31-07-2022, 04:04 PM
The outcome should be very interesting, as this will be the first legal ruling where voters have been able to express their views. Confusingly, those voting yes are not saying yes to the right to abortion but the Yes vote affirms that Kansas has no constitutional right to abortion.
 Voting No means keeping the constitution as it is, which means Kansas women do have the right to access an abortion.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62338118
"On 2 August, Kansans will vote on whether to alter the language of the state constitution, the first state to vote on such an amendment since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, abolishing the constitutional right for a woman to have an abortion. If it passes, members of the Republican-controlled state legislature can write laws that make it much harder, if not impossible, for a woman in Kansas to get an abortion.
The ballot is written so that a "yes" vote affirms that "there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion". Voting against the amendment would keep the constitution as-is, meaning that women in the state do have a right to an abortion.
Both sides are supported by powerful figures, and lots of money.
Progressive activists are behind in the polls, but they have a fundraising edge. The leaders of an organisation, Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, have reported more than $7.4m in contributions towards their campaign to defeat the amendment. US Senator Elizabeth Warren and other prominent Democrats have endorsed their campaign.
On the other side, the Value Them Both Association (the amendment is referred to as the "Value Them Both Amendment"; in this case, "both" refers to mother and child) has raised more than $6m in contributions.
The lion's share of their money has come from the archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, which is led by Archbishop Joseph Naumann.Churches are tax-exempt in the US, and they are not allowed to get involved in campaigns for political candidates. Yet churches can campaign for a specific issue, such as the referendum on abortion."
How very convenient for them.
 Voting No means keeping the constitution as it is, which means Kansas women do have the right to access an abortion.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62338118
"On 2 August, Kansans will vote on whether to alter the language of the state constitution, the first state to vote on such an amendment since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, abolishing the constitutional right for a woman to have an abortion. If it passes, members of the Republican-controlled state legislature can write laws that make it much harder, if not impossible, for a woman in Kansas to get an abortion.
The ballot is written so that a "yes" vote affirms that "there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion". Voting against the amendment would keep the constitution as-is, meaning that women in the state do have a right to an abortion.
Both sides are supported by powerful figures, and lots of money.
Progressive activists are behind in the polls, but they have a fundraising edge. The leaders of an organisation, Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, have reported more than $7.4m in contributions towards their campaign to defeat the amendment. US Senator Elizabeth Warren and other prominent Democrats have endorsed their campaign.
On the other side, the Value Them Both Association (the amendment is referred to as the "Value Them Both Amendment"; in this case, "both" refers to mother and child) has raised more than $6m in contributions.
The lion's share of their money has come from the archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, which is led by Archbishop Joseph Naumann.Churches are tax-exempt in the US, and they are not allowed to get involved in campaigns for political candidates. Yet churches can campaign for a specific issue, such as the referendum on abortion."
How very convenient for them.
in order to be old & wise, you must first be young & stupid. (I'm still working on that.)