Kansas votes 62% to retain the right to access an abortion in its constitution.

[NxNW]

There's nothing that says that legislators are (or have to be) smarter or well-informed on a given issue than the electorate they represent. Especially when you're talking about house reps or state level legislators.

One hopes they would be informed.

IE:

You mean "e.g.".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

One hopes they would be informed.

As my grandpa always said, hope in one hand and poop in the other and see which one fills up first.

There's no IQ test for becoming an elected official...

In a representative system, elected people are going to "represent" the people of their districts.

That has pros and cons. If you have an entire district of low information voters, you can reasonably expect that their house rep is likely going to be someone just like them. (after all, "that person is just like me" is going to appeal to people in a lot of cases)

Why I say there's pros and cons?

While I don't want some high school drop-out climate denier dictating climate policy...I equally don't want a woke 26 year old with a masters in gender studies dictating social policy either (despite the fact that they're at opposite ends of the educational spectrum)

One needs to also consider that radical pushes from either side is going to draw equally radical counter-pushes from the other side.

Meaning, if one side is pushing an abortion policy that is extreme to one side, the people who are extreme to the other side are going to come out of the woodwork.

With regards to this subject, that's why we have "elective abortion in the third trimester" vs. "heartbeat bill" (which is a misnomer) as our two choices...when both of those options are extreme in the eyes of 80% of the population.

There's a reason why elected republicans are afraid to say they support abortion in cases of rape and incest, and why elected democrats dodge the question of whether or not they'd restrict elective abortion in the 3rd trimester.

 

[Pommer]

One hopes they would be informed.

IE:


You mean "e.g.".

I’d allow either, (though the pedant score is through the roof)!

 

[Desk trauma]

Kansas recount confirms results in favor of abortion rights

Clearly time to call in the cyber ninjas.

 

[rjs330]

Kansas has spoken. No, some people aren't going to be happy. Had the vote gone the other way, some people wouldn't be happy.

But that is the way of things. That is what was supposed to happen. The states have their say.

If we are ever going to come to a place where we can work together then we have to be willing to not be fully happy.

From the founding of this country and the government there was always a schism of thought. As long as the left is going to protest and fight against abortion restrictions we can't overcome the schism. As long as the right isn't willing to address legitimate concerns from the left then we can't overcome the schism.

This country was founded despite the deep differences. We certainly ought to be able to get past some of these in this issue.

 

[jayem]

There's a reason why elected republicans are afraid to say they support abortion in cases of rape and incest, and why elected democrats dodge the question of whether or not they'd restrict elective abortion in the 3rd trimester.

I'm pro-choice. But I would strongly doubt that an elective abortion in the 3rd trimester (28 weeks or after) is really an issue. If it's done, it would only be for an immediate life-threatening maternal health threat. One indication would be a ruptured uterus. This generally occurs at the site of a previous C-section, and results in massive hemorrhage. The fetus is often expelled into the abdominal cavity, and usually doesn't survive. Uterine rupture requires blood replacement and an immediate hysterectomy. The focus is on preventing the woman from bleeding to death. The welfare of the fetus is a secondary concern. It's possible that a pregnant woman after 28 weeks or later might develop a sudden unrelated and unexpected illness that could be worsened by continuing the pregnancy to term. But in these (also rare) cases, the pregnancy would--if at all possible--be ended by inducing labor. A 28+ week preemie would need neonatal ICU care, but is viable. But a purely elective 3rd trimester abortion is a canard. It won't happen in any legitimate medical facility.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But a purely elective 3rd trimester abortion is a canard. It won't happen in any legitimate medical facility.

If it won't happen at any legitimate facility, then why do some legitimate facilities advertise/offer it?
Abortion after 26 weeks - Dupont Clinic | Gynecology & Reproductive Health | Washington DC

If you are 26 weeks or later into your pregnancy, we can still see you, regardless of your medical history, background, or fetal indications. We do not require any particular “reason” to be seen here – if you would like to terminate your pregnancy, we support you in that decision.


...but with regards to the sentiment about it being a non issue because "it only accounts for fewer than 1% of abortions", why is it okay for one side to build an entire moral case and semantically overload their proposal around a <1% subset of abortions, but it's considered wrong for the other side to employ the same strategy?

For instance,

Why can staunch pro-choice advocates brand their proposal as "Defending Womens' Health Act" or the like (when 'health reasons' is <1% of the abortions that take place)? Meanwhile, nearly a fourth give the reason "worried it will impact my career prospects" and another third say "not ready for a baby yet".

So instead of calling it "Womens' Health Defense Act", wouldn't a more appropriate name be "Making sure a mistake doesn't disrupt career prospects Act"...or does that not sound as noble?

But when staunch pro-life advocates fixate on a different <1% of abortions, (and uses a similarly semantically overloaded branding strategy) they're labelled as being inauthentic or disingenuous?


For the record, I'm not in the pro-life camp, but I think there's value in just biting the bullet and going with the "say what you mean, and mean what you say" approach.


It's very reminiscent of some of the "moral-sounding outliers" approach marijuana advocates used to employ before it was legalized in a lot of places. I'm in the pro-legalization camp for pot, but thought it was tacky when virtually every argument you heard about it was centered around "it helps cancer patients have an appetite" when everyone knew darn well that was the vast minority of people using it. ...and I told them something similar "Just say what you really mean: I'm an adult, and I should be able to smoke weed in my living room if I want"

But you can't cling to a moral sounding outlier, pretend "that's what this whole thing is about", and then chastise the other side for employing the same strategy.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Kansas recount confirms results in favor of abortion rights

Clearly time to call in the cyber ninjas.

There's gotta be someone who makes pillows we can call in to sort this whole thing out

 

[jayem]

If it won't happen at any legitimate facility, then why do some legitimate facilities advertise/offer it?
Abortion after 26 weeks - Dupont Clinic | Gynecology & Reproductive Health | Washington DC

If you are 26 weeks or later into your pregnancy, we can still see you, regardless of your medical history, background, or fetal indications. We do not require any particular “reason” to be seen here – if you would like to terminate your pregnancy, we support you in that decision.


...but with regards to the sentiment about it being a non issue because "it only accounts for fewer than 1% of abortions", why is it okay for one side to build an entire moral case and semantically overload their proposal around a <1% subset of abortions, but it's considered wrong for the other side to employ the same strategy?

For instance,

Why can staunch pro-choice advocates brand their proposal as "Defending Womens' Health Act" or the like (when 'health reasons' is <1% of the abortions that take place)? Meanwhile, nearly a fourth give the reason "worried it will impact my career prospects" and another third say "not ready for a baby yet".

So instead of calling it "Womens' Health Defense Act", wouldn't a more appropriate name be "Making sure a mistake doesn't disrupt career prospects Act"...or does that not sound as noble?

But when staunch pro-life advocates fixate on a different <1% of abortions, (and uses a similarly semantically overloaded branding strategy) they're labelled as being inauthentic or disingenuous?


For the record, I'm not in the pro-life camp, but I think there's value in just biting the bullet and going with the "say what you mean, and mean what you say" approach.


It's very reminiscent of some of the "moral-sounding outliers" approach marijuana advocates used to employ before it was legalized in a lot of places. I'm in the pro-legalization camp for pot, but thought it was tacky when virtually every argument you heard about it was centered around "it helps cancer patients have an appetite" when everyone knew darn well that was the vast minority of people using it. ...and I told them something similar "Just say what you really mean: I'm an adult, and I should be able to smoke weed in my living room if I want"

But you can't cling to a moral sounding outlier, pretend "that's what this whole thing is about", and then chastise the other side for employing the same strategy.

That’s interesting. I stand corrected. I knew that the late George Tiller performed 3rd trimester terminations, but I wasn’t aware of this provider. Their cut-off is 31 weeks, 6 days. Which is the early 3rd trimester, that’s usually defined as beginning at week 27 or 28. I would still doubt that such abortions account for much of their volume. It’s a 3 day procedure, and there’s no insurance coverage. I’ll bet the cost is $5K at minimum. (Travel and accommodations not included.) But OTOH, the typical cost of an uncomplicated full term vaginal delivery without insurance is $5-10K.

I completely agree with you that invoking outliers to prove a point is unconvincing and intellectually weak.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I completely agree with you that invoking outliers to prove a point is unconvincing and intellectually weak.

...or at least have the same set of rules for both sides to follow.

For instance, either outliers are on the table or their off the table in terms of things that weigh into the decision making process.

With regards to where staunch pro-life and staunch pro-choice people are at on the issue, they're occupying polar opposite ends of the bell curve, but brand their message in such a way that makes it come across as if they're representing the "meaty part in the middle"

Like the example I provided before, where they labelled the bill "Women's health defense act" (despite health-related reasons being fewer than 1% of abortions)

Likewise, the staunch pro-life side uses some similar labelling with some of their anti-abortion proposals with things like "Defense of life" "protecting children" (even though their proposals could deny a 11 year an abortion if she's raped by her uncle)

 

[essentialsaltes]

Facing voter backlash, California Republicans recalibrate their antiabortion stance

After Roe was overturned in June, voters in conservative Kansas resoundingly rejected an effort to remove abortion protections from the state constitution. In four special House elections, Democrats this summer have gotten more of the vote than Joe Biden did in those districts in 2020, a sign that the pro-abortion rights energy may be lasting.

The Life at Conception Act is fewer than 300 words, but its language leaves little room for ambiguity on abortion.

Put simply: “It would be a nationwide abortion ban,” ...

The legislation was co-sponsored by more than half of California’s Republican congressional delegation — including three representatives who face highly competitive races in the November midterm elections: Reps. Michelle Steel of Seal Beach, Mike Garcia of Santa Clarita and David Valadao of Hanford.

But in the two months since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling overturned Roe vs. Wade, stripping away constitutional protections for abortion, the candidates have been noticeably quiet on the issue. Nationally, Republican candidates in tight races have appeared on the defensive, releasing ads downplaying their antiabortion stances.

Steel and Garcia were not made available for interviews but provided statements about the abortion debate. Both indicated they back exceptions to abortion bans in cases of rape, incest or threats to the mother’s health — a departure from the bill. [Valadao did not respond.]

The number of registered Democrats in Orange County [which overlaps part of Steel's district] has increased by more than 4,100 since a draft of the landmark abortion decision was leaked in May — compared with a jump of just 946 for Republicans, according to data from the Orange County Registrar of Voters. [Steel won in 2020 by ~8000 votes.]

 

[Jipsah]

The left promises to help the poor achieve a tolerable living standard.

They've been saying that for the better part of a century I've been alive. They making any progress?

 

[durangodawood]

They've been saying that for the better part of a century I've been alive. They making any progress?

All the best places seem to be more leftist that the USA, but a lot less leftist than, say, Soviet Russia.

 

[Nithavela]

They've been saying that for the better part of a century I've been alive. They making any progress?

You mean in the USA or in first world countries?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Erm ... Kansas and Arkansas are 2 different places.

Arkansas has a chance to catch up.

They said it couldn't be done in deep red Arkansas​

With no national support or attention, Arkansas women (and a few good men) did what everyone said couldn’t be done. On July 5, organizers turned in enough signatures to qualify an amendment to restore access to abortion in Arkansas. The amendment will restore access up to 18 weeks for any reason and thereafter has exceptions for rape, incest, fatal fetal anomaly, and life and health of the mother.

Arkansas is one of the few southern states to allow citizen-initiated referendums. However, in 2023 the legislature referred a constitutional amendment to the ballot that would make the process more difficult, increasing the number of qualifying counties from 15 to 50. The citizens of Arkansas soundly defeated the proposed amendment, but the legislature defied the clear will of the people and changed the constitution in their next legislative session. A lawsuit is currently pending challenging the 50-county requirement. Despite this, organizers qualified 54 counties and submitted 10,000 signatures over the total state-wide requirement.

 

[Nithavela]

Arkansas has a chance to catch up.

They said it couldn't be done in deep red Arkansas​

With no national support or attention, Arkansas women (and a few good men) did what everyone said couldn’t be done. On July 5, organizers turned in enough signatures to qualify an amendment to restore access to abortion in Arkansas. The amendment will restore access up to 18 weeks for any reason and thereafter has exceptions for rape, incest, fatal fetal anomaly, and life and health of the mother.

Arkansas is one of the few southern states to allow citizen-initiated referendums. However, in 2023 the legislature referred a constitutional amendment to the ballot that would make the process more difficult, increasing the number of qualifying counties from 15 to 50. The citizens of Arkansas soundly defeated the proposed amendment, but the legislature defied the clear will of the people and changed the constitution in their next legislative session. A lawsuit is currently pending challenging the 50-county requirement. Despite this, organizers qualified 54 counties and submitted 10,000 signatures over the total state-wide requirement.

Should have made it 80 counties.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Should have made it 80 counties.

Since there's only 75, that would be pretty effective. Don't give them any ideas.

 

[Pommer]

Since there's only 75, that would be pretty effective. Don't give them any ideas.

Funny how they make “democracy” more difficult than it needs to be, when they’re defending their crummy rule “governing”!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Funny how they make “democracy” more difficult than it needs to be, when they’re defending their crummy rule “governing”!

Who needs a republic when you have an emperor waiting in the wings.

 

[Nithavela]

Funny how they make “democracy” more difficult than it needs to be, when they’re defending their crummy rule “governing”!

Who needs a republic when you have an emperor waiting in the wings.

View attachment 351407

They are defending the lives of babies. How can anything not be justified for such a goal?