Kansans Vote to Overrule Pro-Abortion Supreme Court
Background
In 2015, the Kansas legislature passed a law that banned the most common method of killing unborn babies in the second trimester.
The radical pro-abortion group, Center for Reproductive Rights, challenged the law under the state constitution, arguing that the state’s bill of rights included a protection of the right to kill preborn children.
The Supreme Court of Kansas, which is not elected or selected by the representative branches of government, but is instead handpicked by the Kansas Bar Association, ruled in favor of the abortionists, holding that the right to kill children before birth is a fundamental “right” protected by the Kansas constitution.
The twisted logic employed by the Kansas Supreme Court is very similar to that of Roe v. Wade, but because this was a state supreme court interpreting the state constitution, it would not be affected by an eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The Kansas legislature responded with the “Value them Both” Amendment.
It states the following:
“§ 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.”
2022 Value Them Both Amendment
Problematic Language
The heart of the amendment is almost universally accepted by pro-lifers who agree that the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in Hodes was an aberration. The first sentence clarifies that the Kansas constitution does not require legal abortion or abortion funding.
However, some pro-life activists worry about the second sentence in the amendment, which attempts to obliquely deal with the issue of abortion in the case of rape and incest, but stating directly, that legislators will be able to account for “circumstances of pregnancy” including rape and incest and medical emergencies threatening the life of the mother.
The inclusion of the rape and life exception language was purely a political maneuver, since the first part of the amendment does not require any specific protection for the baby, but instead seeks to make clear that abortion is not a constitutional right.
Personhood Kansas, a local group of 100% pro-life activists argues that all that was needed was the first sentence, which would have been enough to overrule the Supreme Court of Kansas. By including the second sentence, they say, an unnecessary exception is introduced into the constitution that goes against the principle that all human beings, including those conceived by rape or incest, have equal value and dignity.
First Popular Vote After Fall of Roe
National Pro-Life and Pro-Abortion organizations consider the vote, which will take place during the primary elections on August
