Why not start with what the legislation proposed? Why not ask the people interviewed what about it was unacceptable? I bet you would have found that most Kansans are still pro life, but there was something too extreme about the bill to pass it. Why not ask what would have made it passable? Oh right, because that’s not the point. The point is to conclude, yes, even those Bible thumping Kansans are pro abortion.
I have been a reporter myself--many years of freelancing--and I felt the author did a terrible job, both in choosing her interview subjects and in interviewing them. She clearly had an agenda to push, but even that came out garbled.
I agree. She started with a conclusion and then filled in the holes. I feel like a got a peek at Kansas exceptions and unique situations, not the overall sentiment behind this.
What I don't understand and I don't understand why the pro-life advocates aren't approaching abortion in the vein I am going to suggest. And that is, a baby who can survive outside the womb is a US citizen and has all the rights and privileges of a US citizen and one of these rights is not to be murdered or at least protected from being murdered.
That sounds pretty simple to me. Can anyone on this BBS prove me wrong?
Well approaching from the other side, I think the bodily autonomy argument ultimately traps them into this conclusion. You can’t say it’s your body without exception but only until week 16. If you sufficiently devalue the baby’s life and value only your body, there is no limit. It’s a logical conclusion even if I disagree with it.
Part of the reason there is never any compromise on abortion is that neither side is willing to see the viewpoint of the other. But apparently a lot of Kansans are in that actual, messy middle. It’s a lot easier when things are black and white to dismiss other people.
That then means that "bodily autonomy" > "right to life". So, that would mean that I could justify all manner of bad behavior by claiming that my bodily autonomy was threatened.
Right! And it completely ignores the baby’s right to live, also parental rights from the father - with the absolute exception of criminal insemination like rape or child rape (those men get no rights), which cuts through it all to an answer for me.
Your post implies that pro-life advocates don’t hold that view. I am pro-life (or at least that is what I consider myself), and my position is that if a baby can survive outside the womb it should be conferred all the rights of a human being. I know many other pro-life individuals who agree. I would be ok with abortion being legal up until the baby can survive on it’s own outside the womb.
Wow. That's a tough one. We're pretty good now; babies can be twenty-two weekers and do well if cared-for properly. I don't know exactly how mature they have to be to survive on their own. My two sons are in their thirties. That's a joke.
Lots of preemie kids running around now, some adults. I go back to the maturity standard: fifteen weeks and before: no questions asked. After that, sorry Sweeheart; you're too late. I like that standard because intrauterine dating is pretty accurate. I'm sure somebody has a better idea.
don't know what most pro-lifers think. I offer my opinion, which I thought was a good idea and wondered why my approach was never used to stop late term abortions.
I'll give it a shot if you can tell me how you decide when the baby can survive outside the womb. Is that survival with help, or without? How much help? Intubation, arterial and venous lines? What drugs? Just oxygen, or the whole pharmacy? What if the baby is so defective that it will never be aware? The usual rape, incest in the mix? What about that, how would that work?
Not picking on you; my experience is that the really simple solutions always run into problems.
How come pro-abortion people always paint the worst possible scenarios when the vast majority of babies are normal and born without complications. If there are to be complications then you should call a doctor.
Hi Jim, the same is relevant to end of life questions. How much and what kind of help should be given to a person at the end of their life? If a baby can survive and with medical intervention it is no different than an adult with covid on a ventilator.
The difference I see is that the old guy can advocate for himself, and he has a life's history that involves other people - children, hopefully, as well - who will be loath to see him go. The unborn have none of those people to speak on their behalf, ergo the State's interest in their welfare.
Sorry, no baby can survive outside the womb until it has the ability to care for itself. It still requires someone to feed it, whether it’s with a bottle or umbilical cord. It’s a silly argument.
Speaking of silly arguments, the idea that no one has the right to life who can't "care for itself" is about as silly as it gets. After all that covers essentially everyone under the age of about 12. Is it open season on kids now?
What? I am making the point that pro-aborts who use viability outside the womb are making a stupid argument as no baby can survive on it’s own. Maybe if I was your mom you’d be lucky enough to have reading comprehension skills.
You have deliberately misconstrued by post. You know what I mean yet you place ridiculous cavoites on my post. It is not a silly argument. The baby can live outside the womb. Only a sociopath would let it die. Normal people would care for it and insure its survival. Only a psychotic would do as some proabortion creeps have proposed, which is to make the baby comfortable and let it die of thirst and hunger. Are you one of those uncaring sociopaths that would let a helpless baby die or just a typical Democrat? By your post, it would appear so.
No, but you are. You engage in lifeboat ethics. It’s a sick mind that views “viability outside the womb” as the reason to make abortion permissible. The pro-abort death culture is mired in logical fallacies.
No. But I believe you and a couple of others are missing the point about the very terrible argument polecat made. MY POINT is that viability out of the womb should NEVER be the argument for right to life (which is what screeching polecat thinks should be argued). Indeed the definition of being human - which begins at conception per 99.9% if biologists - is the obvious reason to argue AGAINST abortion. GOT IT?
Lonesome...that was terrific, on point. And to answer, the pro-lifers do obligate your post, but as proven by Nancy R, the media does not carry the mention of a "baby inside the womb is a Citizen"
The author seemed to do what outlets like CNN do - find conservative caricatures and present them as representations of conservatives as a whole. I suspect she wasn’t even aware she was doing it, if you’ve only ever been shown conservatives on television wearing gigantic Trump tshirts saying “Trump is my president and Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior” of course you’d go straight to a church to speak with the Pastor to find out what the average conservative thinks.
Her examples attempt to answer a general question, yet are oddly specific outliers - the uber-liberal Christians who proudly proclaim they are not like *those* people, the former Republicans leaning I, the lone D in a neighborhood full of Rs, the guy repeating the trope that it's not his business what someone does with their body.
Outliers didn't decide this issue. It would be great to hear from more mainstream people instead of the "approved exceptions" list she presented. I'd love to have heard from a centrist Democrat or Republican, from mainstream Christians and / or evangelicals (although that word is now stupidly wielded as a weapon), from limited-government D's and R's.
Instead it seems the liberal elite author brought her own personal passions and prejudices to the article and presented them alone as valid and meaningful — so rather than an unflinching look at the reality of politics on a statewide scale, we got an editorial showing how open-minded a few people in Kansas are.
So, all the shrieking hysteria from leftist democrats and their media toadies about back-alley abortions being the only option for terminating a pregnancy in red state bastions like Kansas turned out to be another big, fat lie. After all the caterwauling, it turns out that in a functioning, uncensored republic, citizens, be they a "centrist Democrat or Republican, from mainstream Christians and / or evangelicals" can come to consensus and decide the big issues instead of a majority of unelected, black robed activist judges.
I wouldn't necessarily characterize the people who believe those things in that way, but yes. We're also missing a huge, huge part of this - that neither R's or D's have bothered to act to permanently make Roe's decisions and permutations legal or illegal in the last 50 years, despite many chances, and haven't.
The fundraising possibilities for both sides are endless, and I think part of the new messaging in response is aiming to keep those fundraisers by being even more strident on respective sides.
In the middle is the American voter, and I feel we're all a lot calmer than they would have us all think.
It’s hard to imagine the left’s invectives being any more strident that they were after the Dobbs opinion was leaked. Frankly, I believe they shot their load and the Kansas decision means fundraising on the issue at the national level is dead.
To your point though, one has to wonder if the reason Roe stood for 50 years is because both “sides” chose to nominate justices who would uphold it and keep the fund-raising fountain flowing. It' not surprising then, that it took an “outlier” like Trump to spoil their party.
Left to their own devices, yes, citizens of red states would almost surely vote the same way as Kansans did: "Keep your government nose out of my personal business." But the citizens of ban states were not given the opportunity to say that. The Kansas vote was via a referendum on stripping abortion rights from the state constitution. That gave citizens the final say on the matter, and they chose reasonableness on abortion rights.
South Dakota, Oklahoma, Missouri, Indiana, and Idaho, to name just five total ban states, imposed their draconian measures via legislature and governor. (Legally, I will note.) If their residents had been allowed to vote on the matter, they would have gone the Kansas route. They weren't allowed, so state politicians trolling for red-meat votes shackled their pregnant women in ways the Kansas vote suggests they did not want.
So the "leftist democrats and their media toadies" were correct: back-alley abortions (or traveling to an abortion-sensible state) will be the only options for terminating a pregnancy in a red-state bastion. Just because lefties caterwaul on this issue doesn't mean they're wrong.
I hope the next two elections purges those states of the abortion banners, in favor of politicians who know how to compromise. Want an abortion in Oklahoma? "Fuck you from Day One, lady." It might be legal, but it sure as hell isn't right.
She should have talked to ordinary Kansans, not outliers and not merely in Blue cities. Anyone who has lived for any length of time in Kansas can see how worthless her sampling method was. If I were doing a story of this kind, this is what my interview list would have looked like:
- a farmer from central or western Kansas
- a small business owner in Topeka, Atchison, and/or Salina
- some Kansas-born students at K-State
- a factory worker from somewhere in the eastern urban areas
You make a fine point about broadening the sea of interview possibilities. Yes, I would add the interviews you suggest to the ones she had. That would provide a more complete picture of the state ... as much as any one article can, that is. Would make for better photo ops, too, or at least more variety.
I'm curious if she interviewed a dozen or two more people whose comments didn't make the cut, or if she limited herself to just those she quoted.
Thanks for this, Celia, a pleasant evening to you. You said you've done considerable freelance work. Who do you write for?
Small-town newspapers. When we lived in Oregon, I wrote occasionally for The Stayton Mail and for The Mill City Enterprise. In our current town, I wrote for The Daily Gate City for 10 years, until I started working as a security guard (my working hours conflicted too often with the events I was asked to cover, so I had to give it up).
Cool! Working hours on small newspapers can be brutal, all those nights covering school boards, city councils, county boards, etc. I started my newspaper career in high school, covering the local high school sports for the princely sum of $30 a month. But hey, I was a professional :-) After that, daily newspapers in DeKalb, Joliet, Moline, all in Illinois, then the mighty Chicago Sun-Times. Now I write crime novels, but the newsroom is my emotional home ... at least newsrooms from back in the day, filled with smokers, drinkers, shouters, and very high level reporters and editors. The stories they told this then-baby writer . . .
I thought the point of this article is to convince the reader that Republican Kansas will vote Democrat from now on. Kansas is pro life and pro Republican. In theory only. What is the reality?
Those who voted for Biden voted for open borders, climate hysteria and hyper inflation. They voted to destroy the American way of life. So my conclusion is that if this author is right Kansas is anti-American. And out of its mind.
In my former profession, we knew that you could not extrapolate from the opinions expressed in focus groups—the sample size was too small. This reporter offers us a sample of views and tries to extrapolate her own from them.
Every article ever published in any medium is a "sample of views." It can't be anything but; there's not enough time in the world to interview every person on Earth. Reporting can never cover all the bases; too many bases.
As for "extrapolation," the only one that I found was fair and supported by the facts: that Kansans are religious and pro-life, but wanted even more for government to keep its nose out their private affairs, and so voted against stripping abortion rights out of their constitution.
Anyone claiming the reporter is an "elite lib trying to make us think Kansans are now pro-abortion Democrats!" is either a troll or drinking too much Social Warrior Kool-Aid.
The “elite lib” was not my quote, I hope you know! If you haven’t done so, you might look up the author of this article. She is on Wikipedia, is the author of 5 books, and took a stand against the “MeToo” movement that had certain repercussions.
I appreciate your response, particularly because it was thoughtful and not accusatory.
Hi, Anne. I'm sorry for any confusion I might have prompted. I wasn't picking at your comment when I wrote that, because I liked your comment. Rather, "elite lib" was such perfect shorthand that I stole--er, borrowed--it from you. Your description of the story writer would certainly suggest she is not one of the "elite libs."
Thank you for "thoughtful," most appreciated. Best of days to you.
I live in Kansas. One thing this column doesn't address at all is the number of out-of-state advocates that came in and started spreading straight up lies about what the bill contained. I received several as text messages before the vote. Misinformation apparently only counts when it's on the "other" side.
It should be noted, if a case can be made to take life in the womb, for reason other than "Health", then we could make the very same case while outside the womb, let's say 3 or 4 years of age, get em before they understand...you know sick, right.
THIS!! The whole wave hitting Kansas, I wd suggest, is a philosophical wave of lack of principle: every big issue is argued from emotion! Pick a circumstance where the taking of a life is heinous to you and I can paint a picture with circumstances that will make you sympathize so much with the taker of that life that you will change your principles!
Very, very true. One of the best theology courses our daughter took at her Jesuit college prep school had a morality section. The critical thinking it required to get to a rational, moral conclusion became the most interesting dinner conversations. (Our daughter is currently in Guatemala helping develop a water distribution system with the Engineers without Borders group she volunteers with.)
I just pulled the description from the school's website: God and Science in Postmodernity: This course explores the historically tenuous relationship between religion and science by considering controversial questions such as: Has science made religion obsolete? Can we prove that God does not exist? Are faith and science incompatible? Students read contemporary authors who pose challenges to faith and their religious respondents, including a Catholic, Jesuit worldview that emphasizes God’s presence in all things. The goal of the course is to instill students with the task of bringing compassion and critical thinking into a greater public discussion that is, at times, quite hostile.
To your point, if you frame it and lead the person to the sympathetic, impassioned response vs working with the objective reality of the consequences of the conclusion one comes to on her/his own, it's two almighty different things.
To the contrary: Kansans stood on principle. They decided that keeping government out of their personal business was worth defending, and so they voted against stripping abortion rights from their constitution.
Christians pick and choose all the time. When was the last time you have heard a sermon on Lot having sex with his daughters? Christian pick an obscure passage in the Old Testament about no man should not lie with another man as an argument against homosexuality yet you never heard them quote Psalm 137:9 "Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!" Or Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear."
I don't see Christians taking their kid out and having him stoned. I'm sure at times they would like to do that.
If you believe every word of the bible is true, how do you explain this: Genesis 6:4 "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown." Or this: Job 1:6 "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them." Jesus wasn't the only son of God.
Christians try and justify this with what I consider feeble excuses but unless there are foot notes in the original text that explains these passages, I won't accept any excuses because "Evey word in the Bible is true." no exceptions.
This is not really the place for a thorough discussion of Biblical interpretation. I’ll just say a few quick things.
1. Your arguments about the Bible are not new, or surprising. It is a tired old track that might sound devastating to some, but for Bible scholars it sounds like someone arguing for a flat earth because we can plainly see the horizon. Its sounds right on the surface, but it’s actually a bit silly.
2. Bible interpretation is a scholarly discipline that has a history spanning thousands of years. Pulling a few verses out of historical and textual context simply reveals ignorance of how Bible interpretation works. It’s like someone with no medical training at all confidently diagnosing a complex disease.
3. You do however, raise legitimate questions. If you really want to understand the answers, you will have to put in some time in actual, sometimes rigorous, studying.
4. The Bible profoundly shaped the culture in which we live today; in which we can freely criticize religion and government. It’s not something that can be so easily dismissed.
5. I *tentatively* suggest my book “Who Cares About the Bible” (by Tom Hilpert) as a starting point, if you are serious, and not just trolling. It’s not a perfect book by any means, but it’s geared towards beginners, and does, in fact, openly tackle questions similar to those you raise.
I am tired of the sorry excuse of "You are quoting out of context." Christians do that all the time. They love to quote the Old Testament on homosexuality as a justification to hate someone who is different than they are.
They say every word in the Bible is the rue word of God yet when you point out the contradictions and the Bible is full of them, the faithful inflexible bigots say those who question just don't understand.
I have heard when it is pointed out that the Old Testament is full of hatred and violence. then "We follow the New Testament not the Old." and then will quote the Old Testament to try and prove a point, like God hates gays.
I go back to what I have said, the Bible is the undisputed word of God or it isn't. Martin Luther said you don't need priests to interpret the Bible you can do it yourself. Why is my interpretation any less valid than some religious fanatic desperate to prove a passage in the Bible isn't what it says in the Bible? It really means something other than what it says.
Isaih is pretty clear when he quotes God, "...I create evil: I the Lord do all these things." I don't need some apologist to interpret that for me.
Hi Lonesome, I hope you realize that your talking about 8% of the country when referencing lunatic Christians. The same goes for the “leave the babies on the table” lefties. 76% of the country supports abortion with limits. No screaming and fighting, hating and baiting. Just middle of the road people with or without religion in their lives.
Yes!!! Lunatics take up all the oxygen in the room because media loves them so, but most of us are pretty sober about everything. I wish politicians would quit playing to their lunatic fringe bases.
Lonesome - I just finished Jordan Peterson's Biblical Series of lecture on the Psychological Significance of the Bible (old and new testaments). His point of view, which I find compelling, is that the bible is a set of archetypical stories represented through symbolism, metaphor, and dramatic narrative that embody centuries upon centuries of human wisdom and experience. I believe it is an expression of God. Given it is the basis of Western culture, whether or not someone assigns credit or blame, it is indisputably important and central to the current level of human thriving on the planet. As I know you know, the West has been central to improving life on earth, taking it farther and faster than any other in human history. I don't think many would dispute that - though they may hate or resent it.
However, in my opinion, literal interpretations using the context of today's culture frequently misconstrue the Bible's meaning. For example, the bible doesn't say "homosexuals will go to hell" but it does make it clear that excessive, licentious behavior will bring individuals and their societies to ruin.
To me attacking or defending the bible with black and white logic of "it said this and is ineffable" or "it is a bunch of mythological nonsense" is simply not helpful because it ignores historic and culture context.
I believe that the West has been shaped by Judeo/Christian beliefs.
If the Bible is the word of God and it was written by an omnipotent supreme being how come this omnipotent being made it as clear as mud open to so many interpretations? And for every expert you point out there are dozen s of experts who will disagree with your expert. So who am I to believe? I should have to rely on experts. The Word alone should guide me.
If God is so great how come his word is so murky? Please don't tell me it isn't murky. If it were clear there would not have to have people clarifying it.
I vote for "it isn't." Neither Torah nor New Testament--nor Koran nor the Mormon golden plates--are the "word of God." They can't be; God has the best copy editors, and they would not permit such myriad contradictions.
Bibles were written over many centuries by many people, some of whom were inspired by the concept of a God and trying to sell that inspiration to the masses, and some whose goals were surely less noble.
In that sense, Bible authors are the world's most creative novelists. My great-grandfather was one of them. In the early 1900s, he wrote his own Bible for the religion he created, an offshoot of Christian Science. He didn't write it in service of God; he wrote it so gullible people would join his cult. (It didn't work very well; the cult remained tiny.) I know for a fact God did not write that tract; my GG did. But 2,000 years from now? What would people say about his Bible---that it was the word of God?
I hope not. But they might. Pity the poor woman who will have to give birth on the side of a farm field so she can go right back to work bringing in the sheaves for Father.
The reality doesn't desecrate Biblical essentials. Far from it; "Thou Shalt Not Murder" is an excellent standard for society to follow. But while the concept of God might have inspired the various authors to put quill to parchment, God did not write those sentences. The John Grishams of the Iron Age did.
For centuries before the written word, the Old Testament was word of mouth and we all know the story gets better with the telling. By definition religion is superstition.
Right. You don’t. It says what it says. When you and the scripture disagree, one of the two of you is wrong. You have to decide which. I don’t have any problems with internal consistency because I have the basic doctrine right. If you don’t, it will never make sense. If you do, there is no end to the amazing wonders it holds.
To preface the argument I am about to lay out: I am not a conventional Christian. Usually, I would prefer to call myself a Follower of Christ, rather than a Christian.
The Bible is a strange, old text full of contradictions and confusing passages (like the ones you mention). However, I think the Bible is true in the sense that it lays down the foundations for the best way to life and the ideas it presents are true towards that way.
As to passages in the Old Testament: we should read them in their historical context. Genesis 1-11 is often referred to as the "pre-history" part of the Bible and, again, I think that that is right. It tells the story of how human beings evolved from primordial sludge to the beginnings of civilization.
To paraphrase John Wesley, "Go for the meat and potatoes and ignore the rest." Which means accept the message not the contradictions.
Having said that I am going to go against his advice. There are two different creation stories in Genisis. The first one is almost immediately followed by the second story.
Here is another passage ignored by Christians: Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV) 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. King James Version (KJV)
"I create evil" No Christian likes this passage but every word is the true word of God.
Ok, you’re dropping some King James English on us. Every other translation says darkness or calamity. Why did you choose this translation specifically? Because it fits your argument?
Who do you mean by "Christians"? Do you mean Protestants in America? Or Catholics in China? Or Coptic Christians in Egypt?
Also, why is God creating evil a problem from a theological perspective? Of course God created evil. God created everything. He allowed it to come into the world through our disobedience to Him.
From a logical standpoint, we cannot know what is good without knowing what is bad. I believe that suffering is brought into the world for a reason.
Platitudes much? I gave two specific examples. That is specific not generalizations. instead of being cute, can you refute my examples or my John Wesley remark?
Give it a shot. You might be proud of yourself that you actually engaged someone in a real debate.
Picking and choosing seems to be a universal trait. Like picking quotes without context and from the KJV, which contains the harshest interpretation. Everyone has an agenda it seems.
Heiser does a deep analysis of this text. The book is based on his dissertation. I apologize, I don't know the footnote you are referring to but his book should be able to give you at least some insight.
In my original post I said there are contradictions in the Bible and apologists are constantly trying to explain them away. If there isn't a footnote in the original Bible explaining the contradictions then I am going to ignore the apologists and take the Bible on face value as the irrefutable word of God.
It's not, actually - God made a covenant with the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - not the Gentiles. Romans refers to the Church as branches grafted in, but not the natural vine.
To further this thought, I'm of the opinion that if the Old Testament Law was so important, Paul would have told the Gentiles to obey it. He didn't. And the Sabbath is now and always has been *Saturday.* Sunday is the day the Church came together for fellowship. There's quite a bit of discussion of this in the New Testament if you stop thinking you know what the Bible says and actually read it. I bet you think the Church is responsible to tithe, too.
I think the issue was that the bill that would have passed had the amendment succeeded was in fact both extreme and set in stone.
Republican state legislatures are not where the voters are on abortion.
Still, it is somewhat shocking to me as a provincial resident of Manhattan (not Kansas, but NYC) to think that 41% of Kansas voters would accept a total ban. I simply do not understand imposing upon others a total ban with no exceptions for the prospective mothers health or for rape or incest.
All this vote would have done was remove abortion as a constitutional state right in Kansas. In 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court voted to encode abortion as a right at the state level. At the time, it didn't really matter because Roe v. Wade made it a right at the federal level. Now, however, states have the right to pass their own laws on abortion. There is a world of difference between removing something as a constitutional right and an outright ban, and the growing debate on abortion is simply the democratic process in action.
Extreme to who? I think encoding an abortion as a right is quite an extreme position. Why is having concern for the unborn at their earliest stages of development considered an extreme position?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that YOU'RE saying that, but that is the narrative that is generally pushed by the Drive-Bys.
I agree. I doubt an actual vote of the people would support that in any of our 50 states. This isn't about the people, it's about the elected representatives.
Also, no vote of the people would allow abortion of a full term baby regardless of complications. It's the asshole fanatics (again) on both the left and the right who divide us.
Exactly! A vote of the people in every state in the union would permit abortions for any reason up to X weeks, and ban them afterwards with the exception of medical emergencies to woman and/or growing child. It's a moral position that protects the rights of woman AND child, and one I fully support.
As, I believe, do most Americans. Kansas proved that.
But citizens live in the real world and politicians serve the extremists so they can keep their jobs. Which is why politicians will impose total bans in states even when the majority of their residents want something more reasonable.
I find it very shocking people in New York accept abortion up to the point of birth. Colorado also allows abortion up to the point of birth. To me, this is massively extreme.
No. It’s the New York law. I have been pro choice for decades but after watching the congressional hearings on the repeal of RvW, I have shifted to a more pro-life stance.
The Democrat representative’s witnesses reminded me of JR Tolkien’s Nazgûl. Humans, corrupted by their ring of power becoming little more than a wraith of their former selves. Each bound by the will of a single ring; unable to act out of conscious thought.
No, the NY abortion law could never be seen as good by anyone with a balanced moral foundation.
And I simply do t understand why you aren’t out on the street screaming your head off about how NYS allows partial birth abortion, sticking a pair of scissors into the neck of a viable baby IN THE BIRTH CANAL and sucking out its brains.
Unless there's a circumstance where the mother's health is at mortal risk and/or the fetus is definitely unviable, I think what you describe is indeed barbaric.
No offense meant, but this procedure is extremely rare, and usually performed when medically required and there is no other option. It's brought up time and again, but its rarity and necessity - and its appeal to emotionality rather than examining each circumstance individually - make it not a good anti-abortion argument.
Usually....that's a word that swallows the rule. First of all, there are two issues here. The baby is alive. So is the mother. You are killing a person and using the lame excuse that since it hasn't passed through the birth canal, the baby is not a person.
Secondly, even if that weren't an issue, why does the left defend it and refuse to limit it to physical medical necessity to save the life of the woman (or birthing person)?
And what about the laws that people like Obama supported in Illinois? The ones where the product of a failed abortion (i.e., live birth of a human being) can be placed on a shelf with life support withheld until they expire?
Abortion advocates refuse to sit still for ANY limitation on abortion because they call it a slippery slope.
Yet they love the slippery slope of the fake "privacy" holding of Griswold which has caused so much social harm. Look at how it progressed - condoms to marrieds, then to unmarrieds, then abortion, then sodomy (after a short respite in Bowers v Hardwick - amazing how the left didn't respect stare decisis there, eh?), then gay marriage. What's next - bigamy? Polyamorous marriages? Child sex? (After all, if a child can decide to change its gender, why can't a child decide to have sex?). Bestiality?
"The baby is alive. <snip> You are killing a person."
Conclusory allegation, "begging the question." Your finger is alive. It is not a person.
"... using the lame excuse that since it hasn't passed through the birth canal, the baby is not a person."
Straw man. Nobody is making that argument. My personal take is that one starts with nothing more than a set of DNA instructions at conception; the fetus is built according to those instructions and continuously becomes more human as time passes . At some point you have to draw a line and say, "No abortions past this point."
"... why does the left defend it and refuse to limit it to physical medical necessity to save the life of the woman (or birthing person)?"
Point well taken. We agree there.
"And what about the laws that people like Obama supported in Illinois? The ones where the product of a failed abortion (i.e., live birth of a human being) can be placed on a shelf with life support withheld until they expire?"
Completely unfamiliar with that. If you have more data or a reference, I'd like to read about it, though.
"Abortion advocates refuse to sit still for ANY limitation on abortion <snip>"
Some people do, some don't. Those people are similar in my mind to those who say, "No abortions at any time for any reason," and both should be ignored when we solve this problem. And Americans are smart; we WILL solve it, now that SCOTUS has properly said we have jurisdiction.
"Yet they love the slippery slope of the fake "privacy" holding of Griswold which has caused so much social harm. Look at how it progressed - condoms to marrieds, then to unmarrieds, then abortion, then sodomy (after a short respite in Bowers v Hardwick - amazing how the left didn't respect stare decisis there, eh?), then gay marriage. What's next - bigamy? Polyamorous marriages? Child sex? (After all, if a child can decide to change its gender, why can't a child decide to have sex?). Bestiality?"
I agree; the privacy argument I believe holds no water. Your "progression" from One Bad Thing to another I think could be credibly argued as your own fantasy and nothing more.
She’s not biased on abortion. She’s not a moderate just because there were more extre,e liberals in The NY Times newsroom that made her uncomfortable.
She’s an extreme leftist who monetized her noisy exit and simply spends most of her Substack time posting left wing crap she doesn’t write but which she agrees with,
Not always but mostly. Of all the Substack that I subscribe to (a) Bari writes the least of what appears and (b) has a comment section that strongly disagrees with her than otherwise.
That tells me lots of people know she’s a liberal fraud who positioned herself otherwise for money.
If you think Bari is an "extreme leftist," you must be so far right you fell off the edge of the flat earth.
As for "monitized her work," I assume you have a job. That means you monitized your skills. Well, so did she. Writers have to pay the mortgage like anybody else, and so she runs her own Substack page. People can read or not read her as they wish.
You know, the Leftist/Rightist/liberal/progressive/conservative thing is problematic. How about calling oneself a "truthist?" You don't care who's right, just what's right.
I like that approach. I care about truth and facts, because with those, we have a firm foundation on which to make a policy or solve a problem. Spin and hype are beach sand, easily washed away with the tide.
There are very few absolute truths anymore in politics and social conventions. Thou shalt not steal in California is now thou shalt not steal anything worth more than $950. Abortion was almost universally illegal to a large degree in the US and now people think they can kill viable babies just so long as they make sure that it doesn’t pass thru the birth canal. Marriage was universally known as a social construct between men and women only to foster healthy nuclear families. Now it’s anything goes. People feel the past, the present and somewhere in the middle is the truth.
She monetized other peoples work. I have many Substack blogs and she’s the only one who writes less on her own blog than the articles,of,others that appear.
So .... what about a publisher, like Hachette, or Simon & Schuster, et al? Do they monetize others' published work?
I've done a bit of writing; I'd be delighted to be published on Common Sense, which I believe has several hundred thousand subscribers, even if I were paid nothing at all, just for the professional exposure. (That is NOT a hint.)
re: "leftist" .... how can you tell? I've followed her since long before the fortuitous Failing New York Times exit, and I would never have characterized her writhing that way. I would call it pretty down the middle, but always honest, and always with the understanding that her beliefs and mine were very far apart.
America is all about monetizing one's skills. Bari's is writing and publishing. When she publishes guest articles, those writers get exposure to a new audience, some of whom might sign up for the new writer's blog. She also might pay them cash; I have no idea. But either way, the writer is compensated to the writer's satisfaction. And mine, because I like to read others' points of view.
So what? She didn't steal anybody's work, she presented it with their permission, and probably with payment to the authors. I'm happy to be exposed to various authors' points of views as well as hers.
And no, she's not a leftist, unless you define that as anybody who isn't far right.
And probably with payment….looks like your assumptions are nearly organized to align with your politics.
But her articles are lost always leaning left and to call it common sense is, I think a misleading way to make people think - and buy - what she is putting out as less polarized than it is, especially because she fled The NY Times to Substack with her hair on fire about the young Wokies there.
With all due respect, that is not my impression at all. I think this blog's administration is doing just fine, thankyouverymuch.
This is a rough crowd; if you publish anything that is poorly thought-out or just plain stupid, they will be on your ass like a duck on a June bug. (this case in point)
You don't get better at chess by playing people you can beat; neither do you think better by reading those who confirm what you already believe. Left? Right? Center? Socialist? Globalist? I say Bring It On.
Agree but many people only feel comfortable in a like-minded company. They live in a bubble, be it progressive or conservative, each in their own. That's the main problem of our time: we don't talk to folks across the political divide enough and are not able to listen, accept the multitude of views and people's experiences.
Yes. Bring it on. Bring your OWN stuff on. Don't be an aggregator. And don't pose as "common sense" which implies balanced consideration to come to a conclusion when all you do is publish one sided pieces. Time and time and time again.
I can tell you NC this has tipped my renewal of this site. There have been some Lulu’s lately that have made me scream out loud. It’s just amazing how the writer went on a revival abortion tour and happened to find every pro choice person in Kansas. So my renewal at the moment t is 70/30% not in favor. I don’t want to waste money it’s not the time but if Common Sense continues down this road I won’t even finish my subscription!
"The point is to conclude, yes, even those Bible thumping Kansans are pro abortion."
That's not remotely what the article "concludes." The writer portrayed a Kansas that is religious and pro-life, but even more strongly "get your government nose out of my business." She did not suggest that Kansans magically became "pro-abortion," but that they wanted to make their own decisions about abortion, and voting "no" allowed them to do that.
The story didn't need the "both siderism" views of those demanding abortion rights be stripped from the Kansas constitution. Their views have been covered ad nauseum.
The state of Kansas made history with its abortion vote by having the largest turnout for a primary election. The states has a political makeup of 44% Republican, 30% unaffiliated or other, and 26% Democratic. The populous is 76% Christian, with 63% of them believing in hell.
It’s reasonable to say Kansas is a religious right-wing conservative state who voted for abortion rights, even though there are those who try to rationalize the results!
3. “Everybody in America thinks Kansas is so conservative, but Kansas is pretty staunchly anti-government,”
The classic "false choice" fallacy, purporting that there are only two options and that it's either one or the other. There are other flawed arguments scattered throughout this article. Methinks the author should spend a little more time on her writing or get someone else to critique before sending it out.
Problems with Roe v Wade is not that it approved abortion itself, but how it was done => Reading rights (by unelected activist judges with no term limits and no mandate to legislate) from the constitution that clearly don't exist in the document and people who wrote original document would certainly not include abortion as constitutional right. By doing this supreme court at time of decision of Roe v Wade has circumvented every possible democratic safeguard as the decision was made by 9 unelected judges (at this point you could also say unelected kings, since they cant be removed by people) with no mandate to legislate.
Kansas just proves the point that the Roe v Wade was not necessary, and that given the chance states and citizens would themselves legislate laws that they want to be governed by. Roe v Wade only legacy will be, that it created division in US society for 50+ years, and its collateral damage will be felt for decades to come. If the Roe v Wade was not pushed trough supreme court, topic of abortion would be settled on state level decades ago, and this would be non-topic in US as it is non-topic in rest of the world.
There is no greater danger for the republic than activist judges with zeal to legislate, since they pervert laws to the way they see it fit, while at same time having no mandate from the people to legislate.
For years, the Supreme Court justified "rights" through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Thomas makes the exact same argument you lay out in his opinion in DvJ. By taking away the people's decision making power and legislating from the bench, the Court has done much to undermine the legitimacy and authority of the judicial system. It doesn't help now, of course, that there are radical Leftists on the Court who are willing to leak opinions to the press.
Care to name the "radical Leftists willing to leak opinions to the press"? Roberts is still investigating that leak, and some claim Ginni Thomas did to make it harder for her husband's boss to persuade anyone to Not Overturn. Asserting that the leak came from a liberal justice is absurd---you don't know that, and neither does anybody else except the leaker.
I acknowledge that we don't know exactly who the leaker is, but it seems pretty obvious that leaking the decision early was a warning to the justices on the Court who were voting in favor of Dobbs v. Jackson. Which justices are now being harassed in public? Which justices were warned by Chuck Schumer that they "won't know what hit them" and that they would "pay a price" for voting a certain way?
You're right, Ben, I too considered the leak a shot across the bows of justices to stay the course on overthrow. But it could have been a rightie just as much as a leftie.
The harassment of justices is ridiculous and needs to end--they voted, it's time for Americans to move to a political solution. And Schumer should be censured for his rather naked threat. But I don't believe it had to do with the leak per se, only how they voted.
It wasn't my claim, mad, it came from more than one story I read during the runup to the overturn. Go take it up with the people who thought Ginni was the leaker. That said, I don't rule out that possibility 100 percent; she's nutty enough.
As for "conspiracy," your side owns the patent on those, given Birthers, Truthers, Pizzagate, and QAnon.
What makes Ginny Thomas nutty exactly? Is it that she liked a president named Trump? If that's your argument then 1/2 of the country is "nutty". You really ought to be a lot more careful throwing slanderous pejoratives out there.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist and really don't appreciate being put in a box by a total stranger. I noticed you are newer to this Substack, or at least newer to commenting. I've been here from the start and have really appreciated the camaraderie I find here in just about everyone. We provide links, support our statements and have absolutely avoided the hyperbolic nonsense found on all kinds of other digital sites. There are a few exceptions including Just Me, (sometimes) Miles and lately, you. There are some fabulous commenters here that I don't agree with on just about anything, but they are not disrespectful. Try taking a step back.
So true. The SC finally did us a favor and removed this political tool that politicians have used for decades now to fear monger. Why society always seeks permission from authority for much in life seems like mass mental illness.
If you think the fearmongering and contentiousness we've had for the past 50 years is bad, wait for the mess that the court has given us now. What the radical anti-abortion faction wants can't be enforced without tyranny. They will do their very best to enact that in the states that they control, and to make it reach into the states they don't control. Lots and lots of work for the political Supreme Court.
Your logic is flawed. A judgment taken in the present is not comparable to a judgment that would have been taken in the 1970's. Abortion rights have been civil rights for two or three generations now, and this vote reflects that. The sheer ugliness and indecency of the opposition (also not a factor in the 1970's) is also a factor.
You are indeed correct that unelected activist judges with life terms and a zeal to impose their personal moral opinions are a danger to the Republic. Alito is one such. Thomas is another. Both have pre-judged this case so as to implement their personal moral agenda which is a minority agenda in this country. As such, they are no true judges, and they are unfit for the office they hold.
This shows the dire need for a new judiciary act, which is the Constitutional remedy for this kind of corruption. Sending all of the existing nine justices back to the appeals court and replacing them with nine (or more) new justices would be one component. Establishing a separate constitutional court (as is the practice in most democratic countries) would be another. Adjusting the Court's jurisdiction would be a third. Putting justices on emeritus status (or the appeals court) after a fixed term is a fourth. There are more possibilities. A much, much better court could be designed with the tools available.
The Constitution gives this authority and responsibility to Congress, and if the Roberts court does question the propriety of these actions, well, those judges won't be on the supreme court anymore, so who gives a damn what they think?
You want legislation from the people? That's legislation from the people. It's the tree of liberty.
My logic is sound. Because there is difference between rights bestowed by constitution and all other laws. That abortion became "constitutional" right as result of overreach by activist court in 1970. By "reading rights" into the constitution by body of unelected judges, you can basicly legislate what ever you want at constitutional level, which due to current situation in Congress and extremally high requirements to amend constitution makes it almost impossible for the people to govern themselves. No other country has abortion as constitutional right, everyone else went trough normal legislative process, and thus they have no issues with this topic.
Due to Roe v Wade and other activist decisions , we have ended up in current situation, where Congress has "outsourced" legislating to Supreme Court, and we have current gridlock. Why make laws, when with 2-3 activist justices you can legislate from the bench and make sure hat people have 0 decision powers as long as you keep the court packed with your own people.
Also Thomas is not an activist judge, he is proponent of judicial restraint and is extremely against legislating trough supreme court. On several occasions he said, that if you want to legislate, dont become judge, but make political platform and run for Congress.
If you want examples of activist judges, then look no further from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she became liberal icon buy her relentless activism. Regardless of case you could always know in advance which decision will she make.
I am not a partisan on this issue. I fault any judge who prejudges the case in favor of pushing an ideological or religious agenda. I wouldn’t excuse Alito or Thomas or Scalia just because I felt that Ginzburg did the same thing. Otherwise it’s just special pleading.
Whether or not Roe was wrongly decided, we are at a position now where it is being repealed after 50 years by activist judges who happen to be conservatives instead of liberals. It does not follow that the repeal of Roe is right, just because (in your view) it was established wrongly in the first place. The fault of one does not whitewash the fault of the other.
Roe established, in practice, a civil right that was in place for half a century. You may not think it is a constitutional right or that it was established properly, but it was established - it has been the law of the land as with any other constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court. We now have two or three generations of Americans who have been accustomed to this as a civil right, and repealing it now is to take away a civil right that was exercised before. This is the meaning of “stare decisis” and that is something that the current judicial activists on the Court know very well because they took the trouble to lie about it at their confirmation hearings.
I don’t disagree with you at all about the “outsourcing” of laws by Congress. This is why I am looking for comprehensive Congressional fix for this constitutional mess where unelected politicians pretending to be judges bypass the legitimate lawmaking procedures of our republic. Probably this will only be brought to the table by the Democrats, for their own selfish purposes, and opposed by Republicans for the same reason. But it should really be a bipartisan effort by statesmen and women who care about the republic. Do any such exist?
By that logic, Plessy v. Ferguson should not have been overturned with Brown v. Board of Education because it established the stare decisis of "separate but equal" in American jurisprudence.
Stare decisis is not an over-riding principle that must always be followed. If a case was wrongly decided, then the Supreme Court has a duty to overturn it. How does one tell which decisions to overturn? Alito's majority opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson confronts this very issue.
I’m sorry, this is ridiculous. The two cases are not remotely comparable. Brown restored rights that had been given in the 24th Amendment, specifically citing the intervening years of experience that contradicted and invalidated the central premise of the Plessy decision. Stare decisis did not come into it at all.
May I remind you that the Brown decision was unanimous?
What rights do you think that Roe took away, that were restored when Alito and his four friends decided to legislate their morality for 330 million people?
Judges have a duty to rule on the case in front of them. They do not have a duty to roam around in the law armed with their personal prejudices, looking to rescue it from other judges’ wrong opinions.
Since you approve of the proceedings in the Dobbs case, why stop there? Where does the limit lie? What rights do you enjoy, that could not be taken away by five judges looking for an excuse to do it? What makes you think it will always go your way?
1. I assume you meant the 14th Amendment, which was used to justify the decision in Brown v. Board. The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process clauses were meant to apply the rights of the Constitution equally to the states in the wake of the Civil War. It was not meant to justify rights under the "penumbras" of the Constitution. Griswold v. CT was the case that established a right to privacy under these "penumbras". I can see the argument against it, but I can buy that. The problem, however, is when the same argument for the right to privacy is now applied to abortion. Whatever abortion is (arguments for when life begins/rights of the woman/rights of the unborn baby aside), I think it is fair to say that this is not just simply a matter of privacy.
2. The rights of the states to pass their own laws of abortion were took away by Roe v. Wade. Dobbs v. Jackson has now took power away from the federal government and given it back to the states. That alone makes this one of the best decisions I think the Supreme Court has ever made.
3. You keep asserting that the judges who ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade were biased in some way. I fail to see how. If there is bias, I think it is from the Pro-Choice side in this matter.
4. Abortion is not a constitutional right and it never should have been. The first part of the previous sentence is a fact, the second part is subject to debate; debate that has been stifled for nearly 50 years because of the federal government declaring it a right in Roe v. Wade.
Rights have been taken away and granted throughout our nation's history. This is by no means a novel event. I'm not worried about gun rights or freedom of speech rights being "overturned" or "overruled" because they are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, unlike a right to "abortion" or a right to same-sex marriage.
1. When it was decided, Roe v. Wade was not grounded on any pre-history of abortion as a right. The histories and references they use in their opinion were flawed and mostly interpretive history.
2. How did Alito and Thomas pre-judge this case? I read through the Dobbs v. Jackson decision (and Roe v. Wade too, for that matter) and I thought they had logical and reasonable arguments for why they made their decision. I haven't heard an argument that convinces me otherwise.
3. Think about what you're saying. Because of a decision that you don't like, you are calling for the re-structuring of an entire branch of government. Doesn't that seem a bit radical? The Supreme Court has given and removed constitutional rights in our nation's past before, why is this important enough to reshape our entire form of government?
Alito has been saying that Roe was wrongly decided and that it was his goal to overturn it since the day his nomination was approved. If that's not prejudice, I don't know what is.
I am a radical on this issue. I believe a radical approach is warranted not because of the outcome of the case, but because these circumstances have revealed a grave corruption in our system of government that must be addressed to avoid severe consequences. Rulings have come and gone over the decades but we have now come to the point where the politicians have turned the Court into an unelected third branch of the legislature. I don't care whether the political "judges" are liberal or conservative, the Court never was supposed to have this power, it is bad that it has this power, and it must be changed so it does not have this power and will never regain this power. This will require substantive measures, not just tweaks around the edges (like adding a few justices in a partisan way). Congress can do this by majority vote.
I disagree with the argument to restructure the judicial branch.
However, whether you realize it or not, you are echoing Justice Clarence Thomas's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson. He said (paraphrasing) that the Supreme Court has done a lot of damage to the country by arbitrarily granting "rights" under the Constitution. The decision to grant "rights" not specifically stated in the Constitution should always have been up to the states to decide, rather than the judicial branch.
I'm not impressed with the choices this author made for her interviews. Democrats? Former Republicans? Unconventional folks who nevertheless consider themselves Christians? And a pastor who feels compelled to remind the author that pro-life people aren't monsters?
The only thing I learned from this article is that the wording of the referendum was sufficiently confusing that some people voted no because they thought they were voting against abortion. And that is something I had already suspected.
I find it astounding that the side that would label an unborn baby as a parasite and promote abortion up to and after the moment of birth is the side that is somehow the victim against those pro-life “monsters”
Ectopic: Ectopic pregnancies are non-viable and the procedure to remove an ectopic pregnancy is technically not an abortion. The fact that people think the Pro-Life movement is trying to ban procedures against ectopic pregnancies is because of the Drive-By Media stirring up people's emotions and relying on their ignorance.
Rape/Incest: There is a discussion to be had here. I, personally, take a very Roman Catholic view towards abortion, but I understand that there are many who do not feel that way. Most Americans are like Europeans: abortion is an undesirable thing, but it should be reasonable regulated (first 15-20 weeks or so). I do not agree with that sentiment, but I can understand it to a certain extent.
Ectopic pregnancies??? Even the Catholic Church which is arguably the most consistently pro-life organization knows that ectopic pregnancies must be terminated to save the life of the mother. I think you are buying into propaganda from the left. I don't know 1 pro-lifer who doesn't support termination of ectopic pregnancies because the embryo/fetus is already "dead" because it cannot continue and the mother's life would also be lost.
Like I said, I don't know that person so still don't know any pro-lifer who is against ectopic pregnancies. I can't speak about crazy people because that person is crazy or stupid.
To pretend that the pro-life movement is against ectopic pregnancy termination is disingenuous. You can always find crazy people who belong to a particular movement.
So how does that work exactly? If it's NOT an abortion as Lynn and I have described to you, then how can pro-life legislators call it something it is not? You are making this up out of whole cloth and it's really incumbent on you to argue facts, not a personal opinion or conjecture.
How many cases of "killing a newborn up to the moment of birth" can you name? A dozen? One? Any? The doctor caught doing that was charged and convicted of murder, and correctly so. I don't know of any other cases where a last-minute abortion was performed for any reason other than medical emergency to woman or child. Women do not carry a baby to term and abort because baby's eyes don't match the furniture. If they carried for that many months, they're committed, and only an emergency would keep them from holding their baby in their arms.
Just because some states allowed for the possibility of last-minute abortion for no reason doesn't mean any woman took them up on the deal. Canada offers that option all nine months---there are no abortion laws in Canada, it's between women and their doctors--and late-term abortions are not done at all except for those medical emergencies.
I believe the "they're murdering babies as they slide through the birth canal!" is pure propaganda.
What difference does it actually make if "no one took them up on it"? It's absolutely HEINOUS to think anyone believes it is ethical, moral, conscionable or palatable to kill a baby at birth or even up to the moment of birth.....and YET that is precisely what ALL of the Ds in the House of Representatives voted for. We have become and absolutely SICK country!
Bullshit. Nobody voted to "kill a baby at birth." How do I know? Because women DO NOT KILL THEIR BABIES AT BIRTH.
Only 1 percent of American abortions occur in the final trimester, and virtually all of those are for medical emergencies to woman or child. Congressional Democrats voted to let women, not you, make abortion decisions, and that's where the right belongs---with the woman, not you, and not with the ban-drunk governors of Oklahoma and South Dakota, among others.
Why do you hate women so much you don't trust them to be responsible with abortion rights? Do you consider them stupid or murderous?
Politicians name laws with confusing names on purpose. Texas almost always has an amendment on the ballot and I have to read it several times trying to divine what it actually means and most times I am never sure what it means.
The Democrat anti-inflation bill is deliberately misnamed. The name is a lie, The bill exacerbates inflation. Whenever you print too much money and inject it into the economy you get inflation, Eco 101.
Naming amendments or bill with confusing sentences or false names is what the scumbags we elect do.
It also provides an enormous gift to the manufacturers of solar and wind power as well as EVs. All of the manufacturers and consumers of these are high income, and subsidies are provided by the taxpayers.
Additionally, it unleashes a staggering number of IRS auditors to go after the middle class.
One of the worst pieces of legislation in decades, and Manchin will forever be tarnished for allowing it to pass. Hopefully the right will make it a focus of their mid term campaigns.
They have to change the words (English) to shape their narrative eg two negative quarters doesn’t mean there is a recession and yes scumbags they all are
Good points. I think the article highlighted several people's opinions on abortion, but there's no information regarding what the vote was about. For some reason (perhaps the fearmongering by the Drive-By Media), people automatically assume that removing abortion as a constitutional right would result in total ban on abortion. This article was interesting, but not informative.
What I got from the article was how thoroughly out of touch most elites are from the folks in flyover country. I've live in Michigan (both urban and rural), Colorado, NOLA, Vegas, upstate NY and now Iowa. The people aren't much different, but the political cultures are.
If you were to do a legitimate poll across the country of whether abortion should be legal with 15-20 week limits, and exceptions for complications, I have to believe that in excess of 90% would support it.
But the left fails to see that people didn't like the SCOTUS legislating a 'right' to abort a fetus as it was crowning. I don't believe that's a left/right position, and don't believe it can just be waved away by the left as gaslighting.
Finally, I found the condescending tone of the author, who treated this like some kind of anthropological mission to study some foreign tribe, distasteful. But it did give me a glimpse of how out of touch the elites (sorry, I couldn't come up with a better term, even though it's rather trite) are with actual US citizens.
As is Lawrence! As a Kansas girl at heart (even though I only lived there for 8 years in my 30s), I found her choices of interview subjects to be wildly out of touch.
Manhattan is blue in the sense that the professors and students at K-State are blue. What percentage of the population that is varies at different points throughout the year.
I lived in Manhattan from 2000-2003--got my M.A. at Kansas State. The English Department (where I studied) was Woke before that was even a commonly used term. The pressure that was placed on me, as a moderate classical liberal, to "convert" to their Far-Left ideology was identical in tactics to the pressure my birthmother and her friends had placed on me to become an evangelical Christian; the details of what I "had" to believe were the only difference.
On 9/12/01, I was surrounded by people who thought we "deserved" 9/11.
I can only imagine what it is like now, 20 years later.
Charlie Munger (Berkshire Hathaway) once said (I paraphrase) that a man was looking for the purest example of communism and after searching and searching finally found two examples: Albania and the entire English Dept. of Yale University.
Iowa City and increasingly Des Moines. Iowa is purple overall, and I like it that way.
When we lived in Cedar Rapids, there was a joke that someone who drove a Mercedes in Cedar Rapids was probably a Republican, but someone who drove a Mercedes in Iowa City was probably a Democrat.
Manhattan, KS is purple (in the political sense -- which is oddly fitting, considering K-State's fanatical devotion to the darker of its school colors).
From everything I've read since Dobbs, what you're saying is correct. People liked to point out that no one single regulation scheme could get majority approval even though it was clear most people felt abortion should be available but restricted after the first trimester. The scheme laid out in Roe probably would have worked if not for the companion decision Bolton v Doe that created the health of the woman, including mental health, carve-out and the decision in Casey which junked the Roe trimesters (even though nobody really talked about it being effectively overturned then) for an even looser no undue burden on obtaining an abortion standard. I'm not really surprised the amendment failed as the language was confusing and would appear to me to be unnecessary in most circumstances. That a right exists doesn't mean that actions around it must be unregulated. Even with the Second Amendment most people support an age limits on gun and ammunition sales for example. A right to an action just means the government can't come up with a regulation scheme that prohibits you from any practical exercise of that right.
At last some actual common sense thank you Jon. If everything was as clear as you comment life would be much simpler. If it’s not about the bucks then it’s about reshaping the abortion laws etc I wish to god the current administration would govern the country instead of continuously passing idiotic bills that are either bankrupting us or gaslighting us,either way we are always losers
“I will not vote for any Republican that backs Trump or MAGA,” Mike says. In 2020, he voted for Joe Biden. - Ah another person that just could not see past personality to make security and economic decisions with their vote. The author could have said "In 2020, he decided to use his vote to destroy the economy". Part of this has to do with how culture is elevating positions to cult-like status. The president is the CEO of the United States, he/she is not a messiah that comes to solve all problems.
Well said. There were and is and will be many things I do not like about Trump, but under his leadership, the United States was doing well. That gets my vote.
"In 2020, he decided to use his vote to destroy the economy".
I personally, do not think JB legitimately won the White House. Nothing says a stolen election like an inauguration void of revelers, military fencing, and military presence. One might say, but what about "covid or Jan 6th?" and I say, what about the idea that "covid and jan 6th" were orchestrated for that very day; inauguration day 2021, so that no one could attend the inauguration of the first, but not the last, installed president. Back up the story all the way to Jan 2020 and then March 2020 - and the plan was in place to change the way we voted.....and then we know that there were many inside conspirators on jan 6th - all devised to do what they tried 4 years to do - remove Trump and take back the reins of control from the PEOPLE who were having too much to say about how they loved their freedom and wanted to make America Great Again, which would ruin their globalist plans. But the global elite prefer America to be an open border country filled with binge watching zombies and half dead pharma slaves working hard to line the pockets of the Elite. The global elite count on American's to have a short memory about the crimes they perpetrate on us....because we have done that in the past.
I don't know how we get out of this mess we are in right now, but I believe it's going to take massive action from brave people who care about this country and are not afraid of being cancelled.
The article is really lazy and uses abortion rights (what use to be called choice) as a way to show disdain for Republicans and the virtuous nature of Democrats. Just take a look at some of the lines below and the overall tone of the article that is so clearly a service announcement for the Democratic party.
1. “Everybody in America thinks Kansas is so conservative, but Kansas is pretty staunchly anti-government,” Alie Scholes, an emergency medicine doctor, tells me. (Interpretation: Kansas isn't really conservative we're open minded because we believe in abortion. Do you think Alie is a registered Democrat? Hmmmm)
2. “My entire street is all registered Republicans, except for us, and they all had ‘Vote No’ signs out in their yards.” (Interpretation: See how virtuous I am, the lone oppressed Democrat standing up against tyranny.)
3. Back then, he was a “loyal Republican...I will not vote for any Republican that backs Trump or MAGA,” Mike says. (Interpretation: This is Nancy's real point, avoid Trump (and Republicans in general) no matter the cost. You too can switch your registration.)
4. She says she was an independent until the abortion vote, when she switched her registration to Democratic. “I’ve never had a sign in my front yard ever—we’re not the type to do that,” she says. “We did have a sign up for this.” They both voted no. (Interpretation: You too can become a Democrat and be part of the virtuous party.)
It could have been such a good piece but it didn't address the real questions, what was it about the bill that didn't sit right with those who voted no? What was it about the bill that sat right with people who voted yes?
The article doesn't cut the mustard for Common Sense; it's a veiled PSA.
Very well articulated. Bari, Nellie, please read this critique.
I have always defended Common Sense when it was criticized about author and article selection. I can’t defend this choice. The article was disrespectful of a critical issue by approaching it with such obvious bias. I wanted an objective take on what happened in Kansas because it is important and this piece was so far from objective that I am unable to mount a defense of it.
Patriot D, thanks! I really appreciate Bari's work and I'm even a paid subscriber. Sometimes I agree and sometimes I disagree with particular perspectives, but I rarely doubt the journalism. This piece from Nellie got away from them. Great teachable moment. Maybe there can be another article with a more robust perspective? Bring in another journalist?
You nailed what I had a vague sense of. This article wasn't informative or insightful - its only purpose is to model "correct" behavior of moving towards the Democratic Left Because Abortion.
I'm worried about a devastated economy, a world at war, an incompetent USA, assaults on our rights, federal power out of control, overt criminality among our leaders, and the totalitarian merging of all of our institutions into a single entity called Dei.
And they're going to vote in favor of all of that because abortion. That's it. Nothing more important in the world than abortion.
Or maybe I should say, "nothing in the world that tests better in Democrat polls than abortion."
They will applaud lockdowns and traumatize the children, but abortion rights are a hill they will die on, and the best they have to campaign on going into the midterms.
I don't think I can find any real common ground with this. It just disgusts me.
Anthony, I think millions of Americans feel the way you do. Your frustration is palpable. People will vote on pocketbook issues too, not abortion, especially those living paycheck to paycheck. Small businesses are moving to the right because of the dramatic impact Biden has had on their income. (These aren't businesses making millions; they are the types of businesses that make a community a community.) The left really does hate small, independent business owners and loves Amazon because it's centralized. People are getting sick of DIE (DEI) as well. Funny thing, I'm a registered democrat, and they've lost me. The Supreme Court made the correct decision and any real judge knows it. The dems fear states' rights. That is what the republicans need to run on. Have hope and vote red.
"Anyway, abortion. He’s for it. Or, at least, the right to have one. He thinks people make mistakes, things happen—he should know—and anyway, who is Jesse Geffs to tell a woman what to do with her body?" - My ongoing question here is why all these people get to tell the female fetus what to do with her body? What bodily autonomy does "that woman" have? At what point during gestation does the fetus become a woman with all the rights that the angry, already born ones have?
That's certainly what they demand of men if the man doesn't want to be on the hook for child support. He needs to keep his pants zipped, because he's on the hook from the moment he ejaculates.
If birth control fails, the woman can go get an abortion, but the man is out of luck if the woman decides to go ahead and have the baby. Hand over your wallet, dude!
And that doesn't even begin to consider the women who lie about being on birth control in order to "trap" a man into becoming the father of her child.
I told my boys repeatedly, “women lie just as often as men and their lies can have vicious consequences for you and any child you may unintentionally create.”
And the absurdity of “why should I tell a woman what’re do with her body?”
Uhhh that happen ALL THE TIME. Women can’t legally smoke heroin, drive drunk, etc. it’s a ridiculous claim.
Really? Go to the Matt Gaetz, accused of sexually trafficking minors, level? The issue of abortion is morally and legally so important that it should never go to "is she cute?" remark. Do women who have aged out of cute (if they ever were in that group) and out of reproduction still have the ability to make political statements about abortion?
I'm sorry, but I think NC was simply injecting a little humor into the discussion, and even though I smiled when I first read it, I assumed someone was going to torch her on it.
I don't believe that there is any topic that is so 'morally and legally important' that it can't be poked at. In fact, the more important a topic is, the more it would benefit by lightened the conversation a bit. I worked in hospitals for 30 years, and I tell you, most would be appalled by the dark humor amongst clinicians during high stress situations.
Women also demand equal rights with men. It was about 45 years ago that I first pointed out that a man’s ability to control his reproduction ends at intercourse. And yes, although the repercussions of an unwanted pregnancy weigh more heavily upon the expectant mother, nature addresses that imbalance.
That is the key question. When does life begin? Obama famously said “it’s above my pay grade”. He was trying to be funny but he is correct. We do not know. Considering this and considering the EVIL it is to take innocent life we should opt to be cautious in this. None of us wants blood on our hands.
I don’t know why that’s so hard to answer. Cells that contain human DNA from a mother and a father, cells that are dividing and have all the instructions to make an entire human being, are alive.
We most certainly do know when human life begins. It begins at conception. The question is when is it viable, and that benchmark moves ever closer to conception with medical advancements.
And that we as a society put little to no value on human life. Unless it is a life that is deemed worthy. I hope people realize (especially ‘educated’ white women) where this line of thinking is going to get us.
I'm an "educated white woman" and I am frequently disgusted by my demographic. I feel in general that they have been so pampered that they don't see danger coming down the track from all of this.
I am one too which is why I felt it was OK to use the term, and I am disgusted as well. We finally get to some level of equality and ‘power’ and this is what we do with it. I guess we are human just like everyone else :).
My Boy Heisenberg opened up minds about a lot more than electron position and momentum; as you drill down on ANYTHING, it gets fuzzy. The deeper you go, the fuzzier it gets. Before you ask when life begins, you need to decide "What is life?" When we are able to dedifferentiate a skin cell to the zygote stage, will rubbing your hands be considered the taking of "life," as each cell drops to the floor?
That's not just a silly question. It suggests others, and they suggest even others. But at some point it gets absurd, and one realizes that solving problems ultimately means that you have to get reasonable people together and just let them work out solutions. To my eye, the abortion question is the perfect problem and the perfect opportunity to to do that - and to reverse the extremist lunacy that has surrounded the question for nearly fifty years.
No, because your skin cells aren’t dividing. And because they have “committed” to being skin cells, even if they were dividing, they could not generate a human. You need uncommitted pluripotential cells.
That's why I included the term "dedifferentiated." Which we can do to some extent today. Tomorrow? They will certainly have the technology. I haven't followed the science lately; I suspect the Chinese are experimenting with it right now, since they don't do the human-experimentation due diligence that we/everyone else does. But the whole idea was a hypothetical anyway....
EXACTLY THIS. What makes us human (with those rights outlined in our Constitution) is THE question. Especially medical advances and the advent of sentient AI, this question is the question our global society needs to answer. And the fact that no one is even talking about it proves yet again that our politicians are just using it to win elections.
My niece just went through in-vitro, something my husband and I did 24 years ago. Now, unlike 24 years ago, the doctor will tell the mother/father the gender of the embryos before they are even implanted! Live begins at knowing the gender as far as I'm concerned!
Madjack, I don't think that they key question in the U.S. is "when does life begin." The question is at what point and under what circumstances does the state have a duty of care toward the unborn?
We are putting too many people in boxes. I know many Christian conservative republicans that are pro choice with limits. This really isn’t surprising in the least. I would bet that the majority of those few states that are anti abortion will overturn/change to make it legal w restrictions within the next election cycle. Then, maybe some congress person will have the courage to suggest a constitutional amendment that all the states can agree on…. No that would be expecting to much of our elected officials- courage. It’s easier to hide behind executive orders and Supreme Court decision rather than create legislation.
I'll probably get pilloried here for saying so, but I really object to the mystified, almost baffled, tone to articles such as this that reflect that people who possess a sincere faith can actually have thoughtful, nuanced views on complex social issues. It reflects, in my opinion, an utter dearth of people of faith in the daily life of the reporter. Christians, of which I am one, are seen by writers like this one as an oddity, a throwback, a relic of a bygone age with irrational beliefs and a cult-like fealty to whomever is in the pulpit of wherever we kneel on Sundays, whose orders we follow with blind passion. That perception of me, and people like me is a caricature, which can be found I admit, yet a cartoonish depiction of the way most people of faith approach trying to live their lives, trying to sort complex issues in the light of sincere spiritual beliefs. Now I know how the animals at the zoo feel when people come to observe them. Maybe that is why I am increasingly not a fan of zoos.
Good points. I am also a Christian and wish people writing about Christianity would stop looking for an angle and just write about the nice, decent people who go to church on Sundays, run their businesses and personal lives in an ethical way, and take care of their families. Instead, we only get the sensational or controversial stories of faith, so incoherent, disrespectful, shallow, and disappointing.
“Why would generally pro-life people vote against this” is the right question to ask. There are a lot of wrong questions in this article.
I take issue with the optimistic framing of this article for the future of Kansas as a pro-choice state. It seems the author relied largely upon anecdotes about her wealthy Republican neighbors opposing the initiative to suggest this is a sea change. It's not. Research on state ballot initiatives consistently shows that voters have a status quo bias. They're reluctant to vote to overturn any law, especially when confronted with a ballot question that is vague or confusing. The Kansas ballot initiative is word salad. Run it again with a specific restriction on abortion access, say, after a 8 weeks and I guarantee it would be enacted.
All intellectually honest people recognized that Roe was legally poorly decided. Now it goes to the states and the people. This is an issue of life not choice, and we should all be careful with taking innocent life.
I read the Kansas amendment and couldn’t understand it at all. I don’t think this is as earth shattering as you do.
I had problems with the perspective on this article because right away, you assumed that everybody who was pro-choice was Democrats and everybody who was anti-choice was republican. You did that by indicating the number of Republican and Democratic voters. Shouldn't the point of your whole journey to Kansas have been an open-minded perspective to see how it is that people feel about this issue despite their religion or political preference?
Rommelmann appears to be attempting to shape, rather than report the news about Roe v. Wade in Kansas. She neglects to provide the reader with specifics - do Kansans want abortion to be available during the entire pregnancy, as was the case with Roe, or do Kansans favor limiting abortion to a specific number of weeks or months? Rejecting Roe as a constitutionally-guaranteed right in *no way* is a Handmaid’s Tale-style rejection of abortion. Unconstitutional law from activist judges is out; state-determined approaches now are and should always have been determinative.
I am pretty conservative, but having considered the abortion question for a really long time (I'm 79.5 years old), it seems to me that there is no "correct" answer to this problem. BUT, having said that, I add that the slogan, "A woman has a right to do with her own body as she pleases." is vapid and intellectually lazy. The moral issue apart, the State (i.e. the governmental authority) has an interest in life and death matters. That is why the State takes an interest in murder, rape, incest, euthanasia, and abortion...all personal matters that happen to ordinary citizens. Therefore, the pronouncement that the woman does have a "right" to "her own body" belies the interest of the State. The objective truth is that her body is housing a second body...her child. There are three conflicting interests here: the woman's, the fetus's, and the State's. Whose rights take precedence? In a democracy we work out such a fraught issue by voting...which Kansas has done. I think Kansas has done about as well as we can. The Roe vs Wade decision of the Supreme Court was apparently a poor decision that sought the "correct" answer by a reasoning that has not stood the test of time and perspective. That Kansas has found its own solution...so be it.
This absolutely confirms for me the sad truth about how people “on the left”, like this writer, lump people into groups erroneously. Just because you’re a Republican doesn’t mean you’re anti abortion. Because I voted for Trump I am now a racist, sexist, homophobic. I am so sick of this mentality. It has infected our culture to the point of tearing families apart. It’s time to look in the mirror and really see the carnage this divisiveness caused. Very disappointed in Bari Weiss for running this BS.
As other commenters have said, the best thing about Bari Weiss running this is that it allows for dialogue that is intelligent, respectful and far better than what is common in other media.
I defend the SCOTUS ruling. I also think these trigger warnings and total bans on abortion are reaching too far. The Dems swung too far and even celebrated late-term abortions. Disgusting. Now many Republican legislators are swinging too far the other way and banning all abortions. Before 6 weeks? Really? After 20 weeks? Really? I hope it would only be to save the mother’s life. Let’s all exercise some moderation here.
Oh good grief. What drivel.
Why not start with what the legislation proposed? Why not ask the people interviewed what about it was unacceptable? I bet you would have found that most Kansans are still pro life, but there was something too extreme about the bill to pass it. Why not ask what would have made it passable? Oh right, because that’s not the point. The point is to conclude, yes, even those Bible thumping Kansans are pro abortion.
Bari, I deserve better, please.
I have been a reporter myself--many years of freelancing--and I felt the author did a terrible job, both in choosing her interview subjects and in interviewing them. She clearly had an agenda to push, but even that came out garbled.
Amen Celia, amen.
I agree. She started with a conclusion and then filled in the holes. I feel like a got a peek at Kansas exceptions and unique situations, not the overall sentiment behind this.
What I don't understand and I don't understand why the pro-life advocates aren't approaching abortion in the vein I am going to suggest. And that is, a baby who can survive outside the womb is a US citizen and has all the rights and privileges of a US citizen and one of these rights is not to be murdered or at least protected from being murdered.
That sounds pretty simple to me. Can anyone on this BBS prove me wrong?
Well approaching from the other side, I think the bodily autonomy argument ultimately traps them into this conclusion. You can’t say it’s your body without exception but only until week 16. If you sufficiently devalue the baby’s life and value only your body, there is no limit. It’s a logical conclusion even if I disagree with it.
Part of the reason there is never any compromise on abortion is that neither side is willing to see the viewpoint of the other. But apparently a lot of Kansans are in that actual, messy middle. It’s a lot easier when things are black and white to dismiss other people.
That then means that "bodily autonomy" > "right to life". So, that would mean that I could justify all manner of bad behavior by claiming that my bodily autonomy was threatened.
Right! And it completely ignores the baby’s right to live, also parental rights from the father - with the absolute exception of criminal insemination like rape or child rape (those men get no rights), which cuts through it all to an answer for me.
Your post implies that pro-life advocates don’t hold that view. I am pro-life (or at least that is what I consider myself), and my position is that if a baby can survive outside the womb it should be conferred all the rights of a human being. I know many other pro-life individuals who agree. I would be ok with abortion being legal up until the baby can survive on it’s own outside the womb.
Wow. That's a tough one. We're pretty good now; babies can be twenty-two weekers and do well if cared-for properly. I don't know exactly how mature they have to be to survive on their own. My two sons are in their thirties. That's a joke.
Lots of preemie kids running around now, some adults. I go back to the maturity standard: fifteen weeks and before: no questions asked. After that, sorry Sweeheart; you're too late. I like that standard because intrauterine dating is pretty accurate. I'm sure somebody has a better idea.
don't know what most pro-lifers think. I offer my opinion, which I thought was a good idea and wondered why my approach was never used to stop late term abortions.
I'll give it a shot if you can tell me how you decide when the baby can survive outside the womb. Is that survival with help, or without? How much help? Intubation, arterial and venous lines? What drugs? Just oxygen, or the whole pharmacy? What if the baby is so defective that it will never be aware? The usual rape, incest in the mix? What about that, how would that work?
Not picking on you; my experience is that the really simple solutions always run into problems.
How come pro-abortion people always paint the worst possible scenarios when the vast majority of babies are normal and born without complications. If there are to be complications then you should call a doctor.
Hi Jim, the same is relevant to end of life questions. How much and what kind of help should be given to a person at the end of their life? If a baby can survive and with medical intervention it is no different than an adult with covid on a ventilator.
The difference I see is that the old guy can advocate for himself, and he has a life's history that involves other people - children, hopefully, as well - who will be loath to see him go. The unborn have none of those people to speak on their behalf, ergo the State's interest in their welfare.
The difference is whether the baby is wanted, I am sorry to say.
There are no simple answers to complex problems and I sure don't have the answers, just opinions and you know what they about opinions.
Jen, do we allow homeless adults to die if their families don't want them?
That's a stretch.
Of course not, but I think you're arguing with someone who agrees with you.
Yes. I know a story about that. It bothers me so much I can't even write it down.
Sorry, no baby can survive outside the womb until it has the ability to care for itself. It still requires someone to feed it, whether it’s with a bottle or umbilical cord. It’s a silly argument.
Speaking of silly arguments, the idea that no one has the right to life who can't "care for itself" is about as silly as it gets. After all that covers essentially everyone under the age of about 12. Is it open season on kids now?
I can only thank god that Mel isn’t my mom and dad. His post today really says a lot of what he/she is
What? I am making the point that pro-aborts who use viability outside the womb are making a stupid argument as no baby can survive on it’s own. Maybe if I was your mom you’d be lucky enough to have reading comprehension skills.
Also incapacitated people would fall under this very questionable distinction.
It is for pro-aborts because that’s the logical conclusion of their argument.
I agree. I don't want to get nasty but only an idiot would propose what Mel proposed.
You have deliberately misconstrued by post. You know what I mean yet you place ridiculous cavoites on my post. It is not a silly argument. The baby can live outside the womb. Only a sociopath would let it die. Normal people would care for it and insure its survival. Only a psychotic would do as some proabortion creeps have proposed, which is to make the baby comfortable and let it die of thirst and hunger. Are you one of those uncaring sociopaths that would let a helpless baby die or just a typical Democrat? By your post, it would appear so.
Probably both although I think 80% Democrat and 20% sociopath.
No, but you are. You engage in lifeboat ethics. It’s a sick mind that views “viability outside the womb” as the reason to make abortion permissible. The pro-abort death culture is mired in logical fallacies.
You are not making sense. I am not pro-abortion. I am against it.
You're the one making irrational sick arguments for abortion.
So until a child has the ability to care for itself completely we should have the right to terminate its life? When would that be?
Exactly!!! Only a murderer would allow a baby to die when you could care for it. maybe I should have said, "Only a Democrat would do that."
Per pro-abort “logic”.
Mel, plenty of adults are receiving medical care while they are incapacitated until they can care for themselves, should they be allowed to die?
No. But I believe you and a couple of others are missing the point about the very terrible argument polecat made. MY POINT is that viability out of the womb should NEVER be the argument for right to life (which is what screeching polecat thinks should be argued). Indeed the definition of being human - which begins at conception per 99.9% if biologists - is the obvious reason to argue AGAINST abortion. GOT IT?
Lonesome...that was terrific, on point. And to answer, the pro-lifers do obligate your post, but as proven by Nancy R, the media does not carry the mention of a "baby inside the womb is a Citizen"
Nope 💯 correct in fact brilliant put!
Just the fact that she excluded the number of unaffiliated voters (560,000) is very telling.
The author seemed to do what outlets like CNN do - find conservative caricatures and present them as representations of conservatives as a whole. I suspect she wasn’t even aware she was doing it, if you’ve only ever been shown conservatives on television wearing gigantic Trump tshirts saying “Trump is my president and Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior” of course you’d go straight to a church to speak with the Pastor to find out what the average conservative thinks.
What would you propose she have done differently? Her story is about what she found during her swing through Kansas.
Her examples attempt to answer a general question, yet are oddly specific outliers - the uber-liberal Christians who proudly proclaim they are not like *those* people, the former Republicans leaning I, the lone D in a neighborhood full of Rs, the guy repeating the trope that it's not his business what someone does with their body.
Outliers didn't decide this issue. It would be great to hear from more mainstream people instead of the "approved exceptions" list she presented. I'd love to have heard from a centrist Democrat or Republican, from mainstream Christians and / or evangelicals (although that word is now stupidly wielded as a weapon), from limited-government D's and R's.
Instead it seems the liberal elite author brought her own personal passions and prejudices to the article and presented them alone as valid and meaningful — so rather than an unflinching look at the reality of politics on a statewide scale, we got an editorial showing how open-minded a few people in Kansas are.
So, all the shrieking hysteria from leftist democrats and their media toadies about back-alley abortions being the only option for terminating a pregnancy in red state bastions like Kansas turned out to be another big, fat lie. After all the caterwauling, it turns out that in a functioning, uncensored republic, citizens, be they a "centrist Democrat or Republican, from mainstream Christians and / or evangelicals" can come to consensus and decide the big issues instead of a majority of unelected, black robed activist judges.
Brilliant reply TK!
I wouldn't necessarily characterize the people who believe those things in that way, but yes. We're also missing a huge, huge part of this - that neither R's or D's have bothered to act to permanently make Roe's decisions and permutations legal or illegal in the last 50 years, despite many chances, and haven't.
The fundraising possibilities for both sides are endless, and I think part of the new messaging in response is aiming to keep those fundraisers by being even more strident on respective sides.
In the middle is the American voter, and I feel we're all a lot calmer than they would have us all think.
It’s hard to imagine the left’s invectives being any more strident that they were after the Dobbs opinion was leaked. Frankly, I believe they shot their load and the Kansas decision means fundraising on the issue at the national level is dead.
To your point though, one has to wonder if the reason Roe stood for 50 years is because both “sides” chose to nominate justices who would uphold it and keep the fund-raising fountain flowing. It' not surprising then, that it took an “outlier” like Trump to spoil their party.
Left to their own devices, yes, citizens of red states would almost surely vote the same way as Kansans did: "Keep your government nose out of my personal business." But the citizens of ban states were not given the opportunity to say that. The Kansas vote was via a referendum on stripping abortion rights from the state constitution. That gave citizens the final say on the matter, and they chose reasonableness on abortion rights.
South Dakota, Oklahoma, Missouri, Indiana, and Idaho, to name just five total ban states, imposed their draconian measures via legislature and governor. (Legally, I will note.) If their residents had been allowed to vote on the matter, they would have gone the Kansas route. They weren't allowed, so state politicians trolling for red-meat votes shackled their pregnant women in ways the Kansas vote suggests they did not want.
So the "leftist democrats and their media toadies" were correct: back-alley abortions (or traveling to an abortion-sensible state) will be the only options for terminating a pregnancy in a red-state bastion. Just because lefties caterwaul on this issue doesn't mean they're wrong.
I hope the next two elections purges those states of the abortion banners, in favor of politicians who know how to compromise. Want an abortion in Oklahoma? "Fuck you from Day One, lady." It might be legal, but it sure as hell isn't right.
“Just because lefties caterwaul on this issue doesn't mean they're wrong”
Well we can agree they were wrong in Kansas. Patience my friend. Smart politicians listen to the electorate, not special interest groups.
She should have talked to ordinary Kansans, not outliers and not merely in Blue cities. Anyone who has lived for any length of time in Kansas can see how worthless her sampling method was. If I were doing a story of this kind, this is what my interview list would have looked like:
- a farmer from central or western Kansas
- a small business owner in Topeka, Atchison, and/or Salina
- some Kansas-born students at K-State
- a factory worker from somewhere in the eastern urban areas
You make a fine point about broadening the sea of interview possibilities. Yes, I would add the interviews you suggest to the ones she had. That would provide a more complete picture of the state ... as much as any one article can, that is. Would make for better photo ops, too, or at least more variety.
I'm curious if she interviewed a dozen or two more people whose comments didn't make the cut, or if she limited herself to just those she quoted.
Thanks for this, Celia, a pleasant evening to you. You said you've done considerable freelance work. Who do you write for?
Small-town newspapers. When we lived in Oregon, I wrote occasionally for The Stayton Mail and for The Mill City Enterprise. In our current town, I wrote for The Daily Gate City for 10 years, until I started working as a security guard (my working hours conflicted too often with the events I was asked to cover, so I had to give it up).
Cool! Working hours on small newspapers can be brutal, all those nights covering school boards, city councils, county boards, etc. I started my newspaper career in high school, covering the local high school sports for the princely sum of $30 a month. But hey, I was a professional :-) After that, daily newspapers in DeKalb, Joliet, Moline, all in Illinois, then the mighty Chicago Sun-Times. Now I write crime novels, but the newsroom is my emotional home ... at least newsrooms from back in the day, filled with smokers, drinkers, shouters, and very high level reporters and editors. The stories they told this then-baby writer . . .
I thought the point of this article is to convince the reader that Republican Kansas will vote Democrat from now on. Kansas is pro life and pro Republican. In theory only. What is the reality?
Those who voted for Biden voted for open borders, climate hysteria and hyper inflation. They voted to destroy the American way of life. So my conclusion is that if this author is right Kansas is anti-American. And out of its mind.
In my former profession, we knew that you could not extrapolate from the opinions expressed in focus groups—the sample size was too small. This reporter offers us a sample of views and tries to extrapolate her own from them.
Every article ever published in any medium is a "sample of views." It can't be anything but; there's not enough time in the world to interview every person on Earth. Reporting can never cover all the bases; too many bases.
As for "extrapolation," the only one that I found was fair and supported by the facts: that Kansans are religious and pro-life, but wanted even more for government to keep its nose out their private affairs, and so voted against stripping abortion rights out of their constitution.
Anyone claiming the reporter is an "elite lib trying to make us think Kansans are now pro-abortion Democrats!" is either a troll or drinking too much Social Warrior Kool-Aid.
The “elite lib” was not my quote, I hope you know! If you haven’t done so, you might look up the author of this article. She is on Wikipedia, is the author of 5 books, and took a stand against the “MeToo” movement that had certain repercussions.
I appreciate your response, particularly because it was thoughtful and not accusatory.
Hi, Anne. I'm sorry for any confusion I might have prompted. I wasn't picking at your comment when I wrote that, because I liked your comment. Rather, "elite lib" was such perfect shorthand that I stole--er, borrowed--it from you. Your description of the story writer would certainly suggest she is not one of the "elite libs."
Thank you for "thoughtful," most appreciated. Best of days to you.
Do you believe this article? Let’s see what happens with Liz tomorrow then we should see how mad or calm everybody is
I live in Kansas. One thing this column doesn't address at all is the number of out-of-state advocates that came in and started spreading straight up lies about what the bill contained. I received several as text messages before the vote. Misinformation apparently only counts when it's on the "other" side.
Yes sir, that would be my point
Tell me about it. In the case of Georgia’s senate race, far more out of state money was spent than from in the state.
BTW if scripture is not “inerrant” then it becomes “pick and choose” and guess who is back in charge again? You.
And when we pick and choose what is right and wrong, we become gods, just as Satan tempts us to become.
Remember, Neitsche announced “God is dead” and invented the ubermench. The Nazis loved his philosophy.
The Democratic Party is playing this angle big time - now women get to play God.
Maude...nice hit...to the gut.
It should be noted, if a case can be made to take life in the womb, for reason other than "Health", then we could make the very same case while outside the womb, let's say 3 or 4 years of age, get em before they understand...you know sick, right.
THIS!! The whole wave hitting Kansas, I wd suggest, is a philosophical wave of lack of principle: every big issue is argued from emotion! Pick a circumstance where the taking of a life is heinous to you and I can paint a picture with circumstances that will make you sympathize so much with the taker of that life that you will change your principles!
Very, very true. One of the best theology courses our daughter took at her Jesuit college prep school had a morality section. The critical thinking it required to get to a rational, moral conclusion became the most interesting dinner conversations. (Our daughter is currently in Guatemala helping develop a water distribution system with the Engineers without Borders group she volunteers with.)
I just pulled the description from the school's website: God and Science in Postmodernity: This course explores the historically tenuous relationship between religion and science by considering controversial questions such as: Has science made religion obsolete? Can we prove that God does not exist? Are faith and science incompatible? Students read contemporary authors who pose challenges to faith and their religious respondents, including a Catholic, Jesuit worldview that emphasizes God’s presence in all things. The goal of the course is to instill students with the task of bringing compassion and critical thinking into a greater public discussion that is, at times, quite hostile.
To your point, if you frame it and lead the person to the sympathetic, impassioned response vs working with the objective reality of the consequences of the conclusion one comes to on her/his own, it's two almighty different things.
To the contrary: Kansans stood on principle. They decided that keeping government out of their personal business was worth defending, and so they voted against stripping abortion rights from their constitution.
I admire Kansans for voting for personal liberty.
godwin award of the day
Holy cow, are you out of your depth bringing up Nietzsche. Give it a rest.
OK how about Dostoyevsky? Do I have your permission to mention his views on good vs evil? I’ll wait.
I see an insult but not a refutation.
Nietzsche's philosophy was used by the Nazis. That isn't a knock against Nietzsche, of course, I think he was brilliant.
Thoughtful arguments please Barbelo of the Pleroma, not ad hominem (personal) attacks.
Christians pick and choose all the time. When was the last time you have heard a sermon on Lot having sex with his daughters? Christian pick an obscure passage in the Old Testament about no man should not lie with another man as an argument against homosexuality yet you never heard them quote Psalm 137:9 "Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!" Or Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear."
I don't see Christians taking their kid out and having him stoned. I'm sure at times they would like to do that.
If you believe every word of the bible is true, how do you explain this: Genesis 6:4 "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown." Or this: Job 1:6 "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them." Jesus wasn't the only son of God.
Christians try and justify this with what I consider feeble excuses but unless there are foot notes in the original text that explains these passages, I won't accept any excuses because "Evey word in the Bible is true." no exceptions.
This is not really the place for a thorough discussion of Biblical interpretation. I’ll just say a few quick things.
1. Your arguments about the Bible are not new, or surprising. It is a tired old track that might sound devastating to some, but for Bible scholars it sounds like someone arguing for a flat earth because we can plainly see the horizon. Its sounds right on the surface, but it’s actually a bit silly.
2. Bible interpretation is a scholarly discipline that has a history spanning thousands of years. Pulling a few verses out of historical and textual context simply reveals ignorance of how Bible interpretation works. It’s like someone with no medical training at all confidently diagnosing a complex disease.
3. You do however, raise legitimate questions. If you really want to understand the answers, you will have to put in some time in actual, sometimes rigorous, studying.
4. The Bible profoundly shaped the culture in which we live today; in which we can freely criticize religion and government. It’s not something that can be so easily dismissed.
5. I *tentatively* suggest my book “Who Cares About the Bible” (by Tom Hilpert) as a starting point, if you are serious, and not just trolling. It’s not a perfect book by any means, but it’s geared towards beginners, and does, in fact, openly tackle questions similar to those you raise.
I am tired of the sorry excuse of "You are quoting out of context." Christians do that all the time. They love to quote the Old Testament on homosexuality as a justification to hate someone who is different than they are.
They say every word in the Bible is the rue word of God yet when you point out the contradictions and the Bible is full of them, the faithful inflexible bigots say those who question just don't understand.
I have heard when it is pointed out that the Old Testament is full of hatred and violence. then "We follow the New Testament not the Old." and then will quote the Old Testament to try and prove a point, like God hates gays.
I go back to what I have said, the Bible is the undisputed word of God or it isn't. Martin Luther said you don't need priests to interpret the Bible you can do it yourself. Why is my interpretation any less valid than some religious fanatic desperate to prove a passage in the Bible isn't what it says in the Bible? It really means something other than what it says.
Isaih is pretty clear when he quotes God, "...I create evil: I the Lord do all these things." I don't need some apologist to interpret that for me.
Hi Lonesome, I hope you realize that your talking about 8% of the country when referencing lunatic Christians. The same goes for the “leave the babies on the table” lefties. 76% of the country supports abortion with limits. No screaming and fighting, hating and baiting. Just middle of the road people with or without religion in their lives.
I agree with you.
Yes!!! Lunatics take up all the oxygen in the room because media loves them so, but most of us are pretty sober about everything. I wish politicians would quit playing to their lunatic fringe bases.
Lonesome - I just finished Jordan Peterson's Biblical Series of lecture on the Psychological Significance of the Bible (old and new testaments). His point of view, which I find compelling, is that the bible is a set of archetypical stories represented through symbolism, metaphor, and dramatic narrative that embody centuries upon centuries of human wisdom and experience. I believe it is an expression of God. Given it is the basis of Western culture, whether or not someone assigns credit or blame, it is indisputably important and central to the current level of human thriving on the planet. As I know you know, the West has been central to improving life on earth, taking it farther and faster than any other in human history. I don't think many would dispute that - though they may hate or resent it.
However, in my opinion, literal interpretations using the context of today's culture frequently misconstrue the Bible's meaning. For example, the bible doesn't say "homosexuals will go to hell" but it does make it clear that excessive, licentious behavior will bring individuals and their societies to ruin.
To me attacking or defending the bible with black and white logic of "it said this and is ineffable" or "it is a bunch of mythological nonsense" is simply not helpful because it ignores historic and culture context.
I believe that the West has been shaped by Judeo/Christian beliefs.
If the Bible is the word of God and it was written by an omnipotent supreme being how come this omnipotent being made it as clear as mud open to so many interpretations? And for every expert you point out there are dozen s of experts who will disagree with your expert. So who am I to believe? I should have to rely on experts. The Word alone should guide me.
If God is so great how come his word is so murky? Please don't tell me it isn't murky. If it were clear there would not have to have people clarifying it.
I vote for "it isn't." Neither Torah nor New Testament--nor Koran nor the Mormon golden plates--are the "word of God." They can't be; God has the best copy editors, and they would not permit such myriad contradictions.
Bibles were written over many centuries by many people, some of whom were inspired by the concept of a God and trying to sell that inspiration to the masses, and some whose goals were surely less noble.
In that sense, Bible authors are the world's most creative novelists. My great-grandfather was one of them. In the early 1900s, he wrote his own Bible for the religion he created, an offshoot of Christian Science. He didn't write it in service of God; he wrote it so gullible people would join his cult. (It didn't work very well; the cult remained tiny.) I know for a fact God did not write that tract; my GG did. But 2,000 years from now? What would people say about his Bible---that it was the word of God?
I hope not. But they might. Pity the poor woman who will have to give birth on the side of a farm field so she can go right back to work bringing in the sheaves for Father.
The reality doesn't desecrate Biblical essentials. Far from it; "Thou Shalt Not Murder" is an excellent standard for society to follow. But while the concept of God might have inspired the various authors to put quill to parchment, God did not write those sentences. The John Grishams of the Iron Age did.
For centuries before the written word, the Old Testament was word of mouth and we all know the story gets better with the telling. By definition religion is superstition.
Right. You don’t. It says what it says. When you and the scripture disagree, one of the two of you is wrong. You have to decide which. I don’t have any problems with internal consistency because I have the basic doctrine right. If you don’t, it will never make sense. If you do, there is no end to the amazing wonders it holds.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion...but only because you live in a culture that has been profoundly influenced by a Biblical world view.
Sorry to bother you - I won't waste any more of your time, or mine.
I said in my post that the West was shaped by Judeo/Christian beliefs.
It is just as well. We will never agree but thanks for your POV.
To preface the argument I am about to lay out: I am not a conventional Christian. Usually, I would prefer to call myself a Follower of Christ, rather than a Christian.
The Bible is a strange, old text full of contradictions and confusing passages (like the ones you mention). However, I think the Bible is true in the sense that it lays down the foundations for the best way to life and the ideas it presents are true towards that way.
As to passages in the Old Testament: we should read them in their historical context. Genesis 1-11 is often referred to as the "pre-history" part of the Bible and, again, I think that that is right. It tells the story of how human beings evolved from primordial sludge to the beginnings of civilization.
To paraphrase John Wesley, "Go for the meat and potatoes and ignore the rest." Which means accept the message not the contradictions.
Having said that I am going to go against his advice. There are two different creation stories in Genisis. The first one is almost immediately followed by the second story.
Here is another passage ignored by Christians: Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV) 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. King James Version (KJV)
"I create evil" No Christian likes this passage but every word is the true word of God.
Ok, you’re dropping some King James English on us. Every other translation says darkness or calamity. Why did you choose this translation specifically? Because it fits your argument?
Because it is the most use version in the world.
Who do you mean by "Christians"? Do you mean Protestants in America? Or Catholics in China? Or Coptic Christians in Egypt?
Also, why is God creating evil a problem from a theological perspective? Of course God created evil. God created everything. He allowed it to come into the world through our disobedience to Him.
From a logical standpoint, we cannot know what is good without knowing what is bad. I believe that suffering is brought into the world for a reason.
Generalize much? 🤣🤣🤣
Platitudes much? I gave two specific examples. That is specific not generalizations. instead of being cute, can you refute my examples or my John Wesley remark?
Give it a shot. You might be proud of yourself that you actually engaged someone in a real debate.
Picking and choosing seems to be a universal trait. Like picking quotes without context and from the KJV, which contains the harshest interpretation. Everyone has an agenda it seems.
You are accusing me of doing what Christians do all the time, pulling quotes out of context. Pot Kettle Black.
Everything outside of Jesus words should be ignored. Everything else is man’s egotistical interpretation.
Hello. If you are interested in learning more about the Nephilim, check at Michael Heiser's book, The Unseen Realm.
Did Heiser have an inside track to dismiss the word of God or maybe he found the footnotes I spoke of?
The word of God is either the irrefutable word of God or it isn't. Which is it?
Heiser does a deep analysis of this text. The book is based on his dissertation. I apologize, I don't know the footnote you are referring to but his book should be able to give you at least some insight.
In my original post I said there are contradictions in the Bible and apologists are constantly trying to explain them away. If there isn't a footnote in the original Bible explaining the contradictions then I am going to ignore the apologists and take the Bible on face value as the irrefutable word of God.
I said that or something like it.
Great book. Also, you might read, Religion of the Apostles: Orthodox Christianity in the First Century by Stephen de Young. Same topic,
The logical conclusion of Martin Luther's argument.
Well for Christians who want to live in the 21st century instead of the 1st, it's either that or go back to killing people who work on Sundays.
That’s not Christianity. The church is not Israel, and the sabbath is not Sunday.
That right there is called deviation from scripture. So much for inerrancy.
It's not, actually - God made a covenant with the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - not the Gentiles. Romans refers to the Church as branches grafted in, but not the natural vine.
To further this thought, I'm of the opinion that if the Old Testament Law was so important, Paul would have told the Gentiles to obey it. He didn't. And the Sabbath is now and always has been *Saturday.* Sunday is the day the Church came together for fellowship. There's quite a bit of discussion of this in the New Testament if you stop thinking you know what the Bible says and actually read it. I bet you think the Church is responsible to tithe, too.
Welp, Jesus sure thought obeying the OT Law was important (give or take a few he threw out), so I guess you must know better than Jesus.
I disagree. Bari is exposing this elite class for what it is. Maybe not intentionally, but nonetheless.
I think the issue was that the bill that would have passed had the amendment succeeded was in fact both extreme and set in stone.
Republican state legislatures are not where the voters are on abortion.
Still, it is somewhat shocking to me as a provincial resident of Manhattan (not Kansas, but NYC) to think that 41% of Kansas voters would accept a total ban. I simply do not understand imposing upon others a total ban with no exceptions for the prospective mothers health or for rape or incest.
All this vote would have done was remove abortion as a constitutional state right in Kansas. In 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court voted to encode abortion as a right at the state level. At the time, it didn't really matter because Roe v. Wade made it a right at the federal level. Now, however, states have the right to pass their own laws on abortion. There is a world of difference between removing something as a constitutional right and an outright ban, and the growing debate on abortion is simply the democratic process in action.
I am pro-life and I agree with you.
Obviously KSC has some good judges with their heads screwd on and fingers to the national pulse. Good picks for the US Supreme Court on this evidence.
There is a difference, but the bill that the legislature was ready to pass was extreme.
Extreme to who? I think encoding an abortion as a right is quite an extreme position. Why is having concern for the unborn at their earliest stages of development considered an extreme position?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that YOU'RE saying that, but that is the narrative that is generally pushed by the Drive-Bys.
I agree. I doubt an actual vote of the people would support that in any of our 50 states. This isn't about the people, it's about the elected representatives.
Also, no vote of the people would allow abortion of a full term baby regardless of complications. It's the asshole fanatics (again) on both the left and the right who divide us.
Fanatics left or right always want the extreme. For them there is no middle ground. Extremists disgust me.
Exactly! A vote of the people in every state in the union would permit abortions for any reason up to X weeks, and ban them afterwards with the exception of medical emergencies to woman and/or growing child. It's a moral position that protects the rights of woman AND child, and one I fully support.
As, I believe, do most Americans. Kansas proved that.
But citizens live in the real world and politicians serve the extremists so they can keep their jobs. Which is why politicians will impose total bans in states even when the majority of their residents want something more reasonable.
I find it very shocking people in New York accept abortion up to the point of birth. Colorado also allows abortion up to the point of birth. To me, this is massively extreme.
What Kansas did was a reasonable medium.
If you're talking about the current Kansas law, I agree.
No. It’s the New York law. I have been pro choice for decades but after watching the congressional hearings on the repeal of RvW, I have shifted to a more pro-life stance.
The Democrat representative’s witnesses reminded me of JR Tolkien’s Nazgûl. Humans, corrupted by their ring of power becoming little more than a wraith of their former selves. Each bound by the will of a single ring; unable to act out of conscious thought.
No, the NY abortion law could never be seen as good by anyone with a balanced moral foundation.
And I simply do t understand why you aren’t out on the street screaming your head off about how NYS allows partial birth abortion, sticking a pair of scissors into the neck of a viable baby IN THE BIRTH CANAL and sucking out its brains.
Unless there's a circumstance where the mother's health is at mortal risk and/or the fetus is definitely unviable, I think what you describe is indeed barbaric.
No offense meant, but this procedure is extremely rare, and usually performed when medically required and there is no other option. It's brought up time and again, but its rarity and necessity - and its appeal to emotionality rather than examining each circumstance individually - make it not a good anti-abortion argument.
Safe. Legal. Rare.
Where have we heard that???
Let me think.
Find a new Bailey.
A few points....
Usually....that's a word that swallows the rule. First of all, there are two issues here. The baby is alive. So is the mother. You are killing a person and using the lame excuse that since it hasn't passed through the birth canal, the baby is not a person.
Secondly, even if that weren't an issue, why does the left defend it and refuse to limit it to physical medical necessity to save the life of the woman (or birthing person)?
And what about the laws that people like Obama supported in Illinois? The ones where the product of a failed abortion (i.e., live birth of a human being) can be placed on a shelf with life support withheld until they expire?
Abortion advocates refuse to sit still for ANY limitation on abortion because they call it a slippery slope.
Yet they love the slippery slope of the fake "privacy" holding of Griswold which has caused so much social harm. Look at how it progressed - condoms to marrieds, then to unmarrieds, then abortion, then sodomy (after a short respite in Bowers v Hardwick - amazing how the left didn't respect stare decisis there, eh?), then gay marriage. What's next - bigamy? Polyamorous marriages? Child sex? (After all, if a child can decide to change its gender, why can't a child decide to have sex?). Bestiality?
Wow, rubbers destroyed society! Who knew? I thought it was rock music and fluoride in our drinking water.
It was the rock. I'm sure of it. Don't you remember this old classic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AdtR-d2HJQ
https://youtu.be/J67wKhddWu4
Lefties are sooooooooo smart!!!!
"The baby is alive. <snip> You are killing a person."
Conclusory allegation, "begging the question." Your finger is alive. It is not a person.
"... using the lame excuse that since it hasn't passed through the birth canal, the baby is not a person."
Straw man. Nobody is making that argument. My personal take is that one starts with nothing more than a set of DNA instructions at conception; the fetus is built according to those instructions and continuously becomes more human as time passes . At some point you have to draw a line and say, "No abortions past this point."
"... why does the left defend it and refuse to limit it to physical medical necessity to save the life of the woman (or birthing person)?"
Point well taken. We agree there.
"And what about the laws that people like Obama supported in Illinois? The ones where the product of a failed abortion (i.e., live birth of a human being) can be placed on a shelf with life support withheld until they expire?"
Completely unfamiliar with that. If you have more data or a reference, I'd like to read about it, though.
"Abortion advocates refuse to sit still for ANY limitation on abortion <snip>"
Some people do, some don't. Those people are similar in my mind to those who say, "No abortions at any time for any reason," and both should be ignored when we solve this problem. And Americans are smart; we WILL solve it, now that SCOTUS has properly said we have jurisdiction.
"Yet they love the slippery slope of the fake "privacy" holding of Griswold which has caused so much social harm. Look at how it progressed - condoms to marrieds, then to unmarrieds, then abortion, then sodomy (after a short respite in Bowers v Hardwick - amazing how the left didn't respect stare decisis there, eh?), then gay marriage. What's next - bigamy? Polyamorous marriages? Child sex? (After all, if a child can decide to change its gender, why can't a child decide to have sex?). Bestiality?"
I agree; the privacy argument I believe holds no water. Your "progression" from One Bad Thing to another I think could be credibly argued as your own fantasy and nothing more.
I agree. I like CS, but Bari is pretty biased on abortion.
She’s not biased on abortion. She’s not a moderate just because there were more extre,e liberals in The NY Times newsroom that made her uncomfortable.
She’s an extreme leftist who monetized her noisy exit and simply spends most of her Substack time posting left wing crap she doesn’t write but which she agrees with,
Not always. A good portion of CS material points out the practical failures and outright idiocy of leftist policies.
Even the people she platforms on “the right” are just neocons who will all be registered Dems in 3-4 years.
Not always but mostly. Of all the Substack that I subscribe to (a) Bari writes the least of what appears and (b) has a comment section that strongly disagrees with her than otherwise.
That tells me lots of people know she’s a liberal fraud who positioned herself otherwise for money.
You might want to check your premise/conclusion link. As engineers say, I think it's pretty loosely-coupled.
I'm curious, if she's such a hack and a fraud, why are you still subscribing to her?
I paid for a year. Under a false assumption, I may add.
If you think Bari is an "extreme leftist," you must be so far right you fell off the edge of the flat earth.
As for "monitized her work," I assume you have a job. That means you monitized your skills. Well, so did she. Writers have to pay the mortgage like anybody else, and so she runs her own Substack page. People can read or not read her as they wish.
You know, the Leftist/Rightist/liberal/progressive/conservative thing is problematic. How about calling oneself a "truthist?" You don't care who's right, just what's right.
I like that approach. I care about truth and facts, because with those, we have a firm foundation on which to make a policy or solve a problem. Spin and hype are beach sand, easily washed away with the tide.
There are very few absolute truths anymore in politics and social conventions. Thou shalt not steal in California is now thou shalt not steal anything worth more than $950. Abortion was almost universally illegal to a large degree in the US and now people think they can kill viable babies just so long as they make sure that it doesn’t pass thru the birth canal. Marriage was universally known as a social construct between men and women only to foster healthy nuclear families. Now it’s anything goes. People feel the past, the present and somewhere in the middle is the truth.
I think the "birth canal" thing is not right. I'm pretty sure that's the route the abortionists always use.
She monetized other peoples work. I have many Substack blogs and she’s the only one who writes less on her own blog than the articles,of,others that appear.
And she is a leftist. That’s a fact.
So .... what about a publisher, like Hachette, or Simon & Schuster, et al? Do they monetize others' published work?
I've done a bit of writing; I'd be delighted to be published on Common Sense, which I believe has several hundred thousand subscribers, even if I were paid nothing at all, just for the professional exposure. (That is NOT a hint.)
re: "leftist" .... how can you tell? I've followed her since long before the fortuitous Failing New York Times exit, and I would never have characterized her writhing that way. I would call it pretty down the middle, but always honest, and always with the understanding that her beliefs and mine were very far apart.
America is all about monetizing one's skills. Bari's is writing and publishing. When she publishes guest articles, those writers get exposure to a new audience, some of whom might sign up for the new writer's blog. She also might pay them cash; I have no idea. But either way, the writer is compensated to the writer's satisfaction. And mine, because I like to read others' points of view.
I have no idea why that's considered a negative.
As for Bari being left-wing, that's ridiculous.
So what? She didn't steal anybody's work, she presented it with their permission, and probably with payment to the authors. I'm happy to be exposed to various authors' points of views as well as hers.
And no, she's not a leftist, unless you define that as anybody who isn't far right.
And probably with payment….looks like your assumptions are nearly organized to align with your politics.
But her articles are lost always leaning left and to call it common sense is, I think a misleading way to make people think - and buy - what she is putting out as less polarized than it is, especially because she fled The NY Times to Substack with her hair on fire about the young Wokies there.
With all due respect, that is not my impression at all. I think this blog's administration is doing just fine, thankyouverymuch.
This is a rough crowd; if you publish anything that is poorly thought-out or just plain stupid, they will be on your ass like a duck on a June bug. (this case in point)
You don't get better at chess by playing people you can beat; neither do you think better by reading those who confirm what you already believe. Left? Right? Center? Socialist? Globalist? I say Bring It On.
Agree but many people only feel comfortable in a like-minded company. They live in a bubble, be it progressive or conservative, each in their own. That's the main problem of our time: we don't talk to folks across the political divide enough and are not able to listen, accept the multitude of views and people's experiences.
Yes. Bring it on. Bring your OWN stuff on. Don't be an aggregator. And don't pose as "common sense" which implies balanced consideration to come to a conclusion when all you do is publish one sided pieces. Time and time and time again.
I can tell you NC this has tipped my renewal of this site. There have been some Lulu’s lately that have made me scream out loud. It’s just amazing how the writer went on a revival abortion tour and happened to find every pro choice person in Kansas. So my renewal at the moment t is 70/30% not in favor. I don’t want to waste money it’s not the time but if Common Sense continues down this road I won’t even finish my subscription!
"The point is to conclude, yes, even those Bible thumping Kansans are pro abortion."
That's not remotely what the article "concludes." The writer portrayed a Kansas that is religious and pro-life, but even more strongly "get your government nose out of my business." She did not suggest that Kansans magically became "pro-abortion," but that they wanted to make their own decisions about abortion, and voting "no" allowed them to do that.
The story didn't need the "both siderism" views of those demanding abortion rights be stripped from the Kansas constitution. Their views have been covered ad nauseum.
The state of Kansas made history with its abortion vote by having the largest turnout for a primary election. The states has a political makeup of 44% Republican, 30% unaffiliated or other, and 26% Democratic. The populous is 76% Christian, with 63% of them believing in hell.
It’s reasonable to say Kansas is a religious right-wing conservative state who voted for abortion rights, even though there are those who try to rationalize the results!
3. “Everybody in America thinks Kansas is so conservative, but Kansas is pretty staunchly anti-government,”
The classic "false choice" fallacy, purporting that there are only two options and that it's either one or the other. There are other flawed arguments scattered throughout this article. Methinks the author should spend a little more time on her writing or get someone else to critique before sending it out.
Yeah, this article surprised me. Bari's got an excellent reputation as an editor i.e. making others writing better, so - weird.
No it doesn't.
Problems with Roe v Wade is not that it approved abortion itself, but how it was done => Reading rights (by unelected activist judges with no term limits and no mandate to legislate) from the constitution that clearly don't exist in the document and people who wrote original document would certainly not include abortion as constitutional right. By doing this supreme court at time of decision of Roe v Wade has circumvented every possible democratic safeguard as the decision was made by 9 unelected judges (at this point you could also say unelected kings, since they cant be removed by people) with no mandate to legislate.
Kansas just proves the point that the Roe v Wade was not necessary, and that given the chance states and citizens would themselves legislate laws that they want to be governed by. Roe v Wade only legacy will be, that it created division in US society for 50+ years, and its collateral damage will be felt for decades to come. If the Roe v Wade was not pushed trough supreme court, topic of abortion would be settled on state level decades ago, and this would be non-topic in US as it is non-topic in rest of the world.
There is no greater danger for the republic than activist judges with zeal to legislate, since they pervert laws to the way they see it fit, while at same time having no mandate from the people to legislate.
I think you're spot on.
For years, the Supreme Court justified "rights" through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Thomas makes the exact same argument you lay out in his opinion in DvJ. By taking away the people's decision making power and legislating from the bench, the Court has done much to undermine the legitimacy and authority of the judicial system. It doesn't help now, of course, that there are radical Leftists on the Court who are willing to leak opinions to the press.
That’s exactly what the Kansas State “constitutional right” to abortion was created. No legislation, other than a decision by their Supreme Court.
Care to name the "radical Leftists willing to leak opinions to the press"? Roberts is still investigating that leak, and some claim Ginni Thomas did to make it harder for her husband's boss to persuade anyone to Not Overturn. Asserting that the leak came from a liberal justice is absurd---you don't know that, and neither does anybody else except the leaker.
I acknowledge that we don't know exactly who the leaker is, but it seems pretty obvious that leaking the decision early was a warning to the justices on the Court who were voting in favor of Dobbs v. Jackson. Which justices are now being harassed in public? Which justices were warned by Chuck Schumer that they "won't know what hit them" and that they would "pay a price" for voting a certain way?
You're right, Ben, I too considered the leak a shot across the bows of justices to stay the course on overthrow. But it could have been a rightie just as much as a leftie.
The harassment of justices is ridiculous and needs to end--they voted, it's time for Americans to move to a political solution. And Schumer should be censured for his rather naked threat. But I don't believe it had to do with the leak per se, only how they voted.
"some claim Ginni Thomas did to make it harder for her husband's boss to persuade anyone to Not Overturn" lololololol
You really live in a world not called Common Sense. It's more like Common Conspiracy!
It wasn't my claim, mad, it came from more than one story I read during the runup to the overturn. Go take it up with the people who thought Ginni was the leaker. That said, I don't rule out that possibility 100 percent; she's nutty enough.
As for "conspiracy," your side owns the patent on those, given Birthers, Truthers, Pizzagate, and QAnon.
What makes Ginny Thomas nutty exactly? Is it that she liked a president named Trump? If that's your argument then 1/2 of the country is "nutty". You really ought to be a lot more careful throwing slanderous pejoratives out there.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist and really don't appreciate being put in a box by a total stranger. I noticed you are newer to this Substack, or at least newer to commenting. I've been here from the start and have really appreciated the camaraderie I find here in just about everyone. We provide links, support our statements and have absolutely avoided the hyperbolic nonsense found on all kinds of other digital sites. There are a few exceptions including Just Me, (sometimes) Miles and lately, you. There are some fabulous commenters here that I don't agree with on just about anything, but they are not disrespectful. Try taking a step back.
"They are not disrespectful. Try taking a step back."
. . . said the woman who wrote, "You really live in a world not called Common Sense. It's more like Common Conspiracy!"
"I'm not a conspiracy theorist and really don't appreciate being put in a box by a total stranger."
Then don't accuse me of the same thing and act astonished when I call you out on it.
As for "there are a few exceptions, lately, you," I'll leave that one to Harry S. Truman:
"They say I give 'em hell. I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell."
So true. The SC finally did us a favor and removed this political tool that politicians have used for decades now to fear monger. Why society always seeks permission from authority for much in life seems like mass mental illness.
If you think the fearmongering and contentiousness we've had for the past 50 years is bad, wait for the mess that the court has given us now. What the radical anti-abortion faction wants can't be enforced without tyranny. They will do their very best to enact that in the states that they control, and to make it reach into the states they don't control. Lots and lots of work for the political Supreme Court.
Your logic is flawed. A judgment taken in the present is not comparable to a judgment that would have been taken in the 1970's. Abortion rights have been civil rights for two or three generations now, and this vote reflects that. The sheer ugliness and indecency of the opposition (also not a factor in the 1970's) is also a factor.
You are indeed correct that unelected activist judges with life terms and a zeal to impose their personal moral opinions are a danger to the Republic. Alito is one such. Thomas is another. Both have pre-judged this case so as to implement their personal moral agenda which is a minority agenda in this country. As such, they are no true judges, and they are unfit for the office they hold.
This shows the dire need for a new judiciary act, which is the Constitutional remedy for this kind of corruption. Sending all of the existing nine justices back to the appeals court and replacing them with nine (or more) new justices would be one component. Establishing a separate constitutional court (as is the practice in most democratic countries) would be another. Adjusting the Court's jurisdiction would be a third. Putting justices on emeritus status (or the appeals court) after a fixed term is a fourth. There are more possibilities. A much, much better court could be designed with the tools available.
The Constitution gives this authority and responsibility to Congress, and if the Roberts court does question the propriety of these actions, well, those judges won't be on the supreme court anymore, so who gives a damn what they think?
You want legislation from the people? That's legislation from the people. It's the tree of liberty.
My logic is sound. Because there is difference between rights bestowed by constitution and all other laws. That abortion became "constitutional" right as result of overreach by activist court in 1970. By "reading rights" into the constitution by body of unelected judges, you can basicly legislate what ever you want at constitutional level, which due to current situation in Congress and extremally high requirements to amend constitution makes it almost impossible for the people to govern themselves. No other country has abortion as constitutional right, everyone else went trough normal legislative process, and thus they have no issues with this topic.
Due to Roe v Wade and other activist decisions , we have ended up in current situation, where Congress has "outsourced" legislating to Supreme Court, and we have current gridlock. Why make laws, when with 2-3 activist justices you can legislate from the bench and make sure hat people have 0 decision powers as long as you keep the court packed with your own people.
Also Thomas is not an activist judge, he is proponent of judicial restraint and is extremely against legislating trough supreme court. On several occasions he said, that if you want to legislate, dont become judge, but make political platform and run for Congress.
If you want examples of activist judges, then look no further from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she became liberal icon buy her relentless activism. Regardless of case you could always know in advance which decision will she make.
I am not a partisan on this issue. I fault any judge who prejudges the case in favor of pushing an ideological or religious agenda. I wouldn’t excuse Alito or Thomas or Scalia just because I felt that Ginzburg did the same thing. Otherwise it’s just special pleading.
Whether or not Roe was wrongly decided, we are at a position now where it is being repealed after 50 years by activist judges who happen to be conservatives instead of liberals. It does not follow that the repeal of Roe is right, just because (in your view) it was established wrongly in the first place. The fault of one does not whitewash the fault of the other.
Roe established, in practice, a civil right that was in place for half a century. You may not think it is a constitutional right or that it was established properly, but it was established - it has been the law of the land as with any other constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court. We now have two or three generations of Americans who have been accustomed to this as a civil right, and repealing it now is to take away a civil right that was exercised before. This is the meaning of “stare decisis” and that is something that the current judicial activists on the Court know very well because they took the trouble to lie about it at their confirmation hearings.
I don’t disagree with you at all about the “outsourcing” of laws by Congress. This is why I am looking for comprehensive Congressional fix for this constitutional mess where unelected politicians pretending to be judges bypass the legitimate lawmaking procedures of our republic. Probably this will only be brought to the table by the Democrats, for their own selfish purposes, and opposed by Republicans for the same reason. But it should really be a bipartisan effort by statesmen and women who care about the republic. Do any such exist?
By that logic, Plessy v. Ferguson should not have been overturned with Brown v. Board of Education because it established the stare decisis of "separate but equal" in American jurisprudence.
Stare decisis is not an over-riding principle that must always be followed. If a case was wrongly decided, then the Supreme Court has a duty to overturn it. How does one tell which decisions to overturn? Alito's majority opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson confronts this very issue.
I’m sorry, this is ridiculous. The two cases are not remotely comparable. Brown restored rights that had been given in the 24th Amendment, specifically citing the intervening years of experience that contradicted and invalidated the central premise of the Plessy decision. Stare decisis did not come into it at all.
May I remind you that the Brown decision was unanimous?
What rights do you think that Roe took away, that were restored when Alito and his four friends decided to legislate their morality for 330 million people?
Judges have a duty to rule on the case in front of them. They do not have a duty to roam around in the law armed with their personal prejudices, looking to rescue it from other judges’ wrong opinions.
Since you approve of the proceedings in the Dobbs case, why stop there? Where does the limit lie? What rights do you enjoy, that could not be taken away by five judges looking for an excuse to do it? What makes you think it will always go your way?
1. I assume you meant the 14th Amendment, which was used to justify the decision in Brown v. Board. The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process clauses were meant to apply the rights of the Constitution equally to the states in the wake of the Civil War. It was not meant to justify rights under the "penumbras" of the Constitution. Griswold v. CT was the case that established a right to privacy under these "penumbras". I can see the argument against it, but I can buy that. The problem, however, is when the same argument for the right to privacy is now applied to abortion. Whatever abortion is (arguments for when life begins/rights of the woman/rights of the unborn baby aside), I think it is fair to say that this is not just simply a matter of privacy.
2. The rights of the states to pass their own laws of abortion were took away by Roe v. Wade. Dobbs v. Jackson has now took power away from the federal government and given it back to the states. That alone makes this one of the best decisions I think the Supreme Court has ever made.
3. You keep asserting that the judges who ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade were biased in some way. I fail to see how. If there is bias, I think it is from the Pro-Choice side in this matter.
4. Abortion is not a constitutional right and it never should have been. The first part of the previous sentence is a fact, the second part is subject to debate; debate that has been stifled for nearly 50 years because of the federal government declaring it a right in Roe v. Wade.
Rights have been taken away and granted throughout our nation's history. This is by no means a novel event. I'm not worried about gun rights or freedom of speech rights being "overturned" or "overruled" because they are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, unlike a right to "abortion" or a right to same-sex marriage.
1. When it was decided, Roe v. Wade was not grounded on any pre-history of abortion as a right. The histories and references they use in their opinion were flawed and mostly interpretive history.
2. How did Alito and Thomas pre-judge this case? I read through the Dobbs v. Jackson decision (and Roe v. Wade too, for that matter) and I thought they had logical and reasonable arguments for why they made their decision. I haven't heard an argument that convinces me otherwise.
3. Think about what you're saying. Because of a decision that you don't like, you are calling for the re-structuring of an entire branch of government. Doesn't that seem a bit radical? The Supreme Court has given and removed constitutional rights in our nation's past before, why is this important enough to reshape our entire form of government?
Alito has been saying that Roe was wrongly decided and that it was his goal to overturn it since the day his nomination was approved. If that's not prejudice, I don't know what is.
I am a radical on this issue. I believe a radical approach is warranted not because of the outcome of the case, but because these circumstances have revealed a grave corruption in our system of government that must be addressed to avoid severe consequences. Rulings have come and gone over the decades but we have now come to the point where the politicians have turned the Court into an unelected third branch of the legislature. I don't care whether the political "judges" are liberal or conservative, the Court never was supposed to have this power, it is bad that it has this power, and it must be changed so it does not have this power and will never regain this power. This will require substantive measures, not just tweaks around the edges (like adding a few justices in a partisan way). Congress can do this by majority vote.
I disagree with the argument to restructure the judicial branch.
However, whether you realize it or not, you are echoing Justice Clarence Thomas's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson. He said (paraphrasing) that the Supreme Court has done a lot of damage to the country by arbitrarily granting "rights" under the Constitution. The decision to grant "rights" not specifically stated in the Constitution should always have been up to the states to decide, rather than the judicial branch.
I wonder if you'd disagree with it if it were unaccountable liberal judges, instead of unaccountable conservative judges, making the rulings.
I'd agree with whoever is taking power away from the federal government.
I believe that's what created Roe in the first place, right?
I'm not impressed with the choices this author made for her interviews. Democrats? Former Republicans? Unconventional folks who nevertheless consider themselves Christians? And a pastor who feels compelled to remind the author that pro-life people aren't monsters?
The only thing I learned from this article is that the wording of the referendum was sufficiently confusing that some people voted no because they thought they were voting against abortion. And that is something I had already suspected.
that pro-life people aren't monsters?
Yeah, that line got me too.
The fact that he felt compelled to say that suggests unpleasant things about the vibes the interviewer was giving off.
I find it astounding that the side that would label an unborn baby as a parasite and promote abortion up to and after the moment of birth is the side that is somehow the victim against those pro-life “monsters”
Because they can always fall back on the big 3 extremism tests that pro-lifers consistently fail (ectopic, rape, incest).
Ectopic: Ectopic pregnancies are non-viable and the procedure to remove an ectopic pregnancy is technically not an abortion. The fact that people think the Pro-Life movement is trying to ban procedures against ectopic pregnancies is because of the Drive-By Media stirring up people's emotions and relying on their ignorance.
Rape/Incest: There is a discussion to be had here. I, personally, take a very Roman Catholic view towards abortion, but I understand that there are many who do not feel that way. Most Americans are like Europeans: abortion is an undesirable thing, but it should be reasonable regulated (first 15-20 weeks or so). I do not agree with that sentiment, but I can understand it to a certain extent.
Actually, it is 12 weeks in most European countries.
Ectopic pregnancies??? Even the Catholic Church which is arguably the most consistently pro-life organization knows that ectopic pregnancies must be terminated to save the life of the mother. I think you are buying into propaganda from the left. I don't know 1 pro-lifer who doesn't support termination of ectopic pregnancies because the embryo/fetus is already "dead" because it cannot continue and the mother's life would also be lost.
Here's 1 pro-lifer:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/brian-seitz-missouri-abortion-ectopic-pregnancy
Like I said, I don't know that person so still don't know any pro-lifer who is against ectopic pregnancies. I can't speak about crazy people because that person is crazy or stupid.
To pretend that the pro-life movement is against ectopic pregnancy termination is disingenuous. You can always find crazy people who belong to a particular movement.
It is a sad state of affairs, but people have been whipped into a frenzy. I'm sorry it is tainting your relationship with your daughter :-(
I'm aware; pro-life legislators are not. They always manage to "forget" to write exemptions for ectopics into their bans.
So how does that work exactly? If it's NOT an abortion as Lynn and I have described to you, then how can pro-life legislators call it something it is not? You are making this up out of whole cloth and it's really incumbent on you to argue facts, not a personal opinion or conjecture.
How many cases of "killing a newborn up to the moment of birth" can you name? A dozen? One? Any? The doctor caught doing that was charged and convicted of murder, and correctly so. I don't know of any other cases where a last-minute abortion was performed for any reason other than medical emergency to woman or child. Women do not carry a baby to term and abort because baby's eyes don't match the furniture. If they carried for that many months, they're committed, and only an emergency would keep them from holding their baby in their arms.
Just because some states allowed for the possibility of last-minute abortion for no reason doesn't mean any woman took them up on the deal. Canada offers that option all nine months---there are no abortion laws in Canada, it's between women and their doctors--and late-term abortions are not done at all except for those medical emergencies.
I believe the "they're murdering babies as they slide through the birth canal!" is pure propaganda.
What difference does it actually make if "no one took them up on it"? It's absolutely HEINOUS to think anyone believes it is ethical, moral, conscionable or palatable to kill a baby at birth or even up to the moment of birth.....and YET that is precisely what ALL of the Ds in the House of Representatives voted for. We have become and absolutely SICK country!
Bullshit. Nobody voted to "kill a baby at birth." How do I know? Because women DO NOT KILL THEIR BABIES AT BIRTH.
Only 1 percent of American abortions occur in the final trimester, and virtually all of those are for medical emergencies to woman or child. Congressional Democrats voted to let women, not you, make abortion decisions, and that's where the right belongs---with the woman, not you, and not with the ban-drunk governors of Oklahoma and South Dakota, among others.
Why do you hate women so much you don't trust them to be responsible with abortion rights? Do you consider them stupid or murderous?
Again, how many babies were killed at birth? Or do you not know?
Politicians name laws with confusing names on purpose. Texas almost always has an amendment on the ballot and I have to read it several times trying to divine what it actually means and most times I am never sure what it means.
The Democrat anti-inflation bill is deliberately misnamed. The name is a lie, The bill exacerbates inflation. Whenever you print too much money and inject it into the economy you get inflation, Eco 101.
Naming amendments or bill with confusing sentences or false names is what the scumbags we elect do.
It also provides an enormous gift to the manufacturers of solar and wind power as well as EVs. All of the manufacturers and consumers of these are high income, and subsidies are provided by the taxpayers.
Additionally, it unleashes a staggering number of IRS auditors to go after the middle class.
One of the worst pieces of legislation in decades, and Manchin will forever be tarnished for allowing it to pass. Hopefully the right will make it a focus of their mid term campaigns.
I’m sure they will they would be mad not to
and a call for new taxes, like that wont inflate? cash rebates, same.
The bills , i expect, but the people, vie the media, i can not accept.
They have to change the words (English) to shape their narrative eg two negative quarters doesn’t mean there is a recession and yes scumbags they all are
Good points. I think the article highlighted several people's opinions on abortion, but there's no information regarding what the vote was about. For some reason (perhaps the fearmongering by the Drive-By Media), people automatically assume that removing abortion as a constitutional right would result in total ban on abortion. This article was interesting, but not informative.
What I got from the article was how thoroughly out of touch most elites are from the folks in flyover country. I've live in Michigan (both urban and rural), Colorado, NOLA, Vegas, upstate NY and now Iowa. The people aren't much different, but the political cultures are.
If you were to do a legitimate poll across the country of whether abortion should be legal with 15-20 week limits, and exceptions for complications, I have to believe that in excess of 90% would support it.
But the left fails to see that people didn't like the SCOTUS legislating a 'right' to abort a fetus as it was crowning. I don't believe that's a left/right position, and don't believe it can just be waved away by the left as gaslighting.
Finally, I found the condescending tone of the author, who treated this like some kind of anthropological mission to study some foreign tribe, distasteful. But it did give me a glimpse of how out of touch the elites (sorry, I couldn't come up with a better term, even though it's rather trite) are with actual US citizens.
Yeah, the author's disdain for "backwards" Kansans was painfully visible, even in her effort to find people who she felt were worth talking to.
And seriously, Overland KS and Manhattan are bluer than blue.
As is Lawrence! As a Kansas girl at heart (even though I only lived there for 8 years in my 30s), I found her choices of interview subjects to be wildly out of touch.
I don’t think Manhattan KS is blue at all, but Lawrence and OP are for sure.
Manhattan is blue in the sense that the professors and students at K-State are blue. What percentage of the population that is varies at different points throughout the year.
I lived in Manhattan from 2000-2003--got my M.A. at Kansas State. The English Department (where I studied) was Woke before that was even a commonly used term. The pressure that was placed on me, as a moderate classical liberal, to "convert" to their Far-Left ideology was identical in tactics to the pressure my birthmother and her friends had placed on me to become an evangelical Christian; the details of what I "had" to believe were the only difference.
On 9/12/01, I was surrounded by people who thought we "deserved" 9/11.
I can only imagine what it is like now, 20 years later.
Charlie Munger (Berkshire Hathaway) once said (I paraphrase) that a man was looking for the purest example of communism and after searching and searching finally found two examples: Albania and the entire English Dept. of Yale University.
I believe 95% of any college towns are blue. The economy is usually disproportionately driven by the university, as are the local politics.
Iowa is a red state, for the most part, but Iowa City is extremely liberal.
Iowa City and increasingly Des Moines. Iowa is purple overall, and I like it that way.
When we lived in Cedar Rapids, there was a joke that someone who drove a Mercedes in Cedar Rapids was probably a Republican, but someone who drove a Mercedes in Iowa City was probably a Democrat.
Manhattan, KS is purple (in the political sense -- which is oddly fitting, considering K-State's fanatical devotion to the darker of its school colors).
From everything I've read since Dobbs, what you're saying is correct. People liked to point out that no one single regulation scheme could get majority approval even though it was clear most people felt abortion should be available but restricted after the first trimester. The scheme laid out in Roe probably would have worked if not for the companion decision Bolton v Doe that created the health of the woman, including mental health, carve-out and the decision in Casey which junked the Roe trimesters (even though nobody really talked about it being effectively overturned then) for an even looser no undue burden on obtaining an abortion standard. I'm not really surprised the amendment failed as the language was confusing and would appear to me to be unnecessary in most circumstances. That a right exists doesn't mean that actions around it must be unregulated. Even with the Second Amendment most people support an age limits on gun and ammunition sales for example. A right to an action just means the government can't come up with a regulation scheme that prohibits you from any practical exercise of that right.
“Look, there are good people here too, despite what we all think” was her primary assertion.
Agree with you 100 percent.
At last some actual common sense thank you Jon. If everything was as clear as you comment life would be much simpler. If it’s not about the bucks then it’s about reshaping the abortion laws etc I wish to god the current administration would govern the country instead of continuously passing idiotic bills that are either bankrupting us or gaslighting us,either way we are always losers
“I will not vote for any Republican that backs Trump or MAGA,” Mike says. In 2020, he voted for Joe Biden. - Ah another person that just could not see past personality to make security and economic decisions with their vote. The author could have said "In 2020, he decided to use his vote to destroy the economy". Part of this has to do with how culture is elevating positions to cult-like status. The president is the CEO of the United States, he/she is not a messiah that comes to solve all problems.
Well said. There were and is and will be many things I do not like about Trump, but under his leadership, the United States was doing well. That gets my vote.
"In 2020, he decided to use his vote to destroy the economy".
I personally, do not think JB legitimately won the White House. Nothing says a stolen election like an inauguration void of revelers, military fencing, and military presence. One might say, but what about "covid or Jan 6th?" and I say, what about the idea that "covid and jan 6th" were orchestrated for that very day; inauguration day 2021, so that no one could attend the inauguration of the first, but not the last, installed president. Back up the story all the way to Jan 2020 and then March 2020 - and the plan was in place to change the way we voted.....and then we know that there were many inside conspirators on jan 6th - all devised to do what they tried 4 years to do - remove Trump and take back the reins of control from the PEOPLE who were having too much to say about how they loved their freedom and wanted to make America Great Again, which would ruin their globalist plans. But the global elite prefer America to be an open border country filled with binge watching zombies and half dead pharma slaves working hard to line the pockets of the Elite. The global elite count on American's to have a short memory about the crimes they perpetrate on us....because we have done that in the past.
I don't know how we get out of this mess we are in right now, but I believe it's going to take massive action from brave people who care about this country and are not afraid of being cancelled.
i believe that the next generation will get a good view...big change
The article is really lazy and uses abortion rights (what use to be called choice) as a way to show disdain for Republicans and the virtuous nature of Democrats. Just take a look at some of the lines below and the overall tone of the article that is so clearly a service announcement for the Democratic party.
1. “Everybody in America thinks Kansas is so conservative, but Kansas is pretty staunchly anti-government,” Alie Scholes, an emergency medicine doctor, tells me. (Interpretation: Kansas isn't really conservative we're open minded because we believe in abortion. Do you think Alie is a registered Democrat? Hmmmm)
2. “My entire street is all registered Republicans, except for us, and they all had ‘Vote No’ signs out in their yards.” (Interpretation: See how virtuous I am, the lone oppressed Democrat standing up against tyranny.)
3. Back then, he was a “loyal Republican...I will not vote for any Republican that backs Trump or MAGA,” Mike says. (Interpretation: This is Nancy's real point, avoid Trump (and Republicans in general) no matter the cost. You too can switch your registration.)
4. She says she was an independent until the abortion vote, when she switched her registration to Democratic. “I’ve never had a sign in my front yard ever—we’re not the type to do that,” she says. “We did have a sign up for this.” They both voted no. (Interpretation: You too can become a Democrat and be part of the virtuous party.)
It could have been such a good piece but it didn't address the real questions, what was it about the bill that didn't sit right with those who voted no? What was it about the bill that sat right with people who voted yes?
The article doesn't cut the mustard for Common Sense; it's a veiled PSA.
Very well articulated. Bari, Nellie, please read this critique.
I have always defended Common Sense when it was criticized about author and article selection. I can’t defend this choice. The article was disrespectful of a critical issue by approaching it with such obvious bias. I wanted an objective take on what happened in Kansas because it is important and this piece was so far from objective that I am unable to mount a defense of it.
Sad sigh.
Patriot D, thanks! I really appreciate Bari's work and I'm even a paid subscriber. Sometimes I agree and sometimes I disagree with particular perspectives, but I rarely doubt the journalism. This piece from Nellie got away from them. Great teachable moment. Maybe there can be another article with a more robust perspective? Bring in another journalist?
You nailed what I had a vague sense of. This article wasn't informative or insightful - its only purpose is to model "correct" behavior of moving towards the Democratic Left Because Abortion.
I'm worried about a devastated economy, a world at war, an incompetent USA, assaults on our rights, federal power out of control, overt criminality among our leaders, and the totalitarian merging of all of our institutions into a single entity called Dei.
And they're going to vote in favor of all of that because abortion. That's it. Nothing more important in the world than abortion.
Or maybe I should say, "nothing in the world that tests better in Democrat polls than abortion."
They will applaud lockdowns and traumatize the children, but abortion rights are a hill they will die on, and the best they have to campaign on going into the midterms.
I don't think I can find any real common ground with this. It just disgusts me.
Anthony, I think millions of Americans feel the way you do. Your frustration is palpable. People will vote on pocketbook issues too, not abortion, especially those living paycheck to paycheck. Small businesses are moving to the right because of the dramatic impact Biden has had on their income. (These aren't businesses making millions; they are the types of businesses that make a community a community.) The left really does hate small, independent business owners and loves Amazon because it's centralized. People are getting sick of DIE (DEI) as well. Funny thing, I'm a registered democrat, and they've lost me. The Supreme Court made the correct decision and any real judge knows it. The dems fear states' rights. That is what the republicans need to run on. Have hope and vote red.
Thanks. I've been looking for a meaningful way to get involved that isn't just online comments boards.
Yes, or at very least confirmation bias.
Jen, great point. "Or at the very least confirmation bias."
"Anyway, abortion. He’s for it. Or, at least, the right to have one. He thinks people make mistakes, things happen—he should know—and anyway, who is Jesse Geffs to tell a woman what to do with her body?" - My ongoing question here is why all these people get to tell the female fetus what to do with her body? What bodily autonomy does "that woman" have? At what point during gestation does the fetus become a woman with all the rights that the angry, already born ones have?
I keep wondering why women who demand control over “their” bodies can’t keep their knees together.
That's certainly what they demand of men if the man doesn't want to be on the hook for child support. He needs to keep his pants zipped, because he's on the hook from the moment he ejaculates.
If birth control fails, the woman can go get an abortion, but the man is out of luck if the woman decides to go ahead and have the baby. Hand over your wallet, dude!
And that doesn't even begin to consider the women who lie about being on birth control in order to "trap" a man into becoming the father of her child.
Not to pile on, but what if the ejaculator doesn't want the baby aborted?
This is what we've become. A nation of birthing people and ejaculators. If only the National Lampoon of the 70s were still around.
So much for equal protection under the law.
I am so with you.
I told my boys repeatedly, “women lie just as often as men and their lies can have vicious consequences for you and any child you may unintentionally create.”
And the absurdity of “why should I tell a woman what’re do with her body?”
Uhhh that happen ALL THE TIME. Women can’t legally smoke heroin, drive drunk, etc. it’s a ridiculous claim.
Marie...pleasant to hear. thanks.
So I’ll be catty and ask, Do most of those women in that photo really need to worry about needing an abortion someday?
Really? Go to the Matt Gaetz, accused of sexually trafficking minors, level? The issue of abortion is morally and legally so important that it should never go to "is she cute?" remark. Do women who have aged out of cute (if they ever were in that group) and out of reproduction still have the ability to make political statements about abortion?
I'm sorry, but I think NC was simply injecting a little humor into the discussion, and even though I smiled when I first read it, I assumed someone was going to torch her on it.
I don't believe that there is any topic that is so 'morally and legally important' that it can't be poked at. In fact, the more important a topic is, the more it would benefit by lightened the conversation a bit. I worked in hospitals for 30 years, and I tell you, most would be appalled by the dark humor amongst clinicians during high stress situations.
But that's simply my opinion.
NC...my thought...genitive. thanks
that's it...i'm sipped
Women also demand equal rights with men. It was about 45 years ago that I first pointed out that a man’s ability to control his reproduction ends at intercourse. And yes, although the repercussions of an unwanted pregnancy weigh more heavily upon the expectant mother, nature addresses that imbalance.
very funny...comes to never-the-less.
That is the key question. When does life begin? Obama famously said “it’s above my pay grade”. He was trying to be funny but he is correct. We do not know. Considering this and considering the EVIL it is to take innocent life we should opt to be cautious in this. None of us wants blood on our hands.
I don’t know why that’s so hard to answer. Cells that contain human DNA from a mother and a father, cells that are dividing and have all the instructions to make an entire human being, are alive.
I think it’s pretty obvious that life starts at conception. A sperm meets an egg and (unless something happens), a baby is the result
We most certainly do know when human life begins. It begins at conception. The question is when is it viable, and that benchmark moves ever closer to conception with medical advancements.
Life begins at the beginning. But what to do? It’s unfortunate that there are no means of birth control to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
And that we as a society put little to no value on human life. Unless it is a life that is deemed worthy. I hope people realize (especially ‘educated’ white women) where this line of thinking is going to get us.
I'm an "educated white woman" and I am frequently disgusted by my demographic. I feel in general that they have been so pampered that they don't see danger coming down the track from all of this.
I am one too which is why I felt it was OK to use the term, and I am disgusted as well. We finally get to some level of equality and ‘power’ and this is what we do with it. I guess we are human just like everyone else :).
My Boy Heisenberg opened up minds about a lot more than electron position and momentum; as you drill down on ANYTHING, it gets fuzzy. The deeper you go, the fuzzier it gets. Before you ask when life begins, you need to decide "What is life?" When we are able to dedifferentiate a skin cell to the zygote stage, will rubbing your hands be considered the taking of "life," as each cell drops to the floor?
That's not just a silly question. It suggests others, and they suggest even others. But at some point it gets absurd, and one realizes that solving problems ultimately means that you have to get reasonable people together and just let them work out solutions. To my eye, the abortion question is the perfect problem and the perfect opportunity to to do that - and to reverse the extremist lunacy that has surrounded the question for nearly fifty years.
No, because your skin cells aren’t dividing. And because they have “committed” to being skin cells, even if they were dividing, they could not generate a human. You need uncommitted pluripotential cells.
That's why I included the term "dedifferentiated." Which we can do to some extent today. Tomorrow? They will certainly have the technology. I haven't followed the science lately; I suspect the Chinese are experimenting with it right now, since they don't do the human-experimentation due diligence that we/everyone else does. But the whole idea was a hypothetical anyway....
EXACTLY THIS. What makes us human (with those rights outlined in our Constitution) is THE question. Especially medical advances and the advent of sentient AI, this question is the question our global society needs to answer. And the fact that no one is even talking about it proves yet again that our politicians are just using it to win elections.
My niece just went through in-vitro, something my husband and I did 24 years ago. Now, unlike 24 years ago, the doctor will tell the mother/father the gender of the embryos before they are even implanted! Live begins at knowing the gender as far as I'm concerned!
Madjack, I don't think that they key question in the U.S. is "when does life begin." The question is at what point and under what circumstances does the state have a duty of care toward the unborn?
We are putting too many people in boxes. I know many Christian conservative republicans that are pro choice with limits. This really isn’t surprising in the least. I would bet that the majority of those few states that are anti abortion will overturn/change to make it legal w restrictions within the next election cycle. Then, maybe some congress person will have the courage to suggest a constitutional amendment that all the states can agree on…. No that would be expecting to much of our elected officials- courage. It’s easier to hide behind executive orders and Supreme Court decision rather than create legislation.
The Constitution requires that each State decide this issue for itself.
No. Federal law can pre-empt.
I'll probably get pilloried here for saying so, but I really object to the mystified, almost baffled, tone to articles such as this that reflect that people who possess a sincere faith can actually have thoughtful, nuanced views on complex social issues. It reflects, in my opinion, an utter dearth of people of faith in the daily life of the reporter. Christians, of which I am one, are seen by writers like this one as an oddity, a throwback, a relic of a bygone age with irrational beliefs and a cult-like fealty to whomever is in the pulpit of wherever we kneel on Sundays, whose orders we follow with blind passion. That perception of me, and people like me is a caricature, which can be found I admit, yet a cartoonish depiction of the way most people of faith approach trying to live their lives, trying to sort complex issues in the light of sincere spiritual beliefs. Now I know how the animals at the zoo feel when people come to observe them. Maybe that is why I am increasingly not a fan of zoos.
Good points. I am also a Christian and wish people writing about Christianity would stop looking for an angle and just write about the nice, decent people who go to church on Sundays, run their businesses and personal lives in an ethical way, and take care of their families. Instead, we only get the sensational or controversial stories of faith, so incoherent, disrespectful, shallow, and disappointing.
“Why would generally pro-life people vote against this” is the right question to ask. There are a lot of wrong questions in this article.
I take issue with the optimistic framing of this article for the future of Kansas as a pro-choice state. It seems the author relied largely upon anecdotes about her wealthy Republican neighbors opposing the initiative to suggest this is a sea change. It's not. Research on state ballot initiatives consistently shows that voters have a status quo bias. They're reluctant to vote to overturn any law, especially when confronted with a ballot question that is vague or confusing. The Kansas ballot initiative is word salad. Run it again with a specific restriction on abortion access, say, after a 8 weeks and I guarantee it would be enacted.
All intellectually honest people recognized that Roe was legally poorly decided. Now it goes to the states and the people. This is an issue of life not choice, and we should all be careful with taking innocent life.
I read the Kansas amendment and couldn’t understand it at all. I don’t think this is as earth shattering as you do.
Same....and I consider myself decently intelligent. It was gobbely-gook!
I had problems with the perspective on this article because right away, you assumed that everybody who was pro-choice was Democrats and everybody who was anti-choice was republican. You did that by indicating the number of Republican and Democratic voters. Shouldn't the point of your whole journey to Kansas have been an open-minded perspective to see how it is that people feel about this issue despite their religion or political preference?
Writers like this are never open minded, ever. They have an agenda to shape public opinion to their standards.
NB ...i keep trying to cut out, and then i find another post, that says much...gist. thanks.
Rommelmann appears to be attempting to shape, rather than report the news about Roe v. Wade in Kansas. She neglects to provide the reader with specifics - do Kansans want abortion to be available during the entire pregnancy, as was the case with Roe, or do Kansans favor limiting abortion to a specific number of weeks or months? Rejecting Roe as a constitutionally-guaranteed right in *no way* is a Handmaid’s Tale-style rejection of abortion. Unconstitutional law from activist judges is out; state-determined approaches now are and should always have been determinative.
I am pretty conservative, but having considered the abortion question for a really long time (I'm 79.5 years old), it seems to me that there is no "correct" answer to this problem. BUT, having said that, I add that the slogan, "A woman has a right to do with her own body as she pleases." is vapid and intellectually lazy. The moral issue apart, the State (i.e. the governmental authority) has an interest in life and death matters. That is why the State takes an interest in murder, rape, incest, euthanasia, and abortion...all personal matters that happen to ordinary citizens. Therefore, the pronouncement that the woman does have a "right" to "her own body" belies the interest of the State. The objective truth is that her body is housing a second body...her child. There are three conflicting interests here: the woman's, the fetus's, and the State's. Whose rights take precedence? In a democracy we work out such a fraught issue by voting...which Kansas has done. I think Kansas has done about as well as we can. The Roe vs Wade decision of the Supreme Court was apparently a poor decision that sought the "correct" answer by a reasoning that has not stood the test of time and perspective. That Kansas has found its own solution...so be it.
What a damn fine analysis!
This absolutely confirms for me the sad truth about how people “on the left”, like this writer, lump people into groups erroneously. Just because you’re a Republican doesn’t mean you’re anti abortion. Because I voted for Trump I am now a racist, sexist, homophobic. I am so sick of this mentality. It has infected our culture to the point of tearing families apart. It’s time to look in the mirror and really see the carnage this divisiveness caused. Very disappointed in Bari Weiss for running this BS.
As other commenters have said, the best thing about Bari Weiss running this is that it allows for dialogue that is intelligent, respectful and far better than what is common in other media.
I defend the SCOTUS ruling. I also think these trigger warnings and total bans on abortion are reaching too far. The Dems swung too far and even celebrated late-term abortions. Disgusting. Now many Republican legislators are swinging too far the other way and banning all abortions. Before 6 weeks? Really? After 20 weeks? Really? I hope it would only be to save the mother’s life. Let’s all exercise some moderation here.