy going forward, unless they're forced to by state constitution or whatever. Women seriously don't like the government in the exam room standing between them and their physicians. And of course, they are correct in that assessment.
-
What’s the o/u for tomorrow’s Kansas abortion vote? What you think will prob happen, not what you want to happen.
I would be surprised if "no" gets within ten points of "yes".
The amendment made the WSJ "Journal" podcast yesterday. Fairly quick, interesting listen:
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/kansas-big-abortion-vote/8FB25DDD-700B-47E6-8D35-57535AD2C04F (https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/kansas-big-abortion-vote/8FB25DDD-700B-47E6-8D35-57535AD2C04F)
So much for this prediction… most shocking election result since 2016
-
Weirdly could have a positive economic impact as well. Time will tell.
-
Weirdly could have a positive economic impact as well. Time will tell.
Heh, you mean "abortion tourism"?
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220803/157069f0ee58ccc9bf1ec146facac290.gif)
-
NOW DO WEED!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Ad astra, mother fuckers!
-
Drinking champagne
-
NOW DO WEED!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Oregon of the Plains
-
Drinking champagne
Whiskey here
Ad astra, mother fuckers!
Hells yeah, been texting everyone that
-
Happy for Kansas
-
NOW DO WEED!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Oregon of the Plains
Would take
-
Ad astra, mother fuckers!
Per aspera.
Its good to have an actual vote on abortion instead of having to vote for a state senator etc who makes the policy. Abortion rights is probably like #6-9 on on list of priorities for me but I think women should have the right to have an abortion.
Being a 30 something year old male in JOCO I will say that alot of local females I follow on the gram were blowing up the social media with VOTE NO for the past month or so.
-
Ad astra, mother fuckers!
Per aspera.
Its good to have an actual vote on abortion instead of having to vote for a state senator etc who makes the policy. Abortion rights is probably like #6-9 on on list of priorities for me but I think women should have the right to have an abortion.
Being a 30 something year old male in JOCO I will say that alot of local females I follow on the gram were blowing up the social media with VOTE NO for the past month or so.
The 40’s and 50’s crowd too. And my daughter’s 18 year old scene was very active “vote No” for the last month
-
Weirdly could have a positive economic impact as well. Time will tell.
Heh, you mean "abortion tourism"?
Naw business attraction. Still get a red state but left of middle on social issues. “Pick us because all these other southern states aren’t women friendly.”
-
Bummed out :[
-
Shameless plug but all of you JOCO peeps should defintely vote for Mike Kelly for JOCO Chairman in the general election (basically the mayor of JOCO) for the following reasons.
1. He went to Kstate for undergrad
2. We were good buds in college and if he asks you for money for his campaign you can just talk katz sports with him for 5 minutes and call it good before dropping a fun coupon or two for his campaign.
3. He is normal person (as much as politicians can be) and even if I dont agree with all of his positions I beliveve that he will do what is best for JOCO.
#MikeKelly4JoCoCommish
-
Shameless plug but all of you JOCO peeps should defintely vote for Mike Kelly for JOCO Chairman in the general election (basically the mayor of JOCO) for the following reasons.
1. He went to Kstate for undergrad
2. We were good buds in college and if he asks you for money for his campaign you can just talk katz sports with him for 5 minutes and call it good before dropping a fun coupon or two for his campaign.
3. He is normal person (as much as politicians can be) and even if I dont agree with all of his positions I beliveve that he will do what is best for JOCO.
#MikeKelly4JoCoCommish
Have his sign in my yard
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Shameless plug but all of you JOCO peeps should defintely vote for Mike Kelly for JOCO Chairman in the general election (basically the mayor of JOCO) for the following reasons.
1. He went to Kstate for undergrad
2. We were good buds in college and if he asks you for money for his campaign you can just talk katz sports with him for 5 minutes and call it good before dropping a fun coupon or two for his campaign.
3. He is normal person (as much as politicians can be) and even if I dont agree with all of his positions I beliveve that he will do what is best for JOCO.
#MikeKelly4JoCoCommish
Yeah, he'll be getting my vote (besides all that).
Also, didn't you mention once you're near downtown OP? I'm pretty close to there (walk to Homer's all the time for coffee)
-
Shameless plug but all of you JOCO peeps should defintely vote for Mike Kelly for JOCO Chairman in the general election (basically the mayor of JOCO) for the following reasons.
1. He went to Kstate for undergrad
2. We were good buds in college and if he asks you for money for his campaign you can just talk katz sports with him for 5 minutes and call it good before dropping a fun coupon or two for his campaign.
3. He is normal person (as much as politicians can be) and even if I dont agree with all of his positions I beliveve that he will do what is best for JOCO.
#MikeKelly4JoCoCommish
Yeah, he'll be getting my vote (besides all that).
Also, didn't you mention once you're near downtown OP? I'm pretty close to there (walk to Homer's all the time for coffee)
Yeah, I live at 75th and Nall. We should defintely watch a katz game at maloneys some time in early fall. :love:
-
Shameless plug but all of you JOCO peeps should defintely vote for Mike Kelly for JOCO Chairman in the general election (basically the mayor of JOCO) for the following reasons.
1. He went to Kstate for undergrad
2. We were good buds in college and if he asks you for money for his campaign you can just talk katz sports with him for 5 minutes and call it good before dropping a fun coupon or two for his campaign.
3. He is normal person (as much as politicians can be) and even if I dont agree with all of his positions I beliveve that he will do what is best for JOCO.
#MikeKelly4JoCoCommish
Yeah, he'll be getting my vote (besides all that).
Also, didn't you mention once you're near downtown OP? I'm pretty close to there (walk to Homer's all the time for coffee)
Yeah, I live at 75th and Nall. We should defintely watch a katz game at maloneys some time in early fall. :love:
Will be back the weekend of the OU game :surprised:
-
I was absolutely busy when I went Friday, friend just told me in Joco along 99k early votes, 25k voted early in 2018. Yes may very well win but I really really think it's going to be super close
What’s the o/u for tomorrow’s Kansas abortion vote? What you think will prob happen, not what you want to happen.
I would be surprised if "no" gets within ten points of "yes".
The amendment made the WSJ "Journal" podcast yesterday. Fairly quick, interesting listen:
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/kansas-big-abortion-vote/8FB25DDD-700B-47E6-8D35-57535AD2C04F (https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/kansas-big-abortion-vote/8FB25DDD-700B-47E6-8D35-57535AD2C04F)
I seriously doubt that, it is bananas out there, and I look at this guy for voting stuff:
https://twitter.com/BACaskey
FTR, approx 560k voted in the 2018 primary all in, to get a flavor of numbers to look at:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/07/us/elections/results-kansas-primary-elections.html
The keys will be IMO:
How many more registered D's show up over 150k from 2018
What is that ratio of the undecided 40k (so far)
What is the ratio of the approx 313k pubs that would vote yes vs no (how many are RINOs or women/maybe men that think it's not wort the yes).
Totally anecdotal, but when Roe v Wade was overturned, it was mostly men, not women, even conservatives ones (save one) that was happy, and I know a lot of Catholic women, up to and including my cousin:
https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article263819783.html?fbclid=IwAR359PXH6cHueYFQaGpWl7zv-yBf-3gouHEUX4Fbfuy3MzfO6CR9y3yVDoM
I will admit that my perception of this may be colored by living in an very red area in Kansas. My prediction is that the amendment will pass easily and KS state legislators will try to outdo one another in a bid to craft the nation's most restrictive abortion law during the next session.
And understand that, my perception is it's be within 5 points depending on my factors I pointed out. I'll be honestly shocked if the winning side wins by greater than 40k votes, if that
Baby oh baby does this feel good.
-
Shameless plug but all of you JOCO peeps should defintely vote for Mike Kelly for JOCO Chairman in the general election (basically the mayor of JOCO) for the following reasons.
1. He went to Kstate for undergrad
2. We were good buds in college and if he asks you for money for his campaign you can just talk katz sports with him for 5 minutes and call it good before dropping a fun coupon or two for his campaign.
3. He is normal person (as much as politicians can be) and even if I dont agree with all of his positions I beliveve that he will do what is best for JOCO.
#MikeKelly4JoCoCommish
Yeah, he'll be getting my vote (besides all that).
Also, didn't you mention once you're near downtown OP? I'm pretty close to there (walk to Homer's all the time for coffee)
Yeah, I live at 75th and Nall. We should defintely watch a katz game at maloneys some time in early fall. :love:
crap Ben ji my MIL lives at 97th and Nall. Wonder how many times I’ve taken a (much needed) walk when visiting the in-laws and walked right past your house. Ships in the night, etc etc
-
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3305546
Kansas Voters support baby murder
3,005 Views | 66 Replies
-
@spracs how to Texans mandate that abortion rights get put to a popular vote instead of just a vote in the house and senate? Obviously they would do everything they can to avoid this bc they know the majority do not want an outright ban or such heavy restrictions, but surely there is a way for the people to demand they be allowed to vote on such things?
-
Bummed out :[
I think you'll be fine
-
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3305546
Kansas Voters support baby murder
3,005 Views | 66 Replies
Why'd I even look
-
Shameless plug but all of you JOCO peeps should defintely vote for Mike Kelly for JOCO Chairman in the general election (basically the mayor of JOCO) for the following reasons.
1. He went to Kstate for undergrad
2. We were good buds in college and if he asks you for money for his campaign you can just talk katz sports with him for 5 minutes and call it good before dropping a fun coupon or two for his campaign.
3. He is normal person (as much as politicians can be) and even if I dont agree with all of his positions I beliveve that he will do what is best for JOCO.
#MikeKelly4JoCoCommish
Have his sign in my yard
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
take it to the crap Midwesterners like thread
-
The joyous celebration of this is disturbing to me. But I understand I have a starkly different opinion on this issue than most of you.
-
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3305546
Kansas Voters support baby murder
3,005 Views | 66 Replies
Why'd I even look
Honestly seems like a pretty balanced thread. Some right whackos, not too many lefties, but a lot of level-headed responses as well.
-
texags thread was def way less unhinged than i expected
-
The joyous celebration of this is disturbing to me. But I understand I have a starkly different opinion on this issue than most of you.
"you" i think just means the general population of the united states
-
The joyous celebration of this is disturbing to me. But I understand I have a starkly different opinion on this issue than most of you.
why is it disturbing to you?
-
The joyous celebration of this is disturbing to me. But I understand I have a starkly different opinion on this issue than most of you.
"you" i think just means the general population of the united states
Yes, certainly.
-
The joyous celebration of this is disturbing to me. But I understand I have a starkly different opinion on this issue than most of you.
why is it disturbing to you?
You want me to explain the pro-life position?
-
Pro-life until they are born, then eff them kids
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3305546
Kansas Voters support baby murder
3,005 Views | 66 Replies
Why'd I even look
Honestly seems like a pretty balanced thread. Some right whackos, not too many lefties, but a lot of level-headed responses as well.
I think it was the election being rigged/who's counting I can't get passed
-
Not only did we win, we 35-7ed their asses.
The joyous celebration of this is disturbing to me. But I understand I have a starkly different opinion on this issue than most of you.
Might be time to do some self-reflection and recalibrating of your position on this, dog. It was a beatdown in Kansas of all places, and would only be worse in most other states. People do not want this crap. Like pretty across the board.
-
I don't know that aligning with popular opinion is a compelling reason to change your thoughts on an issue. I doubt _33, who readily admits his opinion on this board, is pro-life because he thought it was popular.
-
this is going to sound made up because of how moderate I am but I am moderate on abortion. I am pro-life with a wide range of exceptions. I wouldn't want those exceptions to be determined by the Ronny rough ridin' Ryckman's (massive downgrade from meade, ks in a long family of massive rough ridin' downgrades) of the world.
-
The joyous celebration of this is disturbing to me. But I understand I have a starkly different opinion on this issue than most of you.
why is it disturbing to you?
You want me to explain the pro-life position?
Like what about the vote and reaction in particular disturbed you in a way that you weren't disturbed before? The fact that it failed? The fact that people you thought were good people are actually pro-choice? That people felt more strongly about abortion rights than you thought? Or were you just always disturbed?
-
I don't know that aligning with popular opinion is a compelling reason to change your thoughts on an issue. I doubt _33, who readily admits his opinion on this board, is pro-life because he thought it was popular.
No, but recognizing that a lot of kind, "good" people feel differently about an issue than you might make you wonder why those people feel that way. But it might not! :dunno:
-
https://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=36954.0 (https://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=36954.0)
-
_33 if it makes you feel any less disturbed, I will guarantee you that the folks ITT that are joyful about this ruling are NOT gettin their ladies' backs blown out so that they can rush to the clinic and murder the crap out of those babies. (Except maybe spracne? he's such a crazen sex-haver that you just can't possibly know with him). I also guarantee you that NONE of the afore mentioned folks (including spracne!) are going to go abduct mrs. _33 and drag her to clinic and force her to get an abortion and they also aren't going to bully her into getting one like on facebook or whatever. in fact i'm quite positive this will not directly impact your life in any way whatsoever unless its just really important to you that you get to tell other people how to live their lives but you seem like the type of person that wants to live your life the way you want to live it and don't seem overly concerned with how other people are living their lives so i suspect you're going to bounce back from this just fine.
-
The joyous celebration of this is disturbing to me. But I understand I have a starkly different opinion on this issue than most of you.
why is it disturbing to you?
You want me to explain the pro-life position?
Loads of pro life people voted No yesterday, what do you think that means?
-
Guess what pro lifers. You still get to be pro life! Zero consequences!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yeah, I can guarantee you this as well, no one "likes" abortions, not even the women who end up getting them. But it's just such an important thing for them, their ability to know if their own life is at risk, or is their baby is going to have a super terrible quality of life, or what if they're raped, incest, etc. etc, that it's an option.
This idea of seeing it as some harlot screwing every tom dick and harry and using it as a cover up of a oopsie is so out of touch.
And again, if you want abortions to "go away", provide proper sex ed, advocate for contraception, and support women's choices
-
And again, if you want abortions to "go away", provide proper sex ed, advocate for contraception, and support women's choices
This has always been a sticking point for me. There are ways to affect the number of abortions and right-wing doesn't want to do it. And they work!!
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/fpp/about-us/colorados-success-long-acting-reversible-contraception-larc
-
_33 if it makes you feel any less disturbed, I will guarantee you that the folks ITT that are joyful about this ruling are NOT gettin their ladies' backs blown out so that they can rush to the clinic and murder the crap out of those babies. (Except maybe spracne? he's such a crazen sex-haver that you just can't possibly know with him). I also guarantee you that NONE of the afore mentioned folks (including spracne!) are going to go abduct mrs. _33 and drag her to clinic and force her to get an abortion and they also aren't going to bully her into getting one like on facebook or whatever. in fact i'm quite positive this will not directly impact your life in any way whatsoever unless its just really important to you that you get to tell other people how to live their lives but you seem like the type of person that wants to live your life the way you want to live it and don't seem overly concerned with how other people are living their lives so i suspect you're going to bounce back from this just fine.
Unfortunately for me there are many things in this world that don't affect me personally but are still disturbing to me in their injustice. Thanks for the attempt at giving me some peace of mind though.
-
I understand your position, _33. But surely you have to appreciate by now that criminalizing abortion is probably the absolute worst way to solve whatever evil you think is at work here.
-
Anecdotally (and probably irl given the results) this rallied TF out of the KS low energy politics caring about’er. I have three employees in KS who have never mentioned politics or voting who told me they would be out to vote. And, from what I do know about them, they were all voting for the winning side of this deal (not for certain, just my feel). Your single issue abortion voter is never missing a vote.
-
The joyous celebration of this is disturbing to me. But I understand I have a starkly different opinion on this issue than most of you.
why is it disturbing to you?
You want me to explain the pro-life position?
Loads of pro life people voted No yesterday, what do you think that means?
This x1000. When the rubber meets the road this will be the result in most states.
-
Like the thousands of “vote yes” yard sign people who mashes the “no” vote button the minute that curtain closed and they couldn’t virtue signal their neighborhood is astounding
-
Subhumans
https://twitter.com/davis_hammet/status/1554575329712291841
-
I would be interesting to hear an honest answer from the Yes crowd regarding the obvious attempt to mislead the public. It might have all been this one group, but I doubt it.
- Amendment written in such a way that either it was intentionally misleading or written by idiots and incompetents
- Lots of texts, mailers, etc that further mislead making it sound like Yes is for rights most would associate with pro choice
- TV ads from Harrison Butker, Patty Dunn, etc all making it sound like Yes is for rights most would associate with pro choice.
- I came across several Reddit discussions with people actively trying to deceive the entire convo, then once the light of day was shown completely and obviously, they would edit their post to call everyone baby murderers, then move to other subreddits and start all over.
This seems too large, far reaching, and involving too many individuals for this to only be the Forge Alliance folks, unless they are huge.
If the Yes crowd are going to blame this solely on the Forge Alliance group, how did they not catch it and change it or stop it once the campaign began?
Given all the smoke, how does the every day person who wanted Yes to prevail feel about all the lying and misleading? How does said lying fit into their belief system?
-
Quit infringing on their rights
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I would be interesting to hear an honest answer from the Yes crowd regarding the obvious attempt to mislead the public. It might have all been this one group, but I doubt it.
- Amendment written in such a way that either it was intentionally misleading or written by idiots and incompetents
- Lots of texts, mailers, etc that further mislead making it sound like Yes is for rights most would associate with pro choice
- TV ads from Harrison Butker, Patty Dunn, etc all making it sound like Yes is for rights most would associate with pro choice.
- I came across several Reddit discussions with people actively trying to deceive the entire convo, then once the light of day was shown completely and obviously, they would edit their post to call everyone baby murderers, then move to other subreddits and start all over.
This seems too large, far reaching, and involving too many individuals for this to only be the Forge Alliance folks, unless they are huge.
If the Yes crowd are going to blame this solely on the Forge Alliance group, how did they not catch it and change it or stop it once the campaign began?
Given all the smoke, how does the every day person who wanted Yes to prevail feel about all the lying and misleading? How does said lying fit into their belief system?
I don't like the lying and misleading. It does not fit into my belief system. I have to chalk it up to the political world being comprised almost entirely of complete and utter fools.
-
This was an absolute ass kicking at the polls. close to a 20% loss in a state like Kansas even when you resort to the aforementioned aggressive mis-information campaign is a pretty significant harbinger of what will happen next time.
-
I would be interesting to hear an honest answer from the Yes crowd regarding the obvious attempt to mislead the public. It might have all been this one group, but I doubt it.
- Amendment written in such a way that either it was intentionally misleading or written by idiots and incompetents
- Lots of texts, mailers, etc that further mislead making it sound like Yes is for rights most would associate with pro choice
- TV ads from Harrison Butker, Patty Dunn, etc all making it sound like Yes is for rights most would associate with pro choice.
- I came across several Reddit discussions with people actively trying to deceive the entire convo, then once the light of day was shown completely and obviously, they would edit their post to call everyone baby murderers, then move to other subreddits and start all over.
This seems too large, far reaching, and involving too many individuals for this to only be the Forge Alliance folks, unless they are huge.
If the Yes crowd are going to blame this solely on the Forge Alliance group, how did they not catch it and change it or stop it once the campaign began?
Given all the smoke, how does the every day person who wanted Yes to prevail feel about all the lying and misleading? How does said lying fit into their belief system?
I don't like the lying and misleading. It does not fit into my belief system. I have to chalk it up to the political world being comprised almost entirely of complete and utter fools.
Fools? I think just very selfish, sinful people. Many are very, very clever.
-
I would be interesting to hear an honest answer from the Yes crowd regarding the obvious attempt to mislead the public. It might have all been this one group, but I doubt it.
- Amendment written in such a way that either it was intentionally misleading or written by idiots and incompetents
- Lots of texts, mailers, etc that further mislead making it sound like Yes is for rights most would associate with pro choice
- TV ads from Harrison Butker, Patty Dunn, etc all making it sound like Yes is for rights most would associate with pro choice.
- I came across several Reddit discussions with people actively trying to deceive the entire convo, then once the light of day was shown completely and obviously, they would edit their post to call everyone baby murderers, then move to other subreddits and start all over.
This seems too large, far reaching, and involving too many individuals for this to only be the Forge Alliance folks, unless they are huge.
If the Yes crowd are going to blame this solely on the Forge Alliance group, how did they not catch it and change it or stop it once the campaign began?
Given all the smoke, how does the every day person who wanted Yes to prevail feel about all the lying and misleading? How does said lying fit into their belief system?
having grown up around being related to a massive amount of single issue abortion voters I can tell you that they will unabashedly fall back on the "greater good" argument. I have had otherwise normal people tell me that murdering an abortion doctor and bombing abortion clinics is reasonable and just because it "saves lives".
-
Organized religion loves the “greater good argument.”
-
I wonder if they might start requiring loyalty oaths on this issue since such a huge number voted no
-
Bummed out :[
I think you'll be fine
duh
I would be interesting to hear an honest answer from the Yes crowd regarding the obvious attempt to mislead the public. It might have all been this one group, but I doubt it.
- Amendment written in such a way that either it was intentionally misleading or written by idiots and incompetents
I don't really think the ballot was very confusing. A lot of people think so apparently, so who knows. It reads pretty straightforward to me. Saying that people in the Kansas legislature are idiotic wouldn't get much of a protest from me though.
- Lots of texts, mailers, etc that further mislead making it sound like Yes is for rights most would associate with pro choice
I'm only aware of the one text that was apparently sent out on Monday night, which is complete dirty pool and should be condemned.
- TV ads from Harrison Butker, Patty Dunn, etc all making it sound like Yes is for rights most would associate with pro choice.
I'm only familiar with the Butker ad, and he didn't come close to making it sound like Yes is for pro choice. If anything, he probably overstated the opposite (though both sides exaggerated the effect of passing/not passing imo.)
- I came across several Reddit discussions with people actively trying to deceive the entire convo, then once the light of day was shown completely and obviously, they would edit their post to call everyone baby murderers, then move to other subreddits and start all over.
I can't really speak to your experience on reddit. My experience, at least on the KC subreddit, is that any comment that even approached support for a Yes vote got downvoted into oblivion.
This seems too large, far reaching, and involving too many individuals for this to only be the Forge Alliance folks, unless they are huge.
If the Yes crowd are going to blame this solely on the Forge Alliance group, how did they not catch it and change it or stop it once the campaign began?
Given all the smoke, how does the every day person who wanted Yes to prevail feel about all the lying and misleading? How does said lying fit into their belief system?
Like I said, I think the text was reprehensible. Lying doesn't fit within my "belief system" (?).
-
The joyous celebration of this is disturbing to me. But I understand I have a starkly different opinion on this issue than most of you.
Interesting. Have you considered if the vote would have gone the other way the same people may have been disappointed or angry and many yes voters would be celebrating?
-
I accept LOTS of different policies that unfortunately result in death. For example:
- Self defense in threat of a person’s life
- shooting Home intruders
- drone strikes killing enemies and civilians at the same time
- keeping taxes lower by not lining every highway with concrete median barriers and eliminating head on collisions
- abortion
The list goes on. I don’t like it, but I accept it.
-
The joyous celebration of this is disturbing to me. But I understand I have a starkly different opinion on this issue than most of you.
Interesting. Have you considered if the vote would have gone the other way the same people may have been disappointed or angry and many yes voters would be celebrating?
I don't really have any issue at all with people celebrating. It's a pretty big issue w/r/t personal freedom vs. saving lives. Either side you're on, there was a lot at stake in the election.
-
I wonder if they might start requiring loyalty oaths on this issue since such a huge number voted no
Not if it lowers revenue
-
it is pretty stunning how badly this thing got its entire ass whipped. I mean, public polling for abortion access is pretty unanimous in its support but, in KANSAS!?
-
Less government involvement should be a good thing.
-
I would be interesting to hear an honest answer from the Yes crowd regarding the obvious attempt to mislead the public. It might have all been this one group, but I doubt it.
- Amendment written in such a way that either it was intentionally misleading or written by idiots and incompetents
- Lots of texts, mailers, etc that further mislead making it sound like Yes is for rights most would associate with pro choice
- TV ads from Harrison Butker, Patty Dunn, etc all making it sound like Yes is for rights most would associate with pro choice.
- I came across several Reddit discussions with people actively trying to deceive the entire convo, then once the light of day was shown completely and obviously, they would edit their post to call everyone baby murderers, then move to other subreddits and start all over.
This seems too large, far reaching, and involving too many individuals for this to only be the Forge Alliance folks, unless they are huge.
If the Yes crowd are going to blame this solely on the Forge Alliance group, how did they not catch it and change it or stop it once the campaign began?
Given all the smoke, how does the every day person who wanted Yes to prevail feel about all the lying and misleading? How does said lying fit into their belief system?
I don't like the lying and misleading. It does not fit into my belief system. I have to chalk it up to the political world being comprised almost entirely of complete and utter fools.
For me, as someone who doesn’t subscribe to the same belief system, this is one reason why I am rejoicing. The lying and misleading is received as what it is. It was, what I took, as an underhanded attempt to make me live your belief system. I will rejoice any loss of any religious group’s, especially one acting in an underhanded and dishonest way, attempt to force religion on those who don’t want it.
-
it is pretty stunning how badly this thing got its entire ass whipped. I mean, public polling for abortion access is pretty unanimous in its support but, in KANSAS!?
I saw the (mostly) final numbers in the gym at lunch and could not believe how loudly the majority of Kansans rejected it.
-
it is pretty stunning how badly this thing got its entire ass whipped. I mean, public polling for abortion access is pretty unanimous in its support but, in KANSAS!?
Yeah, it’s a giant metaphorical “do not touch” sign for policy makers. Basically the next social security type issue it would seem.
-
And again, if you want abortions to "go away", provide proper sex ed, advocate for contraception, and support women's choices
This has always been a sticking point for me. There are ways to affect the number of abortions and right-wing doesn't want to do it. And they work!!
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/fpp/about-us/colorados-success-long-acting-reversible-contraception-larc
Exactly. Contraception works so damn well to keep things in check.
And I had a pretty long rant about it in the abortion thread, but it ultimately comes down to religious zealots imposing their morality on people. Contraception means you're enabling kids to fornicate, teaching them about sex and contraception means they will on each other 24/7/365 with the seks to them. It's just maddening. And then of course most (obviously not all) then defund schools, healthcare, childcare, etc etc cause it's "socialist". It all adds up to a messed up world with a lot of unwanted kids (which is super shitty) living in a cruel in uncaring world that only celebrated them bursting forth from the womb.
-
I would be interesting to hear an honest answer from the Yes crowd regarding the obvious attempt to mislead the public. It might have all been this one group, but I doubt it.
- Amendment written in such a way that either it was intentionally misleading or written by idiots and incompetents
- Lots of texts, mailers, etc that further mislead making it sound like Yes is for rights most would associate with pro choice
- TV ads from Harrison Butker, Patty Dunn, etc all making it sound like Yes is for rights most would associate with pro choice.
- I came across several Reddit discussions with people actively trying to deceive the entire convo, then once the light of day was shown completely and obviously, they would edit their post to call everyone baby murderers, then move to other subreddits and start all over.
This seems too large, far reaching, and involving too many individuals for this to only be the Forge Alliance folks, unless they are huge.
If the Yes crowd are going to blame this solely on the Forge Alliance group, how did they not catch it and change it or stop it once the campaign began?
Given all the smoke, how does the every day person who wanted Yes to prevail feel about all the lying and misleading? How does said lying fit into their belief system?
I don't like the lying and misleading. It does not fit into my belief system. I have to chalk it up to the political world being comprised almost entirely of complete and utter fools.
For me, as someone who doesn’t subscribe to the same belief system, this is one reason why I am rejoicing. The lying and misleading is received as what it is. It was, what I took, as an underhanded attempt to make me live your belief system. I will rejoice any loss of any religious group’s, especially one acting in an underhanded and dishonest way, attempt to force religion on those who don’t want it.
I guess that's also part of it for me as well. It also pissed me off to no end to see churches both with signs and with donations to the vote yes thing. That crap should either be illegal or we need to tax them into oblivion. They can preach it all they want, but to get as involved as they did, when there are tons of starving, unclothed, homeless kids no doubt who could've used all that $$$ they forked out to try and make sure there are more starving, unclothed, and homeless kids because of their belief system maybe they should stop and think about it, for once.
-
taxing religious institutions is one of the top positions on which I will run for president on. metric system, fixing the seasons, I've got other bangers in there....
-
I would be interesting to hear an honest answer from the Yes crowd regarding the obvious attempt to mislead the public. It might have all been this one group, but I doubt it.
- Amendment written in such a way that either it was intentionally misleading or written by idiots and incompetents
- Lots of texts, mailers, etc that further mislead making it sound like Yes is for rights most would associate with pro choice
- TV ads from Harrison Butker, Patty Dunn, etc all making it sound like Yes is for rights most would associate with pro choice.
- I came across several Reddit discussions with people actively trying to deceive the entire convo, then once the light of day was shown completely and obviously, they would edit their post to call everyone baby murderers, then move to other subreddits and start all over.
This seems too large, far reaching, and involving too many individuals for this to only be the Forge Alliance folks, unless they are huge.
If the Yes crowd are going to blame this solely on the Forge Alliance group, how did they not catch it and change it or stop it once the campaign began?
Given all the smoke, how does the every day person who wanted Yes to prevail feel about all the lying and misleading? How does said lying fit into their belief system?
I don't like the lying and misleading. It does not fit into my belief system. I have to chalk it up to the political world being comprised almost entirely of complete and utter fools.
For me, as someone who doesn’t subscribe to the same belief system, this is one reason why I am rejoicing. The lying and misleading is received as what it is. It was, what I took, as an underhanded attempt to make me live your belief system. I will rejoice any loss of any religious group’s, especially one acting in an underhanded and dishonest way, attempt to force religion on those who don’t want it.
I guess that's also part of it for me as well. It also pissed me off to no end to see churches both with signs and with donations to the vote yes thing. That crap should either be illegal or we need to tax them into oblivion. They can preach it all they want, but to get as involved as they did, when there are tons of starving, unclothed, homeless kids no doubt who could've used all that $$$ they forked out to try and make sure there are more starving, unclothed, and homeless kids because of their belief system maybe they should stop and think about it, for once.
Churches do a lot to help starving, unclothed, homeless kids.
They're allowed to support (in their view) laws prohibiting killing humans, in addition to their charity work. You just see the issue differently than churches do, which is fine too obviously.
-
Historically speaking, I can’t think of many examples where the church actively tried to influence government and it worked out for the better.
-
I just hopped on FB and :lol:
-
The joyous celebration of this is disturbing to me. But I understand I have a starkly different opinion on this issue than most of you.
Interesting. Have you considered if the vote would have gone the other way the same people may have been disappointed or angry and many yes voters would be celebrating?
I don't think many "Yes" voters actually cared that much. (given social media reactions)
-
I would be interesting to hear an honest answer from the Yes crowd regarding the obvious attempt to mislead the public. It might have all been this one group, but I doubt it.
- Amendment written in such a way that either it was intentionally misleading or written by idiots and incompetents
- Lots of texts, mailers, etc that further mislead making it sound like Yes is for rights most would associate with pro choice
- TV ads from Harrison Butker, Patty Dunn, etc all making it sound like Yes is for rights most would associate with pro choice.
- I came across several Reddit discussions with people actively trying to deceive the entire convo, then once the light of day was shown completely and obviously, they would edit their post to call everyone baby murderers, then move to other subreddits and start all over.
This seems too large, far reaching, and involving too many individuals for this to only be the Forge Alliance folks, unless they are huge.
If the Yes crowd are going to blame this solely on the Forge Alliance group, how did they not catch it and change it or stop it once the campaign began?
Given all the smoke, how does the every day person who wanted Yes to prevail feel about all the lying and misleading? How does said lying fit into their belief system?
I don't like the lying and misleading. It does not fit into my belief system. I have to chalk it up to the political world being comprised almost entirely of complete and utter fools.
Fools? I think just very selfish, sinful people. Many are very, very clever.
I was going to post earlier about how I’d looked and tried to find an objective nutshell synopsis on what we were actually to be voting on, and how I was confused despite my searches.
Guess I wasn’t the only one.
-
Less government involvement should be a good thing.
Yeah, I take heart in this issue, and hopefully more in the future being left up to states and local municipalities.
-
Historically speaking, I can’t think of many examples where the church actively tried to influence government and it worked out for the better.
The abolitionist movement was pretty churchy
-
Historically speaking, I can’t think of many examples where the church actively tried to influence government and it worked out for the better.
The abolitionist movement was pretty churchy
As was the radical reconstruction movement.
-
Historically speaking, I can’t think of many examples where the church actively tried to influence government and it worked out for the better.
The abolitionist movement was pretty churchy
As was the radical reconstruction movement.
Were there fewer churchgoers in the South?
-
Historically speaking, I can’t think of many examples where the church actively tried to influence government and it worked out for the better.
The abolitionist movement was pretty churchy
The movement that MLK, Jr led was deeply influenced by his faith.
He was opposed by people who cited their religious beliefs, also.
-
I just hopped on FB and :lol:
Post screenshots!
-
And again, if you want abortions to "go away", provide proper sex ed, advocate for contraception, and support women's choices
This has always been a sticking point for me. There are ways to affect the number of abortions and right-wing doesn't want to do it. And they work!!
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/fpp/about-us/colorados-success-long-acting-reversible-contraception-larc
Exactly. Contraception works so damn well to keep things in check.
And I had a pretty long rant about it in the abortion thread, but it ultimately comes down to religious zealots imposing their morality on people. Contraception means you're enabling kids to fornicate, teaching them about sex and contraception means they will on each other 24/7/365 with the seks to them. It's just maddening. And then of course most (obviously not all) then defund schools, healthcare, childcare, etc etc cause it's "socialist". It all adds up to a messed up world with a lot of unwanted kids (which is super shitty) living in a cruel in uncaring world that only celebrated them bursting forth from the womb.
Opposing government provision of the things you mention is not the same as opposing them. The government provision of a lot of these things leads to a lot of messed up kids.
-
@BAC, I just caught up, but to answer your Texas question a few pages back, there is no way for the People to force a referendum. The only time Texas folks get to directly vote is on proposed Constitutional amendments. So, the Legislature would have to propose an amendment, and after last night, you can probably surmise the likelihood of that.
-
Historically speaking, I can’t think of many examples where the church actively tried to influence government and it worked out for the better.
The abolitionist movement was pretty churchy
The movement that MLK, Jr led was deeply influenced by his faith.
He was opposed by people who cited their religious beliefs, also.
Yeah abolitionism and civil rights has been pretty religiously influenced for the better, by no means perfect but the whole I'd argue was in the right vein
-
Historically speaking, I can’t think of many examples where the church actively tried to influence government and it worked out for the better.
The abolitionist movement was pretty churchy
The movement that MLK, Jr led was deeply influenced by his faith.
He was opposed by people who cited their religious beliefs, also.
Yeah abolitionism and civil rights has been pretty religiously influenced for the better, by no means perfect but the whole I'd argue was in the right vein
Yeah, but religion is so pervasive (even more so in the past) that you will inevitably find religiously motivated people on both sides of historical issues wrapping themselves in the mantle of God's will.
-
I just hopped on FB and :lol:
Post screenshots!
Sorry, I don't have Tapatalk so I can only post 192KB attachments per post. To sum it up, a girl posted one of those personal emoji's and it says "I hate Kansas" and then people started attacking each other in the comments.
-
Historically speaking, I can’t think of many examples where the church actively tried to influence government and it worked out for the better.
The abolitionist movement was pretty churchy
The movement that MLK, Jr led was deeply influenced by his faith.
He was opposed by people who cited their religious beliefs, also.
Yeah abolitionism and civil rights has been pretty religiously influenced for the better, by no means perfect but the whole I'd argue was in the right vein
Yeah, but religion is so pervasive (even more so in the past) that you will inevitably find religiously motivated people on both sides of historical issues wrapping themselves in the mantle of God's will.
For sure, overall it should not be involved with government, like at all.
-
Less government involvement should be a good thing.
Yeah, I take heart in this issue, and hopefully more in the future being left up to states and local municipalities.
Our state officials had to pass this amendment with a 2/3 vote to even get it on the ballot, so I wouldn't say they represent the public very well.
-
Less government involvement should be a good thing.
Yeah, I take heart in this issue, and hopefully more in the future being left up to states and local municipalities.
Our state officials had to pass this amendment with a 2/3 vote to even get it on the ballot, so I wouldn't say they represent the public very well.
That's pretty wild given the results
-
Historically speaking, I can’t think of many examples where the church actively tried to influence government and it worked out for the better.
The abolitionist movement was pretty churchy
As was the radical reconstruction movement.
Were there fewer churchgoers in the South?
Can’t saw, but the church, especially the black church was instrumental in the freedmen’s quick economic, educational and political ascension. This is especially true of the Methodists and other Protestant Yankees and the AME churches that sprang up across the south.
-
it is pretty stunning how badly this thing got its entire ass whipped. I mean, public polling for abortion access is pretty unanimous in its support but, in KANSAS!?
Yes very surprised to see this result in Kansas. Kansas is obviously conservative but not as extremist as I feared.
-
metric system
Communist.
-
Less government involvement should be a good thing.
Yeah, I take heart in this issue, and hopefully more in the future being left up to states and local municipalities.
Our state officials had to pass this amendment with a 2/3 vote to even get it on the ballot, so I wouldn't say they represent the public very well.
That's pretty wild given the results
Yep. That’s the real lede here. State reps can absolutely suck at representing their constituents.
-
I think there were a lot of first time voters who probably did not cast a ballot for any state rep. And if I had to guess, I would say a large chunk of these first timers will go back to not casting a ballot for state reps.
-
I think there were a lot of first time voters who probably did not cast a ballot for any state rep. And if I had to guess, I would say a large chunk of these first timers will go back to not casting a ballot for state reps.
I think that’s a good guess based on the results, but doesn’t change the fact that most reps don’t actually give a crap about what their constituents think.
-
I think there were a lot of first time voters who probably did not cast a ballot for any state rep. And if I had to guess, I would say a large chunk of these first timers will go back to not casting a ballot for state reps.
I think that’s a good guess based on the results, but doesn’t change the fact that most reps don’t actually give a crap about what their constituents think.
Agreed
-
Yea I’d agree the say yea galvanized a lot of voters
-
state reps do a very good job of representing the high energy voter. which is 100% old people. but, maybe that's a lesson about old people being allowed to vote and serve.
VOTE SD 2028 WHERE WE TACKLE THIS AND OTHER CLEARLY BULLSHIT ITEMS LIKE SEASONS AND NOT USING THE METRIC SYSTEM
-
SD I know you’re not a big “tax guy” but how are you going to tax the ultra-wealthy as compared to how they are currently being taxed? I may be a single issue voter on this topic
-
SD I know you’re not a big “tax guy” but how are you going to tax the ultra-wealthy as compared to how they are currently being taxed? I may be a single issue voter on this topic
I say tax'em
-
#blueanon declares consequences
https://twitter.com/jackstackbbq/status/1554904729075032064?s=20&t=m5I_aht6Dl9SZaveAzl8NQ
-
SD I know you’re not a big “tax guy” but how are you going to tax the ultra-wealthy as compared to how they are currently being taxed? I may be a single issue voter on this topic
I say tax'em
I will absolutely be casting my vote in the 2028 election!
-
SD I know you’re not a big “tax guy” but how are you going to tax the ultra-wealthy as compared to how they are currently being taxed? I may be a single issue voter on this topic
I say tax'em
I will absolutely be casting my vote in the 2028 election!
Thank you, I am very smart
-
I don't know that aligning with popular opinion is a compelling reason to change your thoughts on an issue. I doubt _33, who readily admits his opinion on this board, is pro-life because he thought it was popular.
Sure, I get that -- even though I think the word I used was recalibrate, not change. Slight difference. But there's this series of signs hanging in various spots around New Orleans that encourages self-reflection and intellectual humility that just say, "Think that you might be wrong." The 8/2 ass-beating that no one saw coming should probably at minimum cause some self-reflection in just about everyone on the pro-life side. I've seen a few quotes from some Republican strategists today that show a level of acknowledgement and humility, but of course they don't want their names published. Nearly all of the yes voters I've seen today on social media -- and I've been VERY online all day -- show little to no recognition that their viewpoints were proven last night to be extreme.
-
I would be interesting to hear an honest answer from the Yes crowd regarding the obvious attempt to mislead the public. It might have all been this one group, but I doubt it.
- Amendment written in such a way that either it was intentionally misleading or written by idiots and incompetents
I don't really think the ballot was very confusing. A lot of people think so apparently, so who knows. It reads pretty straightforward to me. Saying that people in the Kansas legislature are idiotic wouldn't get much of a protest from me though.
Dlew, you're a lawyer if I recall correctly, right? That's why it wasn't confusing to you. Almost none of the people voting have regular practice decoding convoluted run-on sentences meant to obfuscate and bury true meaning. Just as a fun and cool refresher, here's the text that appeared on the ballot:
Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.”
I promise you that is not straightforward for 98% of voters, which is why I could find 200 articles written in the last 24 hours that mention the convoluted wording that, yes, was clearly done on purpose to confuse and intimidate. Also, the fact that a yes vote actually negated something (constitutional protection) and a no vote affirmed something (the 2019 decision) added an extra layer of confusion. The people who brought this bill knew what they were doing. They just didn't know their underhandedness would backfire so spectacularly.
-
A little bit more on the Value Them Both (lol) underhandedness...
The only statement I've seen from them is the one they released last night after they had their entire dignity squashed with an electoral 35-7. The statement was pathetic, shameful, and of course offered zero self-reflection and only blame. It was pathetic and shameful. Just absolute Trump-style projection where they accused the other side of exactly what they'd been doing the entire time. Also it was just so predictably angry right wing loser bingo card'y. Radical left organizations! Millions of out-of-state dollars! Mainstream media! Abortion destination state! (Would honestly love it if this happened.)
https://twitter.com/ValueThemBoth/status/1554675474051244033
--"an onslaught of misinformation", like...texts the night before saying the exact opposite of what was actually true?
https://twitter.com/ValueThemBoth/status/1554675475552911361
https://twitter.com/ValueThemBoth/status/1554675476471463941
https://twitter.com/ValueThemBoth/status/1554675477578743808
https://twitter.com/ValueThemBoth/status/1554675478405025792
-
shameful but not surprising
-
I think it's a safe bet that we do become an abortion destination and that several new clinics open as a result. We are the closest free state to a whole lot of other states to our south and east.
-
I don't know that aligning with popular opinion is a compelling reason to change your thoughts on an issue. I doubt _33, who readily admits his opinion on this board, is pro-life because he thought it was popular.
Sure, I get that -- even though I think the word I used was recalibrate, not change. Slight difference. But there's this series of signs hanging in various spots around New Orleans that encourages self-reflection and intellectual humility that just say, "Think that you might be wrong." The 8/2 ass-beating that no one saw coming should probably at minimum cause some self-reflection in just about everyone on the pro-life side. I've seen a few quotes from some Republican strategists today that show a level of acknowledgement and humility, but of course they don't want their names published. Nearly all of the yes voters I've seen today on social media -- and I've been VERY online all day -- show little to no recognition that their viewpoints were proven last night to be extreme.
I think “proven to be extreme” stretches the significance of the vote. “Proven to be in the minority” is probably more accurate.
All that to say, the vote didn’t do anything to challenge my viewpoint on the actual, substantive issue. I’ve thought about the abortion question plenty already, and that a majority of Kansans disagree with me seems arbitrary to the conclusion I’ve reached.
To the extent the vote caused me to “recalibrate” anything, it reaffirmed what I already knew: the pro life movement can’t continue in this shortcut, piecemeal, death by a thousand cuts, strategy it’s engaged in in the past if it ever wants the near-total ban. The people have spoken, and they want abortion rights.
Any efforts to curtail those rights beyond what we already have is just going to cause more resentment and galvanize pro-choice voters, and lose “hearts and minds.” I’ve heard people suggest that the next step should be to strategize to get pro-life Supreme Court justices in Kansas, but I don’t think that’s a worthwhile long term play either. At the end of the day, if enough of the electorate want something, it’s going to happen.
In my opinion, pro life people need to strip things back down to the studs and do the work of actually convincing the electorate that their position is right. I’m not sure how that’s done, but I really think educating people on the issue would go a long way. The rhetoric (on both sides) is so perfunctory, and the pro choice rhetoric (eg, “clump of cells”) is, apparently, far more compelling. Whether the rhetoric shift/education works or doesn’t, I think that’s the cold hard truth for the pro life’rs: we are losing the hearts and minds battle.
Pro-choice is perceived as the sophisticated, intelligent side, and with that perception, you lose urban and suburban (and more and more rural) votes. That’ perception has existed for some time, and in the past, wasn’t devastating to Kansas pro lifers because you could get the necessary votes while still losing Kansas’s urban/suburban counties (so long as you don’t get 35-7’d and dominate in rural counties). That’s obviously not the current status after Tuesday.
All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive.
-
Federal single-payer healthcare would do a whole lot more to reduce the number of abortions than criminalizing it for poor people in Kansas and the south.
-
I don't know that aligning with popular opinion is a compelling reason to change your thoughts on an issue. I doubt _33, who readily admits his opinion on this board, is pro-life because he thought it was popular.
Sure, I get that -- even though I think the word I used was recalibrate, not change. Slight difference. But there's this series of signs hanging in various spots around New Orleans that encourages self-reflection and intellectual humility that just say, "Think that you might be wrong." The 8/2 ass-beating that no one saw coming should probably at minimum cause some self-reflection in just about everyone on the pro-life side. I've seen a few quotes from some Republican strategists today that show a level of acknowledgement and humility, but of course they don't want their names published. Nearly all of the yes voters I've seen today on social media -- and I've been VERY online all day -- show little to no recognition that their viewpoints were proven last night to be extreme.
I think %u201Cproven to be extreme%u201D stretches the significance of the vote. %u201CProven to be in the minority%u201D is probably more accurate.
All that to say, the vote didn%u2019t do anything to challenge my viewpoint on the actual, substantive issue. I%u2019ve thought about the abortion question plenty already, and that a majority of Kansans disagree with me seems arbitrary to the conclusion I%u2019ve reached.
To the extent the vote caused me to %u201Crecalibrate%u201D anything, it reaffirmed what I already knew: the pro life movement can%u2019t continue in this shortcut, piecemeal, death by a thousand cuts, strategy it%u2019s engaged in in the past if it ever wants the near-total ban. The people have spoken, and they want abortion rights.
Any efforts to curtail those rights beyond what we already have is just going to cause more resentment and galvanize pro-choice voters, and lose %u201Chearts and minds.%u201D I%u2019ve heard people suggest that the next step should be to strategize to get pro-life Supreme Court justices in Kansas, but I don%u2019t think that%u2019s a worthwhile long term play either. At the end of the day, if enough of the electorate want something, it%u2019s going to happen.
In my opinion, pro life people need to strip things back down to the studs and do the work of actually convincing the electorate that their position is right. I%u2019m not sure how that%u2019s done, but I really think educating people on the issue would go a long way. The rhetoric (on both sides) is so perfunctory, and the pro choice rhetoric (eg, %u201Cclump of cells%u201D) is, apparently, far more compelling. Whether the rhetoric shift/education works or doesn%u2019t, I think that%u2019s the cold hard truth for the pro life%u2019rs: we are losing the hearts and minds battle.
Pro-choice is perceived as the sophisticated, intelligent side, and with that perception, you lose urban and suburban (and more and more rural) votes. That%u2019 perception has existed for some time, and in the past, wasn%u2019t devastating to Kansas pro lifers because you could get the necessary votes while still losing Kansas%u2019s urban/suburban counties (so long as you don%u2019t get 35-7%u2019d and dominate in rural counties). That%u2019s obviously not the current status after Tuesday.
All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive.
I don't think I've ever posted anything in the pit, I try to stay away from this stuff on here. However, in my personal life I'm very involved with politics.
I grew up very Catholic, with very pro life very Catholic parents. I was "pro-life" until I was in my early 20s or so. If pro-lifers had any sense whatsoever, or actually wanted less abortions as opposed to making a whole bunch of noise, they would pour every single resource they have into gaining cheaper/free healthcare for expectant and new mothers, cover the cost of births for those who need it, cover childcare for at least 2 years, cover the cost of child healthcare until 5 or 6. All of these things would lower abortion rates more drastically than restrictions on abortions. They need to be putting their cash and political resources into these areas, then they could claim to be truly pro life, as they'd be supporting not just banning abortion but actually supporting the life of the mother and child.
Until those things are put in place I don't want to hear another word about banning abortion.
-
Just look at how drastically the abortion rate dropped after Obamacare passed. Maybe people are more likely to go through with a pregnancy when it won't bankrupt them.
-
I don't know that aligning with popular opinion is a compelling reason to change your thoughts on an issue. I doubt _33, who readily admits his opinion on this board, is pro-life because he thought it was popular.
Sure, I get that -- even though I think the word I used was recalibrate, not change. Slight difference. But there's this series of signs hanging in various spots around New Orleans that encourages self-reflection and intellectual humility that just say, "Think that you might be wrong." The 8/2 ass-beating that no one saw coming should probably at minimum cause some self-reflection in just about everyone on the pro-life side. I've seen a few quotes from some Republican strategists today that show a level of acknowledgement and humility, but of course they don't want their names published. Nearly all of the yes voters I've seen today on social media -- and I've been VERY online all day -- show little to no recognition that their viewpoints were proven last night to be extreme.
I think %u201Cproven to be extreme%u201D stretches the significance of the vote. %u201CProven to be in the minority%u201D is probably more accurate.
All that to say, the vote didn%u2019t do anything to challenge my viewpoint on the actual, substantive issue. I%u2019ve thought about the abortion question plenty already, and that a majority of Kansans disagree with me seems arbitrary to the conclusion I%u2019ve reached.
To the extent the vote caused me to %u201Crecalibrate%u201D anything, it reaffirmed what I already knew: the pro life movement can%u2019t continue in this shortcut, piecemeal, death by a thousand cuts, strategy it%u2019s engaged in in the past if it ever wants the near-total ban. The people have spoken, and they want abortion rights.
Any efforts to curtail those rights beyond what we already have is just going to cause more resentment and galvanize pro-choice voters, and lose %u201Chearts and minds.%u201D I%u2019ve heard people suggest that the next step should be to strategize to get pro-life Supreme Court justices in Kansas, but I don%u2019t think that%u2019s a worthwhile long term play either. At the end of the day, if enough of the electorate want something, it%u2019s going to happen.
In my opinion, pro life people need to strip things back down to the studs and do the work of actually convincing the electorate that their position is right. I%u2019m not sure how that%u2019s done, but I really think educating people on the issue would go a long way. The rhetoric (on both sides) is so perfunctory, and the pro choice rhetoric (eg, %u201Cclump of cells%u201D) is, apparently, far more compelling. Whether the rhetoric shift/education works or doesn%u2019t, I think that%u2019s the cold hard truth for the pro life%u2019rs: we are losing the hearts and minds battle.
Pro-choice is perceived as the sophisticated, intelligent side, and with that perception, you lose urban and suburban (and more and more rural) votes. That%u2019 perception has existed for some time, and in the past, wasn%u2019t devastating to Kansas pro lifers because you could get the necessary votes while still losing Kansas%u2019s urban/suburban counties (so long as you don%u2019t get 35-7%u2019d and dominate in rural counties). That%u2019s obviously not the current status after Tuesday.
All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive.
I don't think I've ever posted anything in the pit, I try to stay away from this stuff on here. However, in my personal life I'm very involved with politics.
I grew up very Catholic, with very pro life very Catholic parents. I was "pro-life" until I was in my early 20s or so. If pro-lifers had any sense whatsoever, or actually wanted less abortions as opposed to making a whole bunch of noise, they would pour every single resource they have into gaining cheaper/free healthcare for expectant and new mothers, cover the cost of births for those who need it, cover childcare for at least 2 years, cover the cost of child healthcare until 5 or 6. All of these things would lower abortion rates more drastically than restrictions on abortions. They need to be putting their cash and political resources into these areas, then they could claim to be truly pro life, as they'd be supporting not just banning abortion but actually supporting the life of the mother and child.
Until those things are put in place I don't want to hear another word about banning abortion.
I've been beating that drum for years, and totally agree. If they can PROVE to me they want good things for children after being born, and deliver on it, then you will see things go in the right direction, ie less abortions.
Also DQ, one point I do want to point out you had I totally agree with is this:
All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive.
I think the recent SCOTUS plan on this has shown exactly what eff around and find out means by doing it. I appreciate your candor on recognizing that doing that is a bad, bad idea.
In the end, while from a moral and philosophical point I can more than understand why people are against abortion, the reality always is it's so much more complicated than thinking you're stopping an "innocent baby from being murdered." You're painting the women who carry those babies in a very, very small box with not a lot of options if things go sideways whether that be from a health issue, economic issue, or social issue.
-
also @SkinnyBenny agree none of that surprises me, the amount of frothing disinformation they spew it's rich to claim elsewise. It was women protecting their interests, plain and simple.
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/U.S._abortions_and_abortion_ratios_from_1973_Guttmacher.png)
-
I don't know that aligning with popular opinion is a compelling reason to change your thoughts on an issue. I doubt _33, who readily admits his opinion on this board, is pro-life because he thought it was popular.
Sure, I get that -- even though I think the word I used was recalibrate, not change. Slight difference. But there's this series of signs hanging in various spots around New Orleans that encourages self-reflection and intellectual humility that just say, "Think that you might be wrong." The 8/2 ass-beating that no one saw coming should probably at minimum cause some self-reflection in just about everyone on the pro-life side. I've seen a few quotes from some Republican strategists today that show a level of acknowledgement and humility, but of course they don't want their names published. Nearly all of the yes voters I've seen today on social media -- and I've been VERY online all day -- show little to no recognition that their viewpoints were proven last night to be extreme.
I think %u201Cproven to be extreme%u201D stretches the significance of the vote. %u201CProven to be in the minority%u201D is probably more accurate.
All that to say, the vote didn%u2019t do anything to challenge my viewpoint on the actual, substantive issue. I%u2019ve thought about the abortion question plenty already, and that a majority of Kansans disagree with me seems arbitrary to the conclusion I%u2019ve reached.
To the extent the vote caused me to %u201Crecalibrate%u201D anything, it reaffirmed what I already knew: the pro life movement can%u2019t continue in this shortcut, piecemeal, death by a thousand cuts, strategy it%u2019s engaged in in the past if it ever wants the near-total ban. The people have spoken, and they want abortion rights.
Any efforts to curtail those rights beyond what we already have is just going to cause more resentment and galvanize pro-choice voters, and lose %u201Chearts and minds.%u201D I%u2019ve heard people suggest that the next step should be to strategize to get pro-life Supreme Court justices in Kansas, but I don%u2019t think that%u2019s a worthwhile long term play either. At the end of the day, if enough of the electorate want something, it%u2019s going to happen.
In my opinion, pro life people need to strip things back down to the studs and do the work of actually convincing the electorate that their position is right. I%u2019m not sure how that%u2019s done, but I really think educating people on the issue would go a long way. The rhetoric (on both sides) is so perfunctory, and the pro choice rhetoric (eg, %u201Cclump of cells%u201D) is, apparently, far more compelling. Whether the rhetoric shift/education works or doesn%u2019t, I think that%u2019s the cold hard truth for the pro life%u2019rs: we are losing the hearts and minds battle.
Pro-choice is perceived as the sophisticated, intelligent side, and with that perception, you lose urban and suburban (and more and more rural) votes. That%u2019 perception has existed for some time, and in the past, wasn%u2019t devastating to Kansas pro lifers because you could get the necessary votes while still losing Kansas%u2019s urban/suburban counties (so long as you don%u2019t get 35-7%u2019d and dominate in rural counties). That%u2019s obviously not the current status after Tuesday.
All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive.
I don't think I've ever posted anything in the pit, I try to stay away from this stuff on here. However, in my personal life I'm very involved with politics.
I grew up very Catholic, with very pro life very Catholic parents. I was "pro-life" until I was in my early 20s or so. If pro-lifers had any sense whatsoever, or actually wanted less abortions as opposed to making a whole bunch of noise, they would pour every single resource they have into gaining cheaper/free healthcare for expectant and new mothers, cover the cost of births for those who need it, cover childcare for at least 2 years, cover the cost of child healthcare until 5 or 6. All of these things would lower abortion rates more drastically than restrictions on abortions. They need to be putting their cash and political resources into these areas, then they could claim to be truly pro life, as they'd be supporting not just banning abortion but actually supporting the life of the mother and child.
Until those things are put in place I don't want to hear another word about banning abortion.
I've been beating that drum for years, and totally agree. If they can PROVE to me they want good things for children after being born, and deliver on it, then you will see things go in the right direction, ie less abortions.
Also DQ, one point I do want to point out you had I totally agree with is this:
All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive.
I think the recent SCOTUS plan on this has shown exactly what eff around and find out means by doing it. I appreciate your candor on recognizing that doing that is a bad, bad idea.
In the end, while from a moral and philosophical point I can more than understand why people are against abortion, the reality always is it's so much more complicated than thinking you're stopping an "innocent baby from being murdered." You're painting the women who carry those babies in a very, very small box with not a lot of options if things go sideways whether that be from a health issue, economic issue, or social issue.
Yeah, in no way am I saying pro-life people are bad people (some are, but that's true with any group) I'd go so far as to say most most pro-choice people aren't in love with the idea of an abortion. Very very few people are excited to get an abortion, but that's the choice this country has given them: go bankrupt or abort this baby. Who am, or the government, to force someone into bankruptcy. After having 2 kids of my own this has become even more clear to me. Kids are hard and expensive. If you don't have a support system in place I truly can't imagine how hard it would be.
-
Also DQ, one point I do want to point out you had I totally agree with is this:
All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive.
I think the recent SCOTUS plan on this has shown exactly what eff around and find out means by doing it. I appreciate your candor on recognizing that doing that is a bad, bad idea.
In the end, while from a moral and philosophical point I can more than understand why people are against abortion, the reality always is it's so much more complicated than thinking you're stopping an "innocent baby from being murdered." You're painting the women who carry those babies in a very, very small box with not a lot of options if things go sideways whether that be from a health issue, economic issue, or social issue.
Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that Dobbs was bad for the pro-life cause. It was obviously huge, and one I wouldn't trade despite the resentment it caused among the voting populace. I do think the timing of Dobbs was bad for the VTB effort.
I was talking about the Kansas Supreme Court, which found an abortion/right to privacy in the Kansas constitution (basically a state version of Roe).
-
How about they stop calling themselves ‘pro-life?’
Everybody is pro-life. Using that term is pretty douchy. I 100% check-out IRL if someone says they are pro-life, it comes off as very ‘I’m better than you.’ That would be a good start for hearts and minds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
How about they stop calling themselves ‘pro-life?’
Everybody is pro-life. Using that term is pretty douchy. I 100% check-out IRL if someone says they are pro-life, it comes off as very ‘I’m better than you.’ That would be a good start for hearts and minds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I mean, it's shorthand. Everyone is for "choice" too.
If we want to reframe things to "pro-abortion rights" vs. "anti-abortion rights" (which is a longer way of saying the same things) that's fine with me, but it's semantics.
-
I don't know that aligning with popular opinion is a compelling reason to change your thoughts on an issue. I doubt _33, who readily admits his opinion on this board, is pro-life because he thought it was popular.
Sure, I get that -- even though I think the word I used was recalibrate, not change. Slight difference. But there's this series of signs hanging in various spots around New Orleans that encourages self-reflection and intellectual humility that just say, "Think that you might be wrong." The 8/2 ass-beating that no one saw coming should probably at minimum cause some self-reflection in just about everyone on the pro-life side. I've seen a few quotes from some Republican strategists today that show a level of acknowledgement and humility, but of course they don't want their names published. Nearly all of the yes voters I've seen today on social media -- and I've been VERY online all day -- show little to no recognition that their viewpoints were proven last night to be extreme.
I think “proven to be extreme” stretches the significance of the vote. “Proven to be in the minority” is probably more accurate.
All that to say, the vote didn’t do anything to challenge my viewpoint on the actual, substantive issue. I’ve thought about the abortion question plenty already, and that a majority of Kansans disagree with me seems arbitrary to the conclusion I’ve reached.
To the extent the vote caused me to “recalibrate” anything, it reaffirmed what I already knew: the pro life movement can’t continue in this shortcut, piecemeal, death by a thousand cuts, strategy it’s engaged in in the past if it ever wants the near-total ban. The people have spoken, and they want abortion rights.
Any efforts to curtail those rights beyond what we already have is just going to cause more resentment and galvanize pro-choice voters, and lose “hearts and minds.” I’ve heard people suggest that the next step should be to strategize to get pro-life Supreme Court justices in Kansas, but I don’t think that’s a worthwhile long term play either. At the end of the day, if enough of the electorate want something, it’s going to happen.
In my opinion, pro life people need to strip things back down to the studs and do the work of actually convincing the electorate that their position is right. I’m not sure how that’s done, but I really think educating people on the issue would go a long way. The rhetoric (on both sides) is so perfunctory, and the pro choice rhetoric (eg, “clump of cells”) is, apparently, far more compelling. Whether the rhetoric shift/education works or doesn’t, I think that’s the cold hard truth for the pro life’rs: we are losing the hearts and minds battle.
Pro-choice is perceived as the sophisticated, intelligent side, and with that perception, you lose urban and suburban (and more and more rural) votes. That’ perception has existed for some time, and in the past, wasn’t devastating to Kansas pro lifers because you could get the necessary votes while still losing Kansas’s urban/suburban counties (so long as you don’t get 35-7’d and dominate in rural counties). That’s obviously not the current status after Tuesday.
All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive.
I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions. That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder. There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.
IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did. When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.
-
I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions. That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder. There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.
IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did. When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.
This is wrong. Even if your framework is "1. It is generally wrong to kill innocents," there can be rational exceptions -- at least in the case of serious health threat to the mother (which is universally excepted in every "near-total" ban i've seen). I also think there are some fairly compelling arguments in the case of rape (recently i heard some heady lack-of-duty-based argument akin to the violinist thought experiment), but they haven't convinced me.
I agree that accessible birth control should be favored. Also agree that systems should be in place to help with expenses.
-
I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions. That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder. There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.
IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did. When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.
This is wrong. There can be rational exceptions -- at least in the case of serious health threat to the mother (which is universally excepted in every "near-total" ban i've seen). I also think there are some fairly compelling arguments in the case of rape (recently i heard some heady lack-of-duty-based argument akin to the violinist thought experiment), but they haven't convinced me.
I agree that accessible birth control should be favored. Also agree that systems should be in place to help with expenses.
That's fair for life of the mother - but the process of making an exception for the life of the mother has sounded horrendous and unreasonable in a lot of states that have bans. They don't seem to want to trust the mother or doctor to make this decision. Any other exception just strikes me as the best the pro-life crowd can do at the moment, but they're itching to reel those back as well.
-
I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions. That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder. There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.
IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did. When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.
This is wrong. There can be rational exceptions -- at least in the case of serious health threat to the mother (which is universally excepted in every "near-total" ban i've seen). I also think there are some fairly compelling arguments in the case of rape (recently i heard some heady lack-of-duty-based argument akin to the violinist thought experiment), but they haven't convinced me.
I agree that accessible birth control should be favored. Also agree that systems should be in place to help with expenses.
That's fair for life of the mother - but the process of making an exception for the life of the mother has sounded horrendous and unresonable in a lot of states that have bans.
It seems fairly plain to me. All that would be required is for the doctor performing the procedure to provide a legitimate health-basis for the procedure (e.g. "ectopic pregnancy"). Which doctors do pretty routinely for all sorts of things.
-
The problem with saying we should spend money on birth control and all that stuff is that a lot of Americans are only in it for themselves and not for the good of the people or community or America as a whole. I’d be willing to bet that the people demanding no abortions highly correlate with the lower my taxes and stop giving people food stamps crowd. Very opinionated while simultaneously not willing to sacrifice a single thing.
-
I don't know that aligning with popular opinion is a compelling reason to change your thoughts on an issue. I doubt _33, who readily admits his opinion on this board, is pro-life because he thought it was popular.
Sure, I get that -- even though I think the word I used was recalibrate, not change. Slight difference. But there's this series of signs hanging in various spots around New Orleans that encourages self-reflection and intellectual humility that just say, "Think that you might be wrong." The 8/2 ass-beating that no one saw coming should probably at minimum cause some self-reflection in just about everyone on the pro-life side. I've seen a few quotes from some Republican strategists today that show a level of acknowledgement and humility, but of course they don't want their names published. Nearly all of the yes voters I've seen today on social media -- and I've been VERY online all day -- show little to no recognition that their viewpoints were proven last night to be extreme.
I think %u201Cproven to be extreme%u201D stretches the significance of the vote. %u201CProven to be in the minority%u201D is probably more accurate.
All that to say, the vote didn%u2019t do anything to challenge my viewpoint on the actual, substantive issue. I%u2019ve thought about the abortion question plenty already, and that a majority of Kansans disagree with me seems arbitrary to the conclusion I%u2019ve reached.
To the extent the vote caused me to %u201Crecalibrate%u201D anything, it reaffirmed what I already knew: the pro life movement can%u2019t continue in this shortcut, piecemeal, death by a thousand cuts, strategy it%u2019s engaged in in the past if it ever wants the near-total ban. The people have spoken, and they want abortion rights.
Any efforts to curtail those rights beyond what we already have is just going to cause more resentment and galvanize pro-choice voters, and lose %u201Chearts and minds.%u201D I%u2019ve heard people suggest that the next step should be to strategize to get pro-life Supreme Court justices in Kansas, but I don%u2019t think that%u2019s a worthwhile long term play either. At the end of the day, if enough of the electorate want something, it%u2019s going to happen.
In my opinion, pro life people need to strip things back down to the studs and do the work of actually convincing the electorate that their position is right. I%u2019m not sure how that%u2019s done, but I really think educating people on the issue would go a long way. The rhetoric (on both sides) is so perfunctory, and the pro choice rhetoric (eg, %u201Cclump of cells%u201D) is, apparently, far more compelling. Whether the rhetoric shift/education works or doesn%u2019t, I think that%u2019s the cold hard truth for the pro life%u2019rs: we are losing the hearts and minds battle.
Pro-choice is perceived as the sophisticated, intelligent side, and with that perception, you lose urban and suburban (and more and more rural) votes. That%u2019 perception has existed for some time, and in the past, wasn%u2019t devastating to Kansas pro lifers because you could get the necessary votes while still losing Kansas%u2019s urban/suburban counties (so long as you don%u2019t get 35-7%u2019d and dominate in rural counties). That%u2019s obviously not the current status after Tuesday.
All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive.
I don't think I've ever posted anything in the pit, I try to stay away from this stuff on here. However, in my personal life I'm very involved with politics.
I grew up very Catholic, with very pro life very Catholic parents. I was "pro-life" until I was in my early 20s or so. If pro-lifers had any sense whatsoever, or actually wanted less abortions as opposed to making a whole bunch of noise, they would pour every single resource they have into gaining cheaper/free healthcare for expectant and new mothers, cover the cost of births for those who need it, cover childcare for at least 2 years, cover the cost of child healthcare until 5 or 6. All of these things would lower abortion rates more drastically than restrictions on abortions. They need to be putting their cash and political resources into these areas, then they could claim to be truly pro life, as they'd be supporting not just banning abortion but actually supporting the life of the mother and child.
Until those things are put in place I don't want to hear another word about banning abortion.
I've been beating that drum for years, and totally agree. If they can PROVE to me they want good things for children after being born, and deliver on it, then you will see things go in the right direction, ie less abortions.
Also DQ, one point I do want to point out you had I totally agree with is this:
All that to say, any progress requires convincing people - any other strategy (shoving through legislation; favorable judges, etc.) is counterproductive.
I think the recent SCOTUS plan on this has shown exactly what eff around and find out means by doing it. I appreciate your candor on recognizing that doing that is a bad, bad idea.
In the end, while from a moral and philosophical point I can more than understand why people are against abortion, the reality always is it's so much more complicated than thinking you're stopping an "innocent baby from being murdered." You're painting the women who carry those babies in a very, very small box with not a lot of options if things go sideways whether that be from a health issue, economic issue, or social issue.
Yeah, in no way am I saying pro-life people are bad people (some are, but that's true with any group) I'd go so far as to say most most pro-choice people aren't in love with the idea of an abortion. Very very few people are excited to get an abortion, but that's the choice this country has given them: go bankrupt or abort this baby. Who am, or the government, to force someone into bankruptcy. After having 2 kids of my own this has become even more clear to me. Kids are hard and expensive. If you don't have a support system in place I truly can't imagine how hard it would be.
Again, don't want to belabor the point, but i have also beat this drum for a bit, but also totally agree, there are plenty of good meaning people on the "pro-life" side, and I don't think people on the "pro-choice" are jazzed to get an abortion, just want to have the ability to do so.
-
The problem with saying we should spend money on birth control and all that stuff is that a lot of Americans are only in it for themselves and not for the good of the people or community or America as a whole. I’d be willing to bet that the people demanding no abortions highly correlate with the lower my taxes and stop giving people food stamps crowd. Very opinionated while simultaneously not willing to sacrifice a single thing.
Agreed.
-
The problem with saying we should spend money on birth control and all that stuff is that a lot of Americans are only in it for themselves and not for the good of the people or community or America as a whole. I’d be willing to bet that the people demanding no abortions highly correlate with the lower my taxes and stop giving people food stamps crowd. Very opinionated while simultaneously not willing to sacrifice a single thing.
who also will take SSI and gov subsidies for their business as they "deserve" it.
I also think this vote was a good example of just how selfish people are. I would bet some of the pro-lifers who went in and voted "no" were thinking of themselves and their kids. i.e that they hate abortion but would absolutely do it if it were them from some illicit relationship or for their horny kids.
-
I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions. That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder. There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.
IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did. When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.
Also a big problem for me is I don't see how Pro Lifer's haven't been rioting for the last 50 years and/or partying in the streets after Dobbs if they really believe abortion is murder. The reaction we get is the kind of reaction you'd expect if you view an abortion ban as more of "punishment for premarital sex" rather than "stopping murder"
-
I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions. That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder. There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.
IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did. When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.
Also a big problem for me is I don't see how Pro Lifer's haven't been rioting for the last 50 years and/or partying in the streets after Dobbs if they really believe abortion is murder. The reaction we get is the kind of reaction you'd expect if you view an abortion ban as more of "punishment for premarital sex" rather than "stopping murder"
Are you seriously asking why I haven't been rioting in the streets prior to Dobbs or just gE'ing?
-
I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions. That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder. There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.
IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did. When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.
This is wrong. There can be rational exceptions -- at least in the case of serious health threat to the mother (which is universally excepted in every "near-total" ban i've seen). I also think there are some fairly compelling arguments in the case of rape (recently i heard some heady lack-of-duty-based argument akin to the violinist thought experiment), but they haven't convinced me.
I agree that accessible birth control should be favored. Also agree that systems should be in place to help with expenses.
That's fair for life of the mother - but the process of making an exception for the life of the mother has sounded horrendous and unresonable in a lot of states that have bans.
It seems fairly plain to me. All that would be required is for the doctor performing the procedure to provide a legitimate health-basis for the procedure (e.g. "ectopic pregnancy"). Which doctors do pretty routinely for all sorts of things.
Your view that it seems plain is more reasonable, how they actually get implemented has been far more intrusive. There are states that require multiple doctors to sign off that the health of the mother is at risk. Because of these laws, many hospitals consult a lawyer. All of this to make an innocent woman, having likely the worst day of her life, prove she's not committing a crime and wait to receive care while her life is at risk. Despite following all legal reporting procedures when terminating the pregnancy of a 10 year old child/rape victim, a doctor is being investigated and harassed by the AG of Indiana so he can get publicity. They allow "exceptions" and then the goal becomes to make those exceptions as few or difficult to access as possible.
While I'd generally like fewer abortions, I trust women to make these decisions for themselves far more than I trust the GOP with them.
-
I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions. That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder. There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.
IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did. When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.
This is wrong. There can be rational exceptions -- at least in the case of serious health threat to the mother (which is universally excepted in every "near-total" ban i've seen). I also think there are some fairly compelling arguments in the case of rape (recently i heard some heady lack-of-duty-based argument akin to the violinist thought experiment), but they haven't convinced me.
I agree that accessible birth control should be favored. Also agree that systems should be in place to help with expenses.
That's fair for life of the mother - but the process of making an exception for the life of the mother has sounded horrendous and unresonable in a lot of states that have bans.
It seems fairly plain to me. All that would be required is for the doctor performing the procedure to provide a legitimate health-basis for the procedure (e.g. "ectopic pregnancy"). Which doctors do pretty routinely for all sorts of things.
Your view that it seems plain is more reasonable, how they actually get implemented has been far more intrusive. There are states that require multiple doctors to sign off that the health of the mother is at risk. Because of these laws, many hospitals consult a lawyer. All of this to make an innocent woman, having likely the worst day of her life, prove she's not committing a crime and wait to receive care while her life is at risk. Despite following all legal reporting procedures when terminating the pregnancy of a 10 year old child/rape victim, a doctor is being investigated and harassed by the AG of Indiana so he can get publicity. They allow "exceptions" and then the goal becomes to make those exceptions as few or difficult to access as possible.
While I'd generally like fewer abortions, I trust women to make these decisions for themselves far more than I trust the GOP with them.
Yeah, I don't know. I don't think it would be overly burdensome for doctors to provide their medical rationale for performing the procedure. If requiring a second doctor to review and sign of on it is practically unworkable, then it shouldn't be a requirement. If the health of the mother is at risk, perform the procedure. Afterwards, write down why you performed it.
I don't think these problems are without some fairly straightforward solutions.
-
The whole point is to make sure there are no straightforward solutions.
-
I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions. That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder. There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.
IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did. When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.
Also a big problem for me is I don't see how Pro Lifer's haven't been rioting for the last 50 years and/or partying in the streets after Dobbs if they really believe abortion is murder. The reaction we get is the kind of reaction you'd expect if you view an abortion ban as more of "punishment for premarital sex" rather than "stopping murder"
Are you seriously asking why I haven't been rioting in the streets prior to Dobbs or just gE'ing?
no I'm pretty sure I know why you weren't
-
I would be interesting to hear an honest answer from the Yes crowd regarding the obvious attempt to mislead the public. It might have all been this one group, but I doubt it.
- Amendment written in such a way that either it was intentionally misleading or written by idiots and incompetents
I don't really think the ballot was very confusing. A lot of people think so apparently, so who knows. It reads pretty straightforward to me. Saying that people in the Kansas legislature are idiotic wouldn't get much of a protest from me though.
Dlew, you're a lawyer if I recall correctly, right? That's why it wasn't confusing to you. Almost none of the people voting have regular practice decoding convoluted run-on sentences meant to obfuscate and bury true meaning. Just as a fun and cool refresher, here's the text that appeared on the ballot:
Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.”
I promise you that is not straightforward for 98% of voters, which is why I could find 200 articles written in the last 24 hours that mention the convoluted wording that, yes, was clearly done on purpose to confuse and intimidate. Also, the fact that a yes vote actually negated something (constitutional protection) and a no vote affirmed something (the 2019 decision) added an extra layer of confusion. The people who brought this bill knew what they were doing. They just didn't know their underhandedness would backfire so spectacularly.
Ehh, the Explanatory Statement, printed on every ballot directly alongside the specific amendment text, was pretty clear and concise:
Explanatory statement. The Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding
of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion, including, but not limited
to, in circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother.
A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion,
and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion.
A vote against the Value Them Both Amendment would make no changes to the constitution of the state of Kansas, and could restrict the people, through their elected
state legislators, from regulating abortion by leaving in place the recently recognized right to abortion.”
Shall the following be adopted?
-
Should the Kansas Constitution be amended so that there is not a right to abortion.
Check yes or no
To argue that was written well and not intended to get a certain result is lolllll
-
Should the Kansas Constitution be amended so that there is not a right to abortion.
Check yes or no
To argue that was written well and not intended to get a certain result is lolllll
Yeah, I am glad they had to add all that clarification because the actual wording of the question was so stupid.
In the end, VTB and the entire anti-abortion campaign did everything they could to curtail the vote, provide misinformation, and made it all confusion.
-Poorly worded question? Check
-Put it in a primary to try and drive down the vote? Check
-Scream about out of state dark money/the other side is trying to not protect women/the left's false narrative, check, check, check
-
I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions. That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder. There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.
IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did. When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.
Also a big problem for me is I don't see how Pro Lifer's haven't been rioting for the last 50 years and/or partying in the streets after Dobbs if they really believe abortion is murder. The reaction we get is the kind of reaction you'd expect if you view an abortion ban as more of "punishment for premarital sex" rather than "stopping murder"
Are you seriously asking why I haven't been rioting in the streets prior to Dobbs or just gE'ing?
no I'm pretty sure I know why you weren't
I'm all ears
The notion that people have an obligation to "riot in the streets," and that anything short of that somehow demonstrates disingenuousness, is ridiculous.
-
I know a pretty pro-life Catholic that had a molar pregnancy. It was pretty traumatic for them. Before the doctors knew what was going on, their first thought was abuse from her husband to the point her father had to force the hospital to change the doctor giving care. I don’t know how she voted, but the thought that voting yes could result in purposely vague laws, such as those in Missouri & Texas worried her. She was worried it could result in even more issues with treatment & hesitation from hospital staff/lawyers in trying to determine if she had fetal tissue & if removing that fetal tissue created legal risk for them. She was pretty disturbed that a yes outcome could make someone else’s experience worse than what she went through in what she sees as a pretty obvious situation for an immediate D&C.
Oklahoma’s governor likes to brag that he’s the most pro-life governor in the country & will sign any abortion bill that comes to his desk. Taking away Kansas’ safe guard against potential governors like him (“Kobach almost happened” in their words) definitely entered her mind.
-
Should the Kansas Constitution be amended so that there is not a right to abortion.
Check yes or no
To argue that was written well and not intended to get a certain result is lolllll
Yeah, I am glad they had to add all that clarification because the actual wording of the question was so stupid.
In the end, VTB and the entire anti-abortion campaign did everything they could to curtail the vote, provide misinformation, and made it all confusion.
-Poorly worded question? Check
-Put it in a primary to try and drive down the vote? Check
-Scream about out of state dark money/the other side is trying to not protect women/the left's false narrative, check, check, check
Include illegal spam texts with blatant lies the afternoon of vote
-
Should the Kansas Constitution be amended so that there is not a right to abortion.
Check yes or no
To argue that was written well and not intended to get a certain result is lolllll
Yeah, I am glad they had to add all that clarification because the actual wording of the question was so stupid.
In the end, VTB and the entire anti-abortion campaign did everything they could to curtail the vote, provide misinformation, and made it all confusion.
-Poorly worded question? Check
-Put it in a primary to try and drive down the vote? Check
-Scream about out of state dark money/the other side is trying to not protect women/the left's false narrative, check, check, check
Include illegal spam texts with blatant lies the afternoon of vote
Yep. Gotta cut all that crap out.
-
I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions. That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder. There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.
IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did. When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.
Also a big problem for me is I don't see how Pro Lifer's haven't been rioting for the last 50 years and/or partying in the streets after Dobbs if they really believe abortion is murder. The reaction we get is the kind of reaction you'd expect if you view an abortion ban as more of "punishment for premarital sex" rather than "stopping murder"
Are you seriously asking why I haven't been rioting in the streets prior to Dobbs or just gE'ing?
no I'm pretty sure I know why you weren't
I'm all ears
The notion that people have an obligation to "riot in the streets," and that anything short of that somehow demonstrates disingenuousness, is ridiculous.
What do you think is an appropriate response to mass murder in your community?
-
I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions. That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder. There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.
IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did. When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.
Also a big problem for me is I don't see how Pro Lifer's haven't been rioting for the last 50 years and/or partying in the streets after Dobbs if they really believe abortion is murder. The reaction we get is the kind of reaction you'd expect if you view an abortion ban as more of "punishment for premarital sex" rather than "stopping murder"
Are you seriously asking why I haven't been rioting in the streets prior to Dobbs or just gE'ing?
no I'm pretty sure I know why you weren't
I'm all ears
The notion that people have an obligation to "riot in the streets," and that anything short of that somehow demonstrates disingenuousness, is ridiculous.
What do you think is an appropriate response to mass murder in your community?
Take to Facebook!
-
Should the Kansas Constitution be amended so that there is not a right to abortion.
Check yes or no
To argue that was written well and not intended to get a certain result is lolllll
Yeah, I am glad they had to add all that clarification because the actual wording of the question was so stupid.
In the end, VTB and the entire anti-abortion campaign did everything they could to curtail the vote, provide misinformation, and made it all confusion.
-Poorly worded question? Check
-Put it in a primary to try and drive down the vote? Check
-Scream about out of state dark money/the other side is trying to not protect women/the left's false narrative, check, check, check
Include illegal spam texts with blatant lies the afternoon of vote
Yep. Gotta cut all that crap out.
Will literally never happen. Like literally never. Leopards/spots
-
I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions. That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder. There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.
IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did. When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.
Also a big problem for me is I don't see how Pro Lifer's haven't been rioting for the last 50 years and/or partying in the streets after Dobbs if they really believe abortion is murder. The reaction we get is the kind of reaction you'd expect if you view an abortion ban as more of "punishment for premarital sex" rather than "stopping murder"
Are you seriously asking why I haven't been rioting in the streets prior to Dobbs or just gE'ing?
no I'm pretty sure I know why you weren't
I'm all ears
The notion that people have an obligation to "riot in the streets," and that anything short of that somehow demonstrates disingenuousness, is ridiculous.
What do you think is an appropriate response to mass murder in your community?
Take measures to try to reduce it?
If I went out on the street in a rage because of abortions in Kansas, it would accomplish nothing other than me ending up in a prison cell or mental asylum. Completely irrational.
-
Should the Kansas Constitution be amended so that there is not a right to abortion.
Check yes or no
To argue that was written well and not intended to get a certain result is lolllll
Yeah, I am glad they had to add all that clarification because the actual wording of the question was so stupid.
In the end, VTB and the entire anti-abortion campaign did everything they could to curtail the vote, provide misinformation, and made it all confusion.
-Poorly worded question? Check
-Put it in a primary to try and drive down the vote? Check
-Scream about out of state dark money/the other side is trying to not protect women/the left's false narrative, check, check, check
Include illegal spam texts with blatant lies the afternoon of vote
Yep. Gotta cut all that crap out.
Will literally never happen. Like literally never. Leopards/spots
Well in Kansas, at least, it's back to the drawing board for pro-life'rs. I think a pretty fundamental shift is warranted after Tuesday.
-
I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions. That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder. There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.
IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did. When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.
Also a big problem for me is I don't see how Pro Lifer's haven't been rioting for the last 50 years and/or partying in the streets after Dobbs if they really believe abortion is murder. The reaction we get is the kind of reaction you'd expect if you view an abortion ban as more of "punishment for premarital sex" rather than "stopping murder"
Are you seriously asking why I haven't been rioting in the streets prior to Dobbs or just gE'ing?
no I'm pretty sure I know why you weren't
I'm all ears
The notion that people have an obligation to "riot in the streets," and that anything short of that somehow demonstrates disingenuousness, is ridiculous.
What do you think is an appropriate response to mass murder in your community?
Take measures to try to reduce it?
If I went out on the street in a rage because of abortions in Kansas, it would accomplish nothing other than me ending up in a prison cell or mental asylum. Completely irrational.
Because almost nobody believes abortion = murder.
-
I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions. That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder. There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.
IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did. When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.
Also a big problem for me is I don't see how Pro Lifer's haven't been rioting for the last 50 years and/or partying in the streets after Dobbs if they really believe abortion is murder. The reaction we get is the kind of reaction you'd expect if you view an abortion ban as more of "punishment for premarital sex" rather than "stopping murder"
Are you seriously asking why I haven't been rioting in the streets prior to Dobbs or just gE'ing?
no I'm pretty sure I know why you weren't
I'm all ears
The notion that people have an obligation to "riot in the streets," and that anything short of that somehow demonstrates disingenuousness, is ridiculous.
What do you think is an appropriate response to mass murder in your community?
Take measures to try to reduce it?
that's quite a non-answer. I'm asking what you specifically think is an appropriate response to reduce mass murder in your community.
I mean spracne jokingly said "take to facebook!". Did you post about the vote on facebook much? Instagram? Should you go further than social media posts?
-
I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions. That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder. There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.
IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did. When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.
Also a big problem for me is I don't see how Pro Lifer's haven't been rioting for the last 50 years and/or partying in the streets after Dobbs if they really believe abortion is murder. The reaction we get is the kind of reaction you'd expect if you view an abortion ban as more of "punishment for premarital sex" rather than "stopping murder"
Are you seriously asking why I haven't been rioting in the streets prior to Dobbs or just gE'ing?
no I'm pretty sure I know why you weren't
I'm all ears
The notion that people have an obligation to "riot in the streets," and that anything short of that somehow demonstrates disingenuousness, is ridiculous.
What do you think is an appropriate response to mass murder in your community?
Take measures to try to reduce it?
that's quite a non-answer. I'm asking what you specifically think is an appropriate response to reduce mass murder in your community.
I mean spracne jokingly said "take to facebook!". Did you post about the vote on facebook much? Instagram? Should you go further than social media posts?
I think people should vote and provide support to causes aimed towards reducing the number of abortions and try to convince others that abortion is wrong. I do those things.
-
It's strange to me that the question was worded the way that it was because a whole lot of the population that is going to vote pro-life is old, senile, and easy to confuse.
-
It's strange to me that the question was worded the way that it was because a whole lot of the population that is going to vote pro-life is old, senile, and easy to confuse.
Yeah, I wondering if some of the surprising rural numbers were a result of this.
-
I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions. That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder. There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.
IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did. When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.
Also a big problem for me is I don't see how Pro Lifer's haven't been rioting for the last 50 years and/or partying in the streets after Dobbs if they really believe abortion is murder. The reaction we get is the kind of reaction you'd expect if you view an abortion ban as more of "punishment for premarital sex" rather than "stopping murder"
Are you seriously asking why I haven't been rioting in the streets prior to Dobbs or just gE'ing?
no I'm pretty sure I know why you weren't
I'm all ears
The notion that people have an obligation to "riot in the streets," and that anything short of that somehow demonstrates disingenuousness, is ridiculous.
What do you think is an appropriate response to mass murder in your community?
Take measures to try to reduce it?
that's quite a non-answer. I'm asking what you specifically think is an appropriate response to reduce mass murder in your community.
I mean spracne jokingly said "take to facebook!". Did you post about the vote on facebook much? Instagram? Should you go further than social media posts?
I think people should vote and provide support to causes aimed towards reducing the number of abortions and try to convince others that abortion is wrong. I do those things.
yep. I think that's the type of action one might also take against, say, littering in their community.
-
yep. I think that's the type of action one might also take against, say, littering in their community.
I'm just not quite grasping what you think the appropriate response is.
Would you be more likely to support the pro-life cause if I started spamming pro life memes on facebook or went out and firebombed a planned parenthood or something? I don't think those things are helpful.
-
yep. I think that's the type of action one might also take against, say, littering in their community.
I'm just not quite grasping what you think the appropriate response is.
Would you be more likely to support the pro-life cause if I started spamming pro life memes on facebook or went out and firebombed a planned parenthood or something?
I think what krusty may be getting at is that your reaction seems fairly calm for what you profess to be mass murder
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think part of the problem of the pro-life argument is that, if you truly accept the arguments that fetuses are babies and abortion is murder, there can't be exceptions. That argument has to end with a total ban because it's banning murder. There's no real space for exceptions or compromise with the other side when you view (or purposefully depict) them as baby murderers.
IMO, pro-lifers would be a lot better off improving access to birth control and sex education to prevent abortions like Colorado did. When they are unwilling to take steps that have been proven effective to prevent abortion, I see the goal as not preventing baby murder but as forcing people to live by their religious dogma.
This is wrong. There can be rational exceptions -- at least in the case of serious health threat to the mother (which is universally excepted in every "near-total" ban i've seen). I also think there are some fairly compelling arguments in the case of rape (recently i heard some heady lack-of-duty-based argument akin to the violinist thought experiment), but they haven't convinced me.
I agree that accessible birth control should be favored. Also agree that systems should be in place to help with expenses.
That's fair for life of the mother - but the process of making an exception for the life of the mother has sounded horrendous and unresonable in a lot of states that have bans.
It seems fairly plain to me. All that would be required is for the doctor performing the procedure to provide a legitimate health-basis for the procedure (e.g. "ectopic pregnancy"). Which doctors do pretty routinely for all sorts of things.
Your view that it seems plain is more reasonable, how they actually get implemented has been far more intrusive. There are states that require multiple doctors to sign off that the health of the mother is at risk. Because of these laws, many hospitals consult a lawyer. All of this to make an innocent woman, having likely the worst day of her life, prove she's not committing a crime and wait to receive care while her life is at risk. Despite following all legal reporting procedures when terminating the pregnancy of a 10 year old child/rape victim, a doctor is being investigated and harassed by the AG of Indiana so he can get publicity. They allow "exceptions" and then the goal becomes to make those exceptions as few or difficult to access as possible.
While I'd generally like fewer abortions, I trust women to make these decisions for themselves far more than I trust the GOP with them.
Yeah, I don't know. I don't think it would be overly burdensome for doctors to provide their medical rationale for performing the procedure. If requiring a second doctor to review and sign of on it is practically unworkable, then it shouldn't be a requirement. If the health of the mother is at risk, perform the procedure. Afterwards, write down why you performed it.
I don't think these problems are without some fairly straightforward solutions.
I want you to stop typing and just sit in a quiet room and think about what you just wrote for five minutes becasue I know how smart you are.
Doctors already chart and type notes all day long outlying their reasons for medical procedures and for doing what they do. If they don’t, they/their practice/their hospital doesn’t get paid, they lose their license to practice, business can get sued. I mean wtf?
Also, why in gods name would a licensed doctor need another doctor signing off on the medical care they give their patients. Monthly or annual peer reviews? Sure. Double checking what they do on every patient just to allow them to do it? That’s absurd. Should I have to have two doctors sign off on the fact that my child has strept throat so he can get amoxicillin? Required to see two orthos if I want knee surgery? If not, why not? Why just for abortions? Also none of that is straightforward. Medical care is complicated. Also what determines if the mothers life is at risk? What risk counts as “at risk”? 10% chance or more that she’ll die? 20%? 80% chance of death before dlew allows it? Once you have decided a percentage then let me know how that’s calculated? Is that easy and straightforward or do we take things like the mothers age, race, overall health into account as well? If so how are those things added and calculated? Who determines? Who gets sued if the mother wants an abortion because she is at risk but isn’t allowed to because you have determined her to be “not at risk enough” and she dies. None of this is uncomplicated, easy or straightforward. You have to know that.
-
I want you to stop typing and just sit in a quiet room and think about what you just wrote for five minutes becasue I know how smart you are.
Doctors already chart and type notes all day long outlying their reasons for medical procedures and for doing what they do. If they don’t, they/their practice/their hospital doesn’t get paid, they lose their license to practice, business can get sued. I mean wtf?
I know all that and acknowledged it in a response you quoted:
All that would be required is for the doctor performing the procedure to provide a legitimate health-basis for the procedure (e.g. "ectopic pregnancy"). Which doctors do pretty routinely for all sorts of things.
Also, why in gods name would a licensed doctor need another doctor signing off on the medical care they give their patients. Monthly or annual peer reviews? Sure. Double checking what they do on every patient just to allow them to do it? That’s absurd. Should I have to have two doctors sign off on the fact that my child has strept throat so he can get amoxicillin? Required to see two orthos if I want knee surgery? If not, why not? Why just for abortions?
Makes no difference to me if one doctor makes the call. Like I said, if two doctors is unworkable or unnecessarily redundant, get rid of the requirement.
Also what determines if the mothers life is at risk? What risk counts as “at risk”? 10% chance or more that she’ll die? 20%? 80% chance of death before dlew allows it? None of this is uncomplicated, easy or straightforward. You have to know that.
I'm fine with making "life at risk" as broad as necessary. Any abnormal physical complication is fine by me.
-
Majority of people don’t trust lawmakers to make any kind of changes to current law, and we are seeing why right now ITT.
-
Should the Kansas Constitution be amended so that there is not a right to abortion.
Check yes or no
To argue that was written well and not intended to get a certain result is lolllll
Yeah, I am glad they had to add all that clarification because the actual wording of the question was so stupid.
In the end, VTB and the entire anti-abortion campaign did everything they could to curtail the vote, provide misinformation, and made it all confusion.
-Poorly worded question? Check
-Put it in a primary to try and drive down the vote? Check
-Scream about out of state dark money/the other side is trying to not protect women/the left's false narrative, check, check, check
Include illegal spam texts with blatant lies the afternoon of vote
Yep. Gotta cut all that crap out.
Will literally never happen. Like literally never. Leopards/spots
Well in Kansas, at least, it's back to the drawing board for pro-life'rs. I think a pretty fundamental shift is warranted after Tuesday.
Until you win over the "abortions for me, not for thee" crowd it is a lost cause. The vote yes crowd is old, and getting older. The crowd that will loudly proclaim "vote yes" but then vote no because they have seen who Kansans elect and have children/grandchildren who could find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy won and sacrificed very little in winning. They will vote no again and again until they get old and crazy. I know these people. You know these people. They go to your church
-
Should the Kansas Constitution be amended so that there is not a right to abortion.
Check yes or no
To argue that was written well and not intended to get a certain result is lolllll
Yeah, I am glad they had to add all that clarification because the actual wording of the question was so stupid.
In the end, VTB and the entire anti-abortion campaign did everything they could to curtail the vote, provide misinformation, and made it all confusion.
-Poorly worded question? Check
-Put it in a primary to try and drive down the vote? Check
-Scream about out of state dark money/the other side is trying to not protect women/the left's false narrative, check, check, check
Include illegal spam texts with blatant lies the afternoon of vote
Yep. Gotta cut all that crap out.
Will literally never happen. Like literally never. Leopards/spots
Well in Kansas, at least, it's back to the drawing board for pro-life'rs. I think a pretty fundamental shift is warranted after Tuesday.
Until you win over the "abortions for me, not for thee" crowd it is a lost cause. The vote yes crowd is old, and getting older. The crowd that will loudly proclaim "vote yes" but then vote no because they have seen who Kansans elect and have children/grandchildren who could find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy won and sacrificed very little in winning. They will vote no again and again until they get old and crazy. I know these people. You know these people. They go to your church
Gotta win enough of the electorate period or it's a lost cause. I'm just tired of the dirty pool tactics from the pro-life side. I think it damages the cause more than it helps, and I think that that should be one of the main takeaways for the PL cause from Tuesday. If you can't convince people the right way, then we lose forever. End of story.
-
I want you to stop typing and just sit in a quiet room and think about what you just wrote for five minutes becasue I know how smart you are.
Doctors already chart and type notes all day long outlying their reasons for medical procedures and for doing what they do. If they don’t, they/their practice/their hospital doesn’t get paid, they lose their license to practice, business can get sued. I mean wtf?
I know all that and acknowledged it in a response you quoted:
All that would be required is for the doctor performing the procedure to provide a legitimate health-basis for the procedure (e.g. "ectopic pregnancy"). Which doctors do pretty routinely for all sorts of things.
I don't care if the decision is up to one doctor. Makes no difference to me if one doctor makes the call. Like I said, if two doctors is unworkable or unnecessarily redundant, get rid of the requirement.
Also what determines if the mothers life is at risk? What risk counts as “at risk”? 10% chance or more that she’ll die? 20%? 80% chance of death before dlew allows it? None of this is uncomplicated, easy or straightforward. You have to know that.
I'm fine with making "life at risk" as broad as necessary. Any abnormal physical complication.
Everyone’s definition of abnormal will be different.. Who decides this ridiculously long list of abnormalities? Doctors? If so what group of them and why? How are they individually selected? If not doctors than who? Senate? Congress? A committee? Who’s on the committee and why? State by state or national group of people? 35 year olds are three times as likely to die as a result of pregnancy as a 20 year old is. Does that count as an abnormality or no? Why? Women with high blood pressure are 50% more likely to die. Does that count? Why? What is used to determine high blood pressure? If the high blood pressure could be fixed through medication should the mother be required to take medication to lower her blood pressure and then go through with the birth? Why or why not?
-
I want you to stop typing and just sit in a quiet room and think about what you just wrote for five minutes becasue I know how smart you are.
Doctors already chart and type notes all day long outlying their reasons for medical procedures and for doing what they do. If they don’t, they/their practice/their hospital doesn’t get paid, they lose their license to practice, business can get sued. I mean wtf?
I know all that and acknowledged it in a response you quoted:
All that would be required is for the doctor performing the procedure to provide a legitimate health-basis for the procedure (e.g. "ectopic pregnancy"). Which doctors do pretty routinely for all sorts of things.
I don't care if the decision is up to one doctor. Makes no difference to me if one doctor makes the call. Like I said, if two doctors is unworkable or unnecessarily redundant, get rid of the requirement.
Also what determines if the mothers life is at risk? What risk counts as “at risk”? 10% chance or more that she’ll die? 20%? 80% chance of death before dlew allows it? None of this is uncomplicated, easy or straightforward. You have to know that.
I'm fine with making "life at risk" as broad as necessary. Any abnormal physical complication.
Everyone’s definition of abnormal will be different.. Who decides this ridiculously long list of abnormalities? Doctors? If so what group of them and why? How are they individually selected? If not doctors than who? Senate? Congress? A committee? Who’s on the committee and why? State by state or national group of people? 35 year olds are three times as likely to die as a result of pregnancy as a 20 year old is. Does that count as an abnormality or no? Why?
I'd be fine with leaving the determination of that to the doctor's individual discretion - so long as a doctor can articulate a legitimate physical health related reason that is a departure from an otherwise unremarkable pregnancy. I don't think a 35 year old giving birth is "abnormal" and if something like that needs to be spelled out by statute for physicians, then fine.
If you're uncomfortable with doctors having that amount of agency/responsibility, then sure, get a group of physicians (selected however you think is best) to come up with a physician-endorsed, proper definition of "complication presenting a physical threat to the mother" and codify every single possible scenario.
I'm not married to any proposal. But I do think there are ways for medical ethics and the malpractice law to come up with a reasonable ethical and legal framework that largely provides deference to doctors on the question.
-
Anecdotally (and probably irl given the results) this rallied TF out of the KS low energy politics caring about’er. I have three employees in KS who have never mentioned politics or voting who told me they would be out to vote. And, from what I do know about them, they were all voting for the winning side of this deal (not for certain, just my feel). Your single issue abortion voter is never missing a vote.
I guess it was pretty obvious
https://twitter.com/nataliejennings/status/1555266472880082945
-
I'm not married to any proposal. But I do think there are ways for medical ethics and the malpractice law to come up with a reasonable ethical and legal framework that largely provides deference to doctors on the question.
I think we could talk all day about what you would do and what would be reasonable to you. I don't think the GOP is largely passing laws or enforcing laws in a manner that matches your same level of reasonableness. They're deputizing everyone in Texas with the ability to go after someone with a suspicious miscarriage just to make sure there was no abortion. That's horrific to me.
-
I'd be fine with leaving the determination of that to the doctor's individual discretion - so long as a doctor can articulate a legitimate physical health related reason that is a departure from an otherwise unremarkable pregnancy. I don't think a 35 year old giving birth is "abnormal" and if something like that needs to be spelled out by statute for physicians, then fine.
If you're uncomfortable with doctors having that amount of agency/responsibility, then sure, get a group of physicians (selected however you think is best) to come up with a physician-endorsed, proper definition of "complication presenting a physical threat to the mother" and codify every single possible scenario.
I'm not married to any proposal. But I do think there are ways for medical ethics and the malpractice law to come up with a reasonable ethical and legal framework that largely provides deference to doctors on the question.
This is impossible. There will always be overzealous politicians & AGs like the one in Indiana that will push every chance they get. Doctors will be pulled in to “articulate why” for every abortion & within days their employers & their employees lawyers will tell them to stop/delay as much as they can like is happening in Missouri.
My wife had an abruption. Luckily it was late in her pregnancy & we went home with a baby. Her cousin had a partial abruption earlier in her pregnancy. What’s the % abruption allowed? If it’s 20% at 14 weeks, every abruption abortion is going to result in AG Kobach suing for records & subpoenaing doctors to prove it wasn’t 19%.
-
I want you to stop typing and just sit in a quiet room and think about what you just wrote for five minutes becasue I know how smart you are.
Doctors already chart and type notes all day long outlying their reasons for medical procedures and for doing what they do. If they don’t, they/their practice/their hospital doesn’t get paid, they lose their license to practice, business can get sued. I mean wtf?
I know all that and acknowledged it in a response you quoted:
All that would be required is for the doctor performing the procedure to provide a legitimate health-basis for the procedure (e.g. "ectopic pregnancy"). Which doctors do pretty routinely for all sorts of things.
I don't care if the decision is up to one doctor. Makes no difference to me if one doctor makes the call. Like I said, if two doctors is unworkable or unnecessarily redundant, get rid of the requirement.
Also what determines if the mothers life is at risk? What risk counts as “at risk”? 10% chance or more that she’ll die? 20%? 80% chance of death before dlew allows it? None of this is uncomplicated, easy or straightforward. You have to know that.
I'm fine with making "life at risk" as broad as necessary. Any abnormal physical complication.
Everyone’s definition of abnormal will be different.. Who decides this ridiculously long list of abnormalities? Doctors? If so what group of them and why? How are they individually selected? If not doctors than who? Senate? Congress? A committee? Who’s on the committee and why? State by state or national group of people? 35 year olds are three times as likely to die as a result of pregnancy as a 20 year old is. Does that count as an abnormality or no? Why?
I'd be fine with leaving the determination of that to the doctor's individual discretion - so long as a doctor can articulate a legitimate physical health related reason that is a departure from an otherwise unremarkable pregnancy. I don't think a 35 year old giving birth is "abnormal" and if something like that needs to be spelled out by statute for physicians, then fine.
If you're uncomfortable with doctors having that amount of agency/responsibility, then sure, get a group of physicians (selected however you think is best) to come up with a physician-endorsed, proper definition of "complication presenting a physical threat to the mother" and codify every single possible scenario.
I'm not married to any proposal. But I do think there are ways for medical ethics and the malpractice law to come up with a reasonable ethical and legal framework that largely provides deference to doctors on the question.
So you don’t personally think a 35 year old giving birth is abnormal. Fine. What about a 52 year old? What about a 10 year old? Those are serious questions so take a minute before you answer them if you want.
What if an individual doctor in Salina does think that a 35 year old trying to have a baby is a worthwhile reason to abort though because that person is three times more likely to die than his patients who are 20? Are your going to be ok with that? Also, What if she is 35 with cancer and diabetes? Does it matter what stage the cancer is in? Does it matter what kind? What if a different doctor thinks that high blood pressure is a reason because they are also more likely to die? Are you personally going to be ok with that or are you going to say oh that’s bullshit and they’re just using her high blood pressure as an excuse. I mean they are doctors giving medical reasons that prove it to be a higher than normal risk for pregnancy. You will be ok with that though. I just gave a couple of examples. There are thousands of individual factors which make a pregnancy more at risk to the mother. Thousands. You want to weigh in on all of them? Does that sound “reasonable”? You think we’ll get the American public or every doctor to agree on all of them?
I also don’t think you can honestly say it should be easy to throw a doctor and a lawyer in a room and come up with every contingency. It isn’t possible. You can’t honestly believe that. First, you aren’t going to get a group of people to agree and if you do then you cherry picked the people based on what you already knew about them. There are also way way way too many individual medical issues/complications/problems to make rules or laws on them all. The flowchart would be almost infinite.
-
It’s almost like people should leave doctoring to doctors and get their self-righteous asses somewhere else
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The nice thing about the law being the way that it is is that the doctor can tell the patient exactly what the risk factors are and then the patient can decide for herself if she wants to accept those risks.
-
The nice thing about the law being the way that it is is that the doctor can tell the patient exactly what the risk factors are and then the patient can decide for herself if she wants to accept those risks.
The ultimate small govt solution
-
I want you to stop typing and just sit in a quiet room and think about what you just wrote for five minutes becasue I know how smart you are.
Doctors already chart and type notes all day long outlying their reasons for medical procedures and for doing what they do. If they don’t, they/their practice/their hospital doesn’t get paid, they lose their license to practice, business can get sued. I mean wtf?
I know all that and acknowledged it in a response you quoted:
All that would be required is for the doctor performing the procedure to provide a legitimate health-basis for the procedure (e.g. "ectopic pregnancy"). Which doctors do pretty routinely for all sorts of things.
I don't care if the decision is up to one doctor. Makes no difference to me if one doctor makes the call. Like I said, if two doctors is unworkable or unnecessarily redundant, get rid of the requirement.
Also what determines if the mothers life is at risk? What risk counts as “at risk”? 10% chance or more that she’ll die? 20%? 80% chance of death before dlew allows it? None of this is uncomplicated, easy or straightforward. You have to know that.
I'm fine with making "life at risk" as broad as necessary. Any abnormal physical complication.
Everyone’s definition of abnormal will be different.. Who decides this ridiculously long list of abnormalities? Doctors? If so what group of them and why? How are they individually selected? If not doctors than who? Senate? Congress? A committee? Who’s on the committee and why? State by state or national group of people? 35 year olds are three times as likely to die as a result of pregnancy as a 20 year old is. Does that count as an abnormality or no? Why?
I'd be fine with leaving the determination of that to the doctor's individual discretion - so long as a doctor can articulate a legitimate physical health related reason that is a departure from an otherwise unremarkable pregnancy. I don't think a 35 year old giving birth is "abnormal" and if something like that needs to be spelled out by statute for physicians, then fine.
If you're uncomfortable with doctors having that amount of agency/responsibility, then sure, get a group of physicians (selected however you think is best) to come up with a physician-endorsed, proper definition of "complication presenting a physical threat to the mother" and codify every single possible scenario.
I'm not married to any proposal. But I do think there are ways for medical ethics and the malpractice law to come up with a reasonable ethical and legal framework that largely provides deference to doctors on the question.
So you don’t personally think a 35 year old giving birth is abnormal. Fine. What about a 52 year old? What about a 10 year old? Those are serious questions so take a minute before you answer them if you want.
What if an individual doctor in Salina does think that a 35 year old trying to have a baby is a worthwhile reason to abort though because that person is three times more likely to die than his patients who are 20? Are your going to be ok with that? Also, What if she is 35 with cancer and diabetes? Does it matter what stage the cancer is in? Does it matter what kind? What if a different doctor thinks that high blood pressure is a reason because they are also more likely to die? Are you personally going to be ok with that or are you going to say oh that’s bullshit and they’re just using her high blood pressure as an excuse. I mean they are doctors giving medical reasons that prove it to be a higher than normal risk for pregnancy. You will be ok with that though. I just gave a couple of examples. There are thousands of individual factors which make a pregnancy more at risk to the mother. Thousands. You want to weigh in on all of them? Does that sound “reasonable”? You think we’ll get the American public or every doctor to agree on all of them?
I also don’t think you can honestly say it should be easy to throw a doctor and a lawyer in a room and come up with every contingency. It isn’t possible. You can’t honestly believe that. First, you aren’t going to get a group of people to agree and if you do then you cherry picked the people based on what you already knew about them. There are also way way way too many individual medical issues/complications/problems to make rules or laws on them all. The flowchart would be almost infinite.
If a doctor has a reasonable, good faith belief that pregnancy presents a significant threat to the life of someone with hypertension or stage four breast cancer, who am I to say whether any of that's true? I'm not a doctor. But this question/issue isn't novel at all. "Necessary to protect the mother's life or health" comes from Roe. The question (or some version of it) already exists throughout state abortion laws -- including in Kansas and California and New York and many other places, and has for a long time. Doctors have been asked and answered the question throughout the country for 50 years.
So your question about the 35 year old with diabetes and/or cancer trying to abort in Salina? If she goes to that doctor, today, and asks for an abortion at 21 weeks, the same "life or health" question gets asked and a good faith determination by the doctor has to be made.
Regardless, I think there are enough cases (read, the vast majority) where the procedure isn't performed for any real physical health risk reason.
-
Regardless, I think there are enough cases (read, the vast majority) where the procedure isn't performed for any real physical health risk reason.
I mean, child birth is pretty risky
-
Regardless, I think there are enough cases (read, the vast majority) where the procedure isn't performed for any real physical health risk reason.
I mean, child birth is pretty risky
This is the attitude that I fear will make any exceptions in these forthcoming laws a nightmare. Roe is gone. States are free to be as restrictive as they want, and I fear the state will start butting into these private medical decisions.
-
I know this is a contentious topic, but I want to point out that although I disagree with dlew12 I think he's doing a stand up job of stating his case in a forum where he's clearly outnumbered. It's very easy to just start dropping bombs and I appreciate him.
-
I know this is a contentious topic, but I want to point out that although I disagree with dlew12 I think he's doing a stand up job of stating his case in a forum where he's clearly outnumbered. It's very easy to just start dropping bombs and I appreciate him.
Agreed. And this is the only forum I know of where this conversation can be had civilly.
-
I know this is a contentious topic, but I want to point out that although I disagree with dlew12 I think he's doing a stand up job of stating his case in a forum where he's clearly outnumbered. It's very easy to just start dropping bombs and I appreciate him.
Agreed. And this is the only forum I know of where this conversation can be had civilly.
Dreamweaver69 does not approve this post.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Great article from fellow pro-lifer Peggy Noonan (makes a lot of points that others have been making,itt):
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-pro-lifers-lost-in-kansas-state-constitution-referendum-abortion-roe-dobbs-republican-party-messaging-mothers-15-week-11659644420 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-pro-lifers-lost-in-kansas-state-constitution-referendum-abortion-roe-dobbs-republican-party-messaging-mothers-15-week-11659644420)
-
County-by-county breakdown on the VTB vote:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-primary-elections/kansas-ballot-measures?icid=election_nav (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-primary-elections/kansas-ballot-measures?icid=election_nav)
-
Only 18 counties voted no, looks like we need an electoral college
-
Who were the “both” in “value them both?”
-
No pro lifer on earth has made the concessions that dqlew has.
It’s not even fathomable
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The nice thing about the law being the way that it is is that the doctor can tell the patient exactly what the risk factors are and then the patient can decide for herself if she wants to accept those risks.
The other nice thing is in a democracy the church in one of the most conservative states in our entire union got put in their place by the voters/citizens. Their abhorrent tricks couldn’t even scare the voters.
Tax em. Tax em in their proper bracket
-
The nice thing about the law being the way that it is is that the doctor can tell the patient exactly what the risk factors are and then the patient can decide for herself if she wants to accept those risks.
The other nice thing is in a democracy the church in one of the most conservative states in our entire union got put in their place by the voters/citizens. Their abhorrent tricks couldn’t even scare the voters.
Tax em. Tax em in their proper bracket
I think this would probably also pass as a referendum to the public, but unfortunately the representatives we elect routinely vote for the opposite of what people actually want.
-
The "tax the church" stuff doesn't really make sense to me. They're non-profits.
Is the plan to tax all 501(c)s (seems bad?) or just carve out churches?
-
The "tax the church" stuff doesn't really make sense to me. They're non-profits.
Is the plan to tax all 501(c)s (seems bad?) or just carve out churches?
Carve out churches and an absolute shitload of BS 501(c) organizations. We are way too lenient in our allowances there. Could find massive amounts of actual beneficial things.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Churches that could still justify themselves as a charity would still qualify. Just get rid of the language that makes them automatically exempt.
-
this is going to sound made up because of how moderate I am but I am moderate on abortion. I am pro-life with a wide range of exceptions. I wouldn't want those exceptions to be determined by the Ronny rough ridin' Ryckman's (massive downgrade from meade, ks in a long family of massive rough ridin' downgrades) of the world.
This is exactly where I am at on this deal.
-
I’m very torn on taxing churches, because I worked at a church as a side gig for a little while and saw a lot of great things being done in public and behind the scenes, but also a lot of waste.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
the mormon church is sitting on $100b of tax free gold coins in a scrooge mcduck gold coin vault
the church of scientology rakes tax free
the pope shits on a solid gold toilet
none of these places should be exempt from taxes just because they've built tremendous pyramid schemes. they should be taxed like any other multi level marketer.
-
I’m very torn on taxing churches, because I worked at a church as a side gig for a little while and saw a lot of great things being done in public and behind the scenes, but also a lot of waste.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
yeah, my company does a shitload of really great stuff for the community as well. and we pay taxes like everyone else.
-
Anyone who gives money to a political campaign should be paying taxes, regardless of whatever else they do.
-
Anyone who gives money to a political campaign should be paying taxes, regardless of whatever else they do.
yeah, the fact that anyone can avoid paying any taxes and turn around and meddle in politics with their tax free hoard is baffling.
-
Joel Osteen ministries is a pretty glaring example of why churches should be taxed.
-
Shades of gray, my friends
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Imagine all of the good that could have been done for the poor and needy if the millions of dollars the church threw away on the Value them Both campaign would have gone to the government instead.
-
Imagine all of the good that could have been done for the poor and needy if the millions of dollars the church threw away on the Value them Both campaign would have gone to the government instead.
Lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If you won't tax an organization that will illegally spam text people outright lies about an abortion bill on the ballot then you won't tax anyone.
My company does lots of good stuff and when it does, there is a charitable exemption from tax for those funds. The catholic archdiocese in KC occupies one of the most ornate buildings in the midwest. That money could have gone to orphans instead of spam text misinformation schemes
-
Imagine all of the good that could have been done for the poor and needy if the millions of dollars the church threw away on the Value them Both campaign would have gone to the government instead.
haha!
If we want to tax nonprofits that gives money to political campaigns, fine with me. Gonna be a bad day for a lot of nonprofits if that's the case though.
-
If you won't tax an organization that will illegally spam text people outright lies about an abortion bill on the ballot then you won't tax anyone.
My company does lots of good stuff and when it does, there is a charitable exemption from tax for those funds. The catholic archdiocese in KC occupies one of the most ornate buildings in the midwest. That money could have gone to orphans instead of spam text misinformation schemes
I know a bunch of churches aren't anything like this. I work with a crap ton of churches and most of them are housed in some form of a very old building in disrepair or a newer metal building with bare bones stuff inside. I have no doubt that most of these places are scratching and clawing to make crap better for their community and I honestly think very highly of them for it.
The Catholic church on the other hand...
-
If you won't tax an organization that will illegally spam text people outright lies about an abortion bill on the ballot then you won't tax anyone.
My company does lots of good stuff and when it does, there is a charitable exemption from tax for those funds. The catholic archdiocese in KC occupies one of the most ornate buildings in the midwest. That money could have gone to orphans instead of spam text misinformation schemes
You know, the Catholic Church in KC does do a lot of great things for the poor. Food pantries, shelters, clothes, support systems...all sorts of things right here in kc. I doubt there's many bigger charitable bodies in the KC metro than the Catholic Church.
Catholics (and the Church) view the legality of abortion as a terrible thing, and I don't think there's anything at all inconsistent about allocating resources to fight against that in the only way they can*. You can do multiple things at once.
*to the extent the Church orchestrated or was had any real role in the text thing, that's bad and worthy of criticism.
-
County-by-county breakdown on the VTB vote:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-primary-elections/kansas-ballot-measures?icid=election_nav (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-primary-elections/kansas-ballot-measures?icid=election_nav)
*nice* (rounded) Johnson
-
If you won't tax an organization that will illegally spam text people outright lies about an abortion bill on the ballot then you won't tax anyone.
My company does lots of good stuff and when it does, there is a charitable exemption from tax for those funds. The catholic archdiocese in KC occupies one of the most ornate buildings in the midwest. That money could have gone to orphans instead of spam text misinformation schemes
You know, the Catholic Church in KC does do a lot of great things for the poor. Food pantries, shelters, clothes, support systems...all sorts of things right here in kc. I doubt there's many bigger charitable bodies in the KC metro than the Catholic Church.
Catholics (and the Church) view the legality of abortion as a terrible thing, and I don't think there's anything at all inconsistent about allocating resources to fight against that in the only way they can. You can do multiple things at once.
Can co
-
If you won't tax an organization that will illegally spam text people outright lies about an abortion bill on the ballot then you won't tax anyone.
My company does lots of good stuff and when it does, there is a charitable exemption from tax for those funds. The catholic archdiocese in KC occupies one of the most ornate buildings in the midwest. That money could have gone to orphans instead of spam text misinformation schemes
You know, the Catholic Church in KC does do a lot of great things for the poor. Food pantries, shelters, clothes, support systems...all sorts of things right here in kc. I doubt there's many bigger charitable bodies in the KC metro than the Catholic Church.
Catholics (and the Church) view the legality of abortion as a terrible thing, and I don't think there's anything at all inconsistent about allocating resources to fight against that in the only way they can*. You can do multiple things at once.
*to the extent the Church orchestrated or was had any real role in the text thing, that's bad and worthy of criticism.
I don't think paying taxes would prevent them from doing any of that.
-
If you won't tax an organization that will illegally spam text people outright lies about an abortion bill on the ballot then you won't tax anyone.
My company does lots of good stuff and when it does, there is a charitable exemption from tax for those funds. The catholic archdiocese in KC occupies one of the most ornate buildings in the midwest. That money could have gone to orphans instead of spam text misinformation schemes
You know, the Catholic Church in KC does do a lot of great things for the poor. Food pantries, shelters, clothes, support systems...all sorts of things right here in kc. I doubt there's many bigger charitable bodies in the KC metro than the Catholic Church.
Catholics (and the Church) view the legality of abortion as a terrible thing, and I don't think there's anything at all inconsistent about allocating resources to fight against that in the only way they can*. You can do multiple things at once.
*to the extent the Church orchestrated or was had any real role in the text thing, that's bad and worthy of criticism.
I don't think paying taxes would prevent them from doing any of that.
Sure. They'd be able to do less of that stuff, but yeah. If we want to tax non-profits who donate money to political efforts, that's something we can definitely do.
-
If you won't tax an organization that will illegally spam text people outright lies about an abortion bill on the ballot then you won't tax anyone.
My company does lots of good stuff and when it does, there is a charitable exemption from tax for those funds. The catholic archdiocese in KC occupies one of the most ornate buildings in the midwest. That money could have gone to orphans instead of spam text misinformation schemes
You know, the Catholic Church in KC does do a lot of great things for the poor. Food pantries, shelters, clothes, support systems...all sorts of things right here in kc. I doubt there's many bigger charitable bodies in the KC metro than the Catholic Church.
Catholics (and the Church) view the legality of abortion as a terrible thing, and I don't think there's anything at all inconsistent about allocating resources to fight against that in the only way they can*. You can do multiple things at once.
*to the extent the Church orchestrated or was had any real role in the text thing, that's bad and worthy of criticism.
I don't think paying taxes would prevent them from doing any of that.
yes, loving this talking point that if the church had to pay taxes they would be flat broke and have no funds available to help the community
-
If you won't tax an organization that will illegally spam text people outright lies about an abortion bill on the ballot then you won't tax anyone.
My company does lots of good stuff and when it does, there is a charitable exemption from tax for those funds. The catholic archdiocese in KC occupies one of the most ornate buildings in the midwest. That money could have gone to orphans instead of spam text misinformation schemes
You know, the Catholic Church in KC does do a lot of great things for the poor. Food pantries, shelters, clothes, support systems...all sorts of things right here in kc. I doubt there's many bigger charitable bodies in the KC metro than the Catholic Church.
Catholics (and the Church) view the legality of abortion as a terrible thing, and I don't think there's anything at all inconsistent about allocating resources to fight against that in the only way they can*. You can do multiple things at once.
*to the extent the Church orchestrated or was had any real role in the text thing, that's bad and worthy of criticism.
I don't think paying taxes would prevent them from doing any of that.
yes, loving this talking point that if the church had to pay taxes they would be flat broke and have no funds available to help the community
Nobody made that point or came close to making that point.
-
It’s almost like people should leave doctoring to doctors and get their self-righteous asses somewhere else
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes. Get rid of the FDA!
-
The "tax the church" stuff doesn't really make sense to me. They're non-profits.
Is the plan to tax all 501(c)s (seems bad?) or just carve out churches?
Carve out churches and an absolute shitload of BS 501(c) organizations. We are way too lenient in our allowances there. Could find massive amounts of actual beneficial things.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Either tax them all or tax none.
-
Why would anyone want to get rid of the FDA? Reform it maybe, but getting rid of it is strange.
-
Why would anyone want to get rid of the FDA? Reform it maybe, but getting rid of it is strange.
Why would we need the government interfering with drugs my doctor would like to prescribe me? Or medical devices they want to put in me?
We could also get rid of the USDA and all of their ridiculous regulations on meat and dairy. My body, my choice!
-
Why would anyone want to get rid of the FDA? Reform it maybe, but getting rid of it is strange.
Why would we need the government interfering with drugs my doctor would like to prescribe me? Or medical devices they want to put in me?
We could also get rid of the USDA and all of their ridiculous regulations on meat and dairy. My body, my choice!
I'm glad you don't vote.
-
JustWin, we already have a dax. Get a new gimmick. Thx
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If you won't tax an organization that will illegally spam text people outright lies about an abortion bill on the ballot then you won't tax anyone.
My company does lots of good stuff and when it does, there is a charitable exemption from tax for those funds. The catholic archdiocese in KC occupies one of the most ornate buildings in the midwest. That money could have gone to orphans instead of spam text misinformation schemes
You know, the Catholic Church in KC does do a lot of great things for the poor. Food pantries, shelters, clothes, support systems...all sorts of things right here in kc. I doubt there's many bigger charitable bodies in the KC metro than the Catholic Church.
Catholics (and the Church) view the legality of abortion as a terrible thing, and I don't think there's anything at all inconsistent about allocating resources to fight against that in the only way they can*. You can do multiple things at once.
*to the extent the Church orchestrated or was had any real role in the text thing, that's bad and worthy of criticism.
They could do even more without the insane real estate they own and continue to buy, couldn't they?
I won't discuss the abuse suits and the completely tax free billion dollar coverup, but...
-
Why would anyone want to get rid of the FDA? Reform it maybe, but getting rid of it is strange.
Why would we need the government interfering with drugs my doctor would like to prescribe me? Or medical devices they want to put in me?
We could also get rid of the USDA and all of their ridiculous regulations on meat and dairy. My body, my choice!
I'm glad you don't vote.
I vote.
-
JustWin, we already have a dax. Get a new gimmick. Thx
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, I want to get rid of the FDA and the USDA.
Don't be one of the resident derps OKC
-
JustWin, we already have a dax. Get a new gimmick. Thx
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, I want to get rid of the FDA and the USDA.
Don't be one of the resident derps OKC
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
JustWin, we already have a dax. Get a new gimmick. Thx
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would 100% get rid of the USDA, especially the regulations on raw milk, the ability to purchase meat from a non-USDA inspected facility across state lines and the ability to purchase meat from a farmer that slaughters and processes an animal herself. This would require some changes at the state level as well in most cases, but the federal regulations are a good place to start. I'm not sure why you think this is a gimmick. I hope that Thomas Massie's PRIME Act is passed at some point.
I also think the FDA should have a much more limited scope in their ability to restrict the prescription of drugs. If my doctor and I agree that the risks are worth the potential benefit, my doctor should be allowed to prescribe something to me, regardless of whether the FDA has approved the drug or not.
-
(https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/the_snake_oil_salesman_morgan_weistling.jpg)
Long proud history of people fighting the good fight against the FDA and medical boards standing between doctors and patients.
(https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/og-image-goat-glands.jpeg)
Kansas' very own John R. Brinkley.
-
(https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/the_snake_oil_salesman_morgan_weistling.jpg)
Long proud history of people fighting the good fight against the FDA and medical boards standing between doctors and patients.
(https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/og-image-goat-glands.jpeg)
Kansas' very own John R. Brinkley.
If people are that dumb, then they're that dumb. Why should their idiocy limit what I can do?
-
How are university AD’s classified in the non profit world? Just make sure SD knows so when he chops it all up he leaves them in.
-
Which drug is it that the FDA isn't letting you take, Justwin?
-
Which drug is it that the FDA isn't letting you take, Justwin?
There are none right now. I try to not take any drugs, prescription or OTC. That doesn't mean there couldn't be an issue in the future. I have known others that have wanted to take cancer treatments they were not allowed to because it wasn't approved yet.
What abortion would you have been prevented in getting if VTB passed and abortion was subsequently banned?
-
How are university AD’s classified in the non profit world? Just make sure SD knows so when he chops it all up he leaves them in.
They are more limited as non-profits these days. If you have a contribution requirement for your tickets, I'm pretty sure those are no longer tax deductible. Other general contributions may be tax deductible, though.
-
Which drug is it that the FDA isn't letting you take, Justwin?
There are none right now. I try to not take any drugs, prescription or OTC. That doesn't mean there couldn't be an issue in the future. I have known others that have wanted to take cancer treatments they were not allowed to because it wasn't approved yet.
What abortion would you have been prevented in getting if VTB passed and abortion was subsequently banned?
I'm more concerned that my brain might start rotting away when I get older and maybe I'd do something stupid like taking ivermectin to stop myself from catching covid because I read about it on facebook.
-
If you won't tax an organization that will illegally spam text people outright lies about an abortion bill on the ballot then you won't tax anyone.
My company does lots of good stuff and when it does, there is a charitable exemption from tax for those funds. The catholic archdiocese in KC occupies one of the most ornate buildings in the midwest. That money could have gone to orphans instead of spam text misinformation schemes
You know, the Catholic Church in KC does do a lot of great things for the poor. Food pantries, shelters, clothes, support systems...all sorts of things right here in kc. I doubt there's many bigger charitable bodies in the KC metro than the Catholic Church.
Catholics (and the Church) view the legality of abortion as a terrible thing, and I don't think there's anything at all inconsistent about allocating resources to fight against that in the only way they can*. You can do multiple things at once.
*to the extent the Church orchestrated or was had any real role in the text thing, that's bad and worthy of criticism.
I don't think paying taxes would prevent them from doing any of that.
yes, loving this talking point that if the church had to pay taxes they would be flat broke and have no funds available to help the community
Nobody made that point or came close to making that point.
stone (and several others): the church should be taxed
dlew using the quote function referencing on the afore mentioned post: <points out all the good things the church does for the community.>
if your response to the suggestion of the church being taxed is to remind everyone of all the good things the church does for the community, then yes, dlew12, you are quite clearly making that sort of implication. That by having to pay taxes it will have some meaninful impact on their ability to provide services and outreach to the community. And yes, i realize you did not technically say those very words but this isn't an FBI sting where we have to wait for you to say the exact imcriminating words before we break through the door. I have a functioning human brain that has the capacity to infer meaning.
I realize you might be feeling a bit defensive right now as several posters ITT (as well as the super majority population of the state of KS) have rebuked your viewpoint on this matter, but let's dispatch with the semantics, shall we?
-
Which drug is it that the FDA isn't letting you take, Justwin?
There are none right now. I try to not take any drugs, prescription or OTC. That doesn't mean there couldn't be an issue in the future. I have known others that have wanted to take cancer treatments they were not allowed to because it wasn't approved yet.
What abortion would you have been prevented in getting if VTB passed and abortion was subsequently banned?
I'm more concerned that my brain might start rotting away when I get older and maybe I'd do something stupid like taking ivermectin to stop myself from catching covid because I read about it on facebook.
If my brain were rotting away, I am completely unconcerned about that. If you're concerned about that, make sure now that you get a doctor that won't prescribe that for you. I don't view the government's job as trying to protect me from my own stupidity. And overall, even if I believed that was the government's job, as many do, I think they do a poor job of it.
-
I went in to my GP a few years ago when I first started doing some different nutrition stuff:
Me: Is too much protein bad for me? My kidneys? My liver? Anything else?
My GP: Well, you have to have a lot before you have to worry about that.
Me: How much is too much per day? 100g? 200g?
GP: I wouldn't do anything over 150g/day or so.
Me: my trainer has me at 310g/day. Is that bad?
GP: No, you're probably ok as long as you don't go over that.
Me: ????
The last few years have made me realize that my GP may not know much more than what the drug reps tell him. He spends around 4-6min per visit with me, speaks extremely fast, and books it before I can speed talk my way through more than 3 or 4 questions.
I don't feel like GPs should be the last line of defense between me, a medical layman, and whatever drug that Pfizer wants to kick out with a cool cartoon commercial and a colorful pamphlet. If you do, you are not thinking at all.
The above is an anecdote, but I feel like a very similar process could be explained to anyone else who is horny for many of the common Libertarian policies.
-
I went in to my GP a few years ago when I first started doing some different nutrition stuff:
Me: Is too much protein bad for me? My kidneys? My liver? Anything else?
My GP: Well, you have to have a lot before you have to worry about that.
Me: How much is too much per day? 100g? 200g?
GP: I wouldn't do anything over 150g/day or so.
Me: my trainer has me at 310g/day. Is that bad?
GP: No, you're probably ok as long as you don't go over that.
Me: ????
The last few years have made me realize that my GP may not know much more than what the drug reps tell him. He spends around 4-6min per visit with me, speaks extremely fast, and books it before I can speed talk my way through more than 3 or 4 questions.
I don't feel like GPs should be the last line of defense between me, a medical layman, and whatever drug that Pfizer wants to kick out with a cool cartoon commercial and a colorful pamphlet. If you do, you are not thinking at all.
The above is an anecdote, but I feel like a very similar process could be explained to anyone else who is horny for many of the common Libertarian policies.
Maybe the solution is to find a new GP. I trust my GP 100x more than I trust the government.
I don't think the government should be a line of defense between me, not a medical layman, and whatever drug that Pfizer wants to kick out with a cool cartoon commercial and a colorful pamphlet. If you wanted, you could keep the FDA around to still "approve" drugs, but take away their authority to prevent prescription of "unapproved" drugs.
-
Your GP isn't running a lab to test all of the drugs that get sent out, and he isn't reading all of the trial results because there wouldn't be enough time in the day to see patients. He's completely reliant on the FDA to assure him that drugs are safe and effective.
-
Did the FDA actually physically prevent mud brains from taking HCQ/ivermectin?
-
Getting rid of most of the departments is good imo.
-
Could probably be another thread, but name the department we get rid of and I bet a dystopian outcome could easily be explained back.
-
Did the FDA actually physically prevent mud brains from taking HCQ/ivermectin?
Only to the extent that most doctors aren't mush-brained and follow their advice. A lot of them were taking the horse-grade stuff that you can buy at Tractor Supply.
-
Could probably be another thread, but name the department we get rid of and I bet a dystopian outcome could easily be explained back.
ICE
-
Could probably be another thread, but name the department we get rid of and I bet a dystopian outcome could easily be explained back.
ICE
Border free for all. Next.
-
Could probably be another thread, but name the department we get rid of and I bet a dystopian outcome could easily be explained back.
ICE
Border free for all. Next.
I was 17 years old when ICE was created, and that wasn't the case then.
-
Could probably be another thread, but name the department we get rid of and I bet a dystopian outcome could easily be explained back.
ICE
Border free for all. Next.
I was 17 years old when ICE was created, and that wasn't the case then.
Without googling, I would bet that other departments were handling immigration and customs back then.
-
Could probably be another thread, but name the department we get rid of and I bet a dystopian outcome could easily be explained back.
ICE
Border free for all. Next.
I was 17 years old when ICE was created, and that wasn't the case then.
Without googling, I would bet that other departments were handling immigration and customs back then.
INS
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I went in to my GP a few years ago when I first started doing some different nutrition stuff:
Me: Is too much protein bad for me? My kidneys? My liver? Anything else?
My GP: Well, you have to have a lot before you have to worry about that.
Me: How much is too much per day? 100g? 200g?
GP: I wouldn't do anything over 150g/day or so.
Me: my trainer has me at 310g/day. Is that bad?
GP: No, you're probably ok as long as you don't go over that.
Me: ????
The last few years have made me realize that my GP may not know much more than what the drug reps tell him. He spends around 4-6min per visit with me, speaks extremely fast, and books it before I can speed talk my way through more than 3 or 4 questions.
I don't feel like GPs should be the last line of defense between me, a medical layman, and whatever drug that Pfizer wants to kick out with a cool cartoon commercial and a colorful pamphlet. If you do, you are not thinking at all.
The above is an anecdote, but I feel like a very similar process could be explained to anyone else who is horny for many of the common Libertarian policies.
I’m not a doctor but I think 310 is way too much Protein. Is that like 5 chicken breasts and a dozen eggs on top of regular meals?
-
Could probably be another thread, but name the department we get rid of and I bet a dystopian outcome could easily be explained back.
ICE
Border free for all. Next.
I was 17 years old when ICE was created, and that wasn't the case then.
Without googling, I would bet that other departments were handling immigration and customs back then.
INS
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Poor michael Hutchence
-
Justwin—
I assume you are not a doctor, so why do you trust your GP more than the government? How do you know they are giving you sound advice? Do you look at their qualifications?
-
I thought JW was trying to make a point about abortion but I really think he wants to get rid of the FDA, WILD!
-
JustWin, we already have a dax. Get a new gimmick. Thx
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, I want to get rid of the FDA and the USDA.
Don't be one of the resident derps OKC
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Aren't you banned from this site for being a terrible talent evaluator?
-
this thread has delivered and I think it's about to up its game
-
I went in to my GP a few years ago when I first started doing some different nutrition stuff:
Me: Is too much protein bad for me? My kidneys? My liver? Anything else?
My GP: Well, you have to have a lot before you have to worry about that.
Me: How much is too much per day? 100g? 200g?
GP: I wouldn't do anything over 150g/day or so.
Me: my trainer has me at 310g/day. Is that bad?
GP: No, you're probably ok as long as you don't go over that.
Me: ????
The last few years have made me realize that my GP may not know much more than what the drug reps tell him. He spends around 4-6min per visit with me, speaks extremely fast, and books it before I can speed talk my way through more than 3 or 4 questions.
I don't feel like GPs should be the last line of defense between me, a medical layman, and whatever drug that Pfizer wants to kick out with a cool cartoon commercial and a colorful pamphlet. If you do, you are not thinking at all.
The above is an anecdote, but I feel like a very similar process could be explained to anyone else who is horny for many of the common Libertarian policies.
I’m not a doctor but I think 310 is way too much Protein. Is that like 5 chicken breasts and a dozen eggs on top of regular meals?
Yeah. turns out that's a lot.
-
Poor michael Hutchence
:eye: :frown:
-
Who were the “both” in “value them both?”
Was it “mothers and babies?”
The Value Them Both Coalition is made up of Kansas citizens and groups who believe every human life has value. We are committed to advocating across our state for the passage of the Value Them Both Amendment to ensure that Kansas can stop unlimited abortion from coming to our state and can continue to pass laws that put the health and safety of mothers and babies before the abortion industry. We are led by Kansas Family Voice (formerly Family Policy Alliance of Kansas), Kansans for Life, and the Kansas Catholic Conference. We welcome the support of all individuals and organizations who hold this goal.
-
Justwin—
I assume you are not a doctor, so why do you trust your GP more than the government? How do you know they are giving you sound advice? Do you look at their qualifications?
I am not an MD, but I do have a PhD. I also have a degree in biology and went to two years of medical school. I simply don't trust the government. There aren't too many people I trust less than the government.
I take the advice of my GP and my kids' pediatricians and then make a decision myself. I view doctors more as advisors than as an authority I simply follow.
I read the clinical trial articles when they come out if it is something I am interested in. You can't simply take the headlines that come out. For example, there have been articles that come out about how there is no safe level of alcohol for people under 40 or that there is no overall health benefit from alcohol. However, if your look at the details of the studies, a lot of the death and harm impacts come from suicide, motor vehicle accidents and things like TB. I'm not suicidal, don't drink and drive and am not at risk of TB, so the conclusions of the articles don't really apply to me.
I also select physicians that have low prescription rates. You can find this information out from pharmacists. The pediatrician we went to in Little Rock while we lived there had the lowest prescription rate in the city. If a physician's first response is to prescribe a drug or do a procedure, we'll find a new doctor.
-
Justwin—
I assume you are not a doctor, so why do you trust your GP more than the government? How do you know they are giving you sound advice? Do you look at their qualifications?
I am not an MD, but I do have a PhD. I also have a degree in biology and went to two years of medical school. I simply don't trust the government. There aren't too many people I trust less than the government.
I assume you have only attended and worked for private institutions?
-
tbf, the fda has been making a pretty good case for getting rid of itself over the last few years.
-
tbf, the fda has been making a pretty good case for getting rid of itself over the last few years.
Let's value them both and not just throw the baby out with the bath water!
-
Could probably be another thread, but name the department we get rid of and I bet a dystopian outcome could easily be explained back.
ICE
Border free for all. Next.
I was 17 years old when ICE was created, and that wasn't the case then.
Without googling, I would bet that other departments were handling immigration and customs back then.
INS
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Department of Homeland Security is my answer. I hate all the umbrella things it holds
-
Justwin—
I assume you are not a doctor, so why do you trust your GP more than the government? How do you know they are giving you sound advice? Do you look at their qualifications?
I am not an MD, but I do have a PhD. I also have a degree in biology and went to two years of medical school. I simply don't trust the government. There aren't too many people I trust less than the government.
I assume you have only attended and worked for private institutions?
Nope. Not sure why you would assume that.
-
If you won't tax an organization that will illegally spam text people outright lies about an abortion bill on the ballot then you won't tax anyone.
My company does lots of good stuff and when it does, there is a charitable exemption from tax for those funds. The catholic archdiocese in KC occupies one of the most ornate buildings in the midwest. That money could have gone to orphans instead of spam text misinformation schemes
You know, the Catholic Church in KC does do a lot of great things for the poor. Food pantries, shelters, clothes, support systems...all sorts of things right here in kc. I doubt there's many bigger charitable bodies in the KC metro than the Catholic Church.
Catholics (and the Church) view the legality of abortion as a terrible thing, and I don't think there's anything at all inconsistent about allocating resources to fight against that in the only way they can*. You can do multiple things at once.
*to the extent the Church orchestrated or was had any real role in the text thing, that's bad and worthy of criticism.
I don't think paying taxes would prevent them from doing any of that.
yes, loving this talking point that if the church had to pay taxes they would be flat broke and have no funds available to help the community
Nobody made that point or came close to making that point.
stone (and several others): the church should be taxed
dlew using the quote function referencing on the afore mentioned post: <points out all the good things the church does for the community.>
if your response to the suggestion of the church being taxed is to remind everyone of all the good things the church does for the community, then yes, dlew12, you are quite clearly making that sort of implication. That by having to pay taxes it will have some meaninful impact on their ability to provide services and outreach to the community. And yes, i realize you did not technically say those very words but this isn't an FBI sting where we have to wait for you to say the exact imcriminating words before we break through the door. I have a functioning human brain that has the capacity to infer meaning.
I realize you might be feeling a bit defensive right now as several posters ITT (as well as the super majority population of the state of KS) have rebuked your viewpoint on this matter, but let's dispatch with the semantics, shall we?
I’m not being defensive. You misunderstood my point and then doubled down on it.
Stone said the Catholic Church should help the poor/orphans instead of buying real estate and ornate buildings and supporting certain political efforts. I said you know what? The Catholic Church does do a lot to help the poor. And that entities can allocate money towards multiple worthy causes (in their view) at the same time. That’s it.
It’s a fairly common talking point (especially right now) that “why doesn’t the Church help people instead of meddling in politics?” All I was pointing out is that the church does a rough ridin' ton to help poor people. I think that’s something worth keeping in mind amid all the criticism. I think that gets lost sometimes.
W/R/T taxes, Idk how many times I’ve said it ITT, but if we want to tax non profits (or some neutral segment of nonprofits) that’s fine with me but I feel like that maybe is going to have some unintended consequences.
To your point (that I didn’t make and wouldn’t make): Would a tax impact things and be detrimental to the charitable effort? Obviously. Would it bankrupt the Church? Obviously not. Would it bankrupt some other churches? Maybe?
-
Justwin—
I assume you are not a doctor, so why do you trust your GP more than the government? How do you know they are giving you sound advice? Do you look at their qualifications?
I am not an MD, but I do have a PhD. I also have a degree in biology and went to two years of medical school. I simply don't trust the government. There aren't too many people I trust less than the government.
I assume you have only attended and worked for private institutions?
Nope. Not sure why you would assume that.
Because you hate the government so much!
-
If you won't tax an organization that will illegally spam text people outright lies about an abortion bill on the ballot then you won't tax anyone.
My company does lots of good stuff and when it does, there is a charitable exemption from tax for those funds. The catholic archdiocese in KC occupies one of the most ornate buildings in the midwest. That money could have gone to orphans instead of spam text misinformation schemes
You know, the Catholic Church in KC does do a lot of great things for the poor. Food pantries, shelters, clothes, support systems...all sorts of things right here in kc. I doubt there's many bigger charitable bodies in the KC metro than the Catholic Church.
Catholics (and the Church) view the legality of abortion as a terrible thing, and I don't think there's anything at all inconsistent about allocating resources to fight against that in the only way they can*. You can do multiple things at once.
*to the extent the Church orchestrated or was had any real role in the text thing, that's bad and worthy of criticism.
I don't think paying taxes would prevent them from doing any of that.
yes, loving this talking point that if the church had to pay taxes they would be flat broke and have no funds available to help the community
Nobody made that point or came close to making that point.
stone (and several others): the church should be taxed
dlew using the quote function referencing on the afore mentioned post: <points out all the good things the church does for the community.>
if your response to the suggestion of the church being taxed is to remind everyone of all the good things the church does for the community, then yes, dlew12, you are quite clearly making that sort of implication. That by having to pay taxes it will have some meaninful impact on their ability to provide services and outreach to the community. And yes, i realize you did not technically say those very words but this isn't an FBI sting where we have to wait for you to say the exact imcriminating words before we break through the door. I have a functioning human brain that has the capacity to infer meaning.
I realize you might be feeling a bit defensive right now as several posters ITT (as well as the super majority population of the state of KS) have rebuked your viewpoint on this matter, but let's dispatch with the semantics, shall we?
I’m not being defensive. You misunderstood my point and then doubled down on it.
Stone said the Catholic Church should help the poor/orphans instead of buying real estate and ornate buildings and supporting certain political efforts. I said you know what? The Catholic Church does do a lot to help the poor. And that entities can allocate money towards multiple worthy causes (in their view) at the same time. That’s it.
It’s a fairly common talking point (especially right now) that “why doesn’t the Church help people instead of meddling in politics?” All I was pointing out is that the church does a rough ridin' ton to help poor people. I think that’s something worth keeping in mind amid all the criticism. I think that gets lost sometimes.
W/R/T taxes, Idk how many times I’ve said it ITT, but if we want to tax non profits (or some neutral segment of nonprofits) that’s fine with me but I feel like that maybe is going to have some unintended consequences.
To your point (that I didn’t make and wouldn’t make): Would a tax impact things and be detrimental to the charitable effort? Obviously. Would it bankrupt the Church? Obviously not. Would it bankrupt some other churches? Maybe?
Let's play conference realignment: denominational edition!
-
If you won't tax an organization that will illegally spam text people outright lies about an abortion bill on the ballot then you won't tax anyone.
My company does lots of good stuff and when it does, there is a charitable exemption from tax for those funds. The catholic archdiocese in KC occupies one of the most ornate buildings in the midwest. That money could have gone to orphans instead of spam text misinformation schemes
You know, the Catholic Church in KC does do a lot of great things for the poor. Food pantries, shelters, clothes, support systems...all sorts of things right here in kc. I doubt there's many bigger charitable bodies in the KC metro than the Catholic Church.
Catholics (and the Church) view the legality of abortion as a terrible thing, and I don't think there's anything at all inconsistent about allocating resources to fight against that in the only way they can*. You can do multiple things at once.
*to the extent the Church orchestrated or was had any real role in the text thing, that's bad and worthy of criticism.
I don't think paying taxes would prevent them from doing any of that.
yes, loving this talking point that if the church had to pay taxes they would be flat broke and have no funds available to help the community
Nobody made that point or came close to making that point.
stone (and several others): the church should be taxed
dlew using the quote function referencing on the afore mentioned post: <points out all the good things the church does for the community.>
if your response to the suggestion of the church being taxed is to remind everyone of all the good things the church does for the community, then yes, dlew12, you are quite clearly making that sort of implication. That by having to pay taxes it will have some meaninful impact on their ability to provide services and outreach to the community. And yes, i realize you did not technically say those very words but this isn't an FBI sting where we have to wait for you to say the exact imcriminating words before we break through the door. I have a functioning human brain that has the capacity to infer meaning.
I realize you might be feeling a bit defensive right now as several posters ITT (as well as the super majority population of the state of KS) have rebuked your viewpoint on this matter, but let's dispatch with the semantics, shall we?
I’m not being defensive. You misunderstood my point and then doubled down on it.
Stone said the Catholic Church should help the poor/orphans instead of buying real estate and ornate buildings and supporting certain political efforts. I said you know what? The Catholic Church does do a lot to help the poor. And that entities can allocate money towards multiple worthy causes (in their view) at the same time. That’s it.
It’s a fairly common talking point (especially right now) that “why doesn’t the Church help people instead of meddling in politics?” All I was pointing out is that the church does a rough ridin' ton to help poor people. I think that’s something worth keeping in mind amid all the criticism. I think that gets lost sometimes.
W/R/T taxes, Idk how many times I’ve said it ITT, but if we want to tax non profits (or some neutral segment of nonprofits) that’s fine with me but I feel like that maybe is going to have some unintended consequences.
To your point (that I didn’t make and wouldn’t make): Would a tax impact things and be detrimental to the charitable effort? Obviously. Would it bankrupt the Church? Obviously not. Would it bankrupt some other churches? Maybe?
Somewhat tangential, but I'd be curious to know the actual legal structure of the Catholic Church, both domestically and internationally. How does it all tie together? For that matter, how do tax-exempt mega church leaders get so wealthy? Inflated administrative expenses (incl. salaries) to get to revenue neutral, and then just book deals and other products that flow through separate, taxable entities? So the exempt org is the marketing arm, and the profit arm is separate, though indistinguishable to a layperson? I've never really thought about this.
-
I assume parishes are their own distinct entities. I doubt there’s any specific parent/sub-esque legal tie to the archdiocese, but maybe.
-
Justwin—
I assume you are not a doctor, so why do you trust your GP more than the government? How do you know they are giving you sound advice? Do you look at their qualifications?
I am not an MD, but I do have a PhD. I also have a degree in biology and went to two years of medical school. I simply don't trust the government. There aren't too many people I trust less than the government.
I assume you have only attended and worked for private institutions?
Nope. Not sure why you would assume that.
Because you hate the government so much!
So why would I not signal to employers at a lower cost?
I don't think I said I hate the government. I don't trust it. I don't think government should do a lot of what it does.
-
I assume parishes are their own distinct entities. I doubt there’s any specific parent/sub-esque legal tie to the archdiocese, but maybe.
So the archdiocese is just a "vendor" paid for "services," and on and on up the chain?
-
Honest question? Has Spracs ever broke a case as a “lawyer” or is this another one of those “not that type of lawyer” cases on this blog?
-
Honest question? Has Spracs ever broke a case as a “lawyer” or is this another one of those “not that type of lawyer” cases on this blog?
(https://media.istockphoto.com/vectors/dog-detective-looking-for-clues-with-magnifying-glass-vector-id1209388288)
-
Honest question? Has Spracs ever broke a case as a “lawyer” or is this another one of those “not that type of lawyer” cases on this blog?
Man you just got back, no need to get back into this
-
Honest question? Has Spracs ever broke a case as a “lawyer” or is this another one of those “not that type of lawyer” cases on this blog?
I'm just intellectually curious about this, Wackster. I'm not trying to "break a case" here, whatever that means. I thought you were going to keep your crap together this time?
-
Breakin’ Cases, Breakin’ Hearts: The Spracne Story
-
Honest question? Has Spracs ever broke a case as a “lawyer” or is this another one of those “not that type of lawyer” cases on this blog?
I'm just intellectually curious about this, Wackster. I'm not trying to "break a case" here, whatever that means. I thought you were going to keep your crap together this time?
I just want to know how your brain tangles day to day on a rebel board. Like why are you here and stuff. Either way, go cats!
-
Yikes
-
Breakin’ Cases, Breakin’ Hearts: The Spracne Story
Tryin' cases, mushin' faces
-
https://youtu.be/c9c55CrXMFg
-
Lol. Weird, but enjoyable. Too long, though.
-
https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/1556743359909199872?s=20&t=1YM8l508-IZCX1aBo6Ly8Q
seems like these reasonable abortion laws keep ending up with women getting threatened with jail time.
-
Can’t imagine living in Nebraska willingly
-
Can’t imagine living in Nebraska willingly
lol shots fired @stevedave
-
Can’t imagine living in Nebraska willingly
Yes, the child should have moved to another state. Simple!
-
Can’t imagine living in Nebraska willingly
Yes, the child should have moved to another state. Simple!
Don’t you eff this up for me
-
Can’t imagine living in Nebraska willingly
Yes, the child should have moved to another state. Simple!
Don’t you eff this up for me
A person can’t even pi Steve Dave anymore. The pussification of gE.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Man, how desperate do you have to be to drop 120k in debt to try and only partially recount a vote lost by 18% points
-
Man, how desperate do you have to be to drop 120k in debt to try and only partially recount a vote lost by 18% points
you have to be a proper weirdo
-
Man, how desperate do you have to be to drop 120k in debt to try and only partially recount a vote lost by 18% points
Unsurprising after the way TFG has successfully grifted off of "stolen election" rhetoric for 2 years.
-
Man, how desperate do you have to be to drop 120k in debt to try and only partially recount a vote lost by 18% points
Unsurprising after the way TFG has successfully grifted off of "stolen election" rhetoric for 2 years.
They also paid a total shazbot! ton because they refused to terminate and turn in pedos so it checks out
-
Man, how desperate do you have to be to drop 120k in debt to try and only partially recount a vote lost by 18% points
Did I read that the Wichita benefactor maxed out a bunch of credit cards to get them over the hump???
-
this aligns with my experiences with single issue bortion ks voters tbh
-
What a way to hit some credit card bonuses.
-
What a way to hit some credit card bonuses.
Oh crap, didn't think about that, probably looking to get the diamond medallion waiver, 120k gets you almost half way