I hope Dubya feels pain every day from appointing this ghoul.
He would, if he had a functional soul.
I shoulda specified: Hemorrhoidal pain. He still has an asshole, I’m sure.
Addendum: And Alito must think international opinion means nothing in the US; did he even know that now, more than ever, people are going to be not just watching him, but scrutinizing him? I mean, is he stupid and/or blind enough to revel in all this attention and believe he’s above reproach? What must he truly think of the man who appointed him, I wonder?
This is so fucked-up. If it stays in place, I wonder how it’s going to backfire?
Also pointed out by @RAvery, somewhat ironically, in the #DammitKansas thread.
Also, from the unfortunately not oneboxing KC Star.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/election/article263832087.html
I keep looking for information on the bill to find out exactly what this victory was. I keep seeing info on the election process and results, but not on the actual legal effect. Does anyone know or have a good article?
It was going to change the language of the State Consti to say it wouldn’t grant the right to abortion.
The core issue, as I understand it, is that the Kansas Supreme Court held that the state legislature did not have the authority to regulate access to abortions. This ballot measure was an attempt to amend the state constitution to give them that authority. Since the ballot measure failed, there is no change to the constitution, and therefore no change to the legislature’s ability to create laws regulating abortion access.
Here’s the proposed text of the amendment. (from here):
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
Here’s the other text that appeared on the ballot:
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.”
That is some extremely confusing language. Is this actually going to change the laws in place or does it only affect future laws?
No changes. The amendment didn’t pass, so the language of the constitution remains the same, which the Kansas Supreme Court has ruled guarantees an individual’s right to an abortion.
Here’s some more context:
The court’s majority said vague language protecting “equal and inalienable rights” in the first section of the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights grants a “natural right of personal autonomy” that includes the right to “control one’s own body” and to decide whether to continue a pregnancy.
I see it as a similar situation to how Roe v Wade was before it was overturned. The court interpreted an existing part of the law (in this case, the state Bill of Rights) to cover abortion access. Since there is no explicit law or language in the state constitution, a different state Supreme Court could interpret it differently, which would restore the legislature’s power to write laws controlling abortion access, since the state constitution wouldn’t prevent them from doing so. The amendment which did not pass yesterday was an attempt by anti-choice advocates to work around the court’s decision by explicitly adding language to allow the legislature to write laws controlling access to abortion.
In order to avoid a future court from overturning the 2019 decision, I think the next step is probably to make it explicit in Kansas law that abortion access is a protected right, although I’m not sure if that would take the form of a similar (but opposite) constitutional amendment, or something else. Although with the way the legislature seems to be locked up by the GOP, I’m not sure anything other than an amendment via popular vote has any chance anyway.
What about the abortion laws that the legislature passed before this vote? Is this a pathway to getting those overturned?
That’s definitely out of my depth. As far as I can find, this amendment was the only initiative since the 2019 court decision. Here’s another quote from that 2019 article:
The court also declared that restrictions on abortion will face strict scrutiny, so the state must show that a law is narrowly drawn to deal with a “compelling” interest. That’s higher than the U.S. Supreme Court’s standard that under the federal constitution, restrictions must avoid placing an undue burden on a woman’s access to abortion.
I wasn’t able to find any specific restrictions added between 2019 and June of this year when Roe v Wade was overturned. There were no trigger laws in place in Kansas, so nothing automatically became active, and the Kansas legislature ended their 2022 session in May, so there hasn’t been an opportunity for them to move forward on anything since the SCOTUS decision anyway.
She goes on, very obviously (and unconvincingly) reading from cue cards.
Levin Report: The FBI Confirms Its Brett Kavanaugh Investigation Was a Total Sham, Which Is Troubling Given the Whole “Lifetime Appointment” Business
https://link.vanityfair.com/view/617af241112b25773a0cc41bh1ru2.1hqa/804eb95e
I would think it would ultimately be more efficient and effective to promote the use of contraception and to make strong efforts to eliminate male-female rape. But that’s just me.