Kansas Didn't Reject Anything

Weird blurb by ZeroHedge

Note: This was accidentally published too early as changes were being instituted. Please forgive our mistake.

ZeroHedge ran the blurb that “Kansans Overwhelmingly Reject New Abortion Restrictions”, suggesting they’re pro-child murder having voted in favour of the ballot measure, however, a ZeroHedge commenter who claims to live in the State of Kansas shed light by describing what was on the ballot paper:

22. Regulation of abortion. 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

The ballot paper was so confusing, even pro-life LifeSite news - usually the centre of knowledge on such things - wrote a very weirdly worded “Kansas Voters Defeat Pro-Life Amendment Confirming There’s No Right to Abortion”, which is unclear if they mean they defeated a pro-life amendment, thus confirming there’s no right to abortion, or if they defeated an amendment saying there’s no right to abortion.

Either way, it isn’t what the ballot says anyway. The 59% to 41% shows even the public’s confusion, and there’s a bit of weasel words going on in the ballot amendment, quoting the commentator above:

[…] 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 […]

It doesn’t really say much of anything. All it says is politicians can pass laws relating to child murder (“abortion”) so long as it doesn’t violate the Constitution. Well, technically, they can already do this.

And it doesn’t say what type of laws - which is crucial - because the laws passed could be up-to-conception restrictions on the practice of child murder. It is a law that relates, after all. Which may be why some people of Kansas voted in favour - because they anticipate harsher laws against the practice.

Inversely, if it was opposed, it could be argued that politicians in Kansas couldn’t pass laws to either support or outlaw it. After all, as the opening says, they’re not required to fund the child murder (which is unrelated to them passing bills):

[…] the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. […]

And this ballot doesn’t create nor secure a right either. It’s kind of a weird affirmative action asking ‘do we still have the power to pass laws on this subject?’ to which the people of Kansas have sort of confusingly voted ‘Yes?’.

It opens a door, but the door swings both ways and without knowing why voters want politicians to pass laws on child murder, it is impossible to say they “rejected” anything, given it’s not even proposing any specific laws.

If you like my work, be sure to support it by sharing the article link with other people, subscribing or even becoming a supporter. Thank you!