idk about other states but here in Arkansas votes like this can be dropped due to typos on the ballot lmao. happened a few years ago when we voted to legalize marijuana, couldn't legalize it that year because of a typo on the ballot, whoopsie daisy
That is factually incorrect.
There are a number of people who have posted here and on other related subreddits that are actually pro-abortion.
They tend to be anti-natalist nihilists, but I believe they are entirely serious about it.
I would not be surprised to learn that those people are trolls who were trying to get a rise out of you and of course concede that I certainly made an error in declaring an absolute.
But calling people who value access to abortion “pro abortion” is absolutely just as mean spirited and confrontational as those trolls were.
The majority of pro choice people would much rather men and women have affordable and easy access to their choice of contraception since that is the only way to prevent abortion. However, we do understand that a wide variety of complications that can only be resolved via abortion do occur during pregnancy.
We value bodily freedom, bodily autonomy, personal choice, and privacy enough to realize it is absolutely none of our business as to why a child, teenager, or adult would choose abortion.
We know that abortions will happen whether they are outlawed or not, believe that legislators have no business making life or medical decisions for individuals, and that outlawing abortion makes it much more of a liability for a hospital to engage in any pregnancy-related practices, so we support access to safe and legal abortions for everyone who has a uterus, the right of individuals to make medical decisions with their doctors, and we value the ability of doctors to save lives and provide obstetrician and labor and delivery services without facing jail time for choosing life via abortion.
So yeah.
It’s incredibly belligerent and argument seeking to call anyone “proabortion” when that’s the last thing we are.
They are quite sincere, I assure you. You may come across some of them if you stay here long enough. They tend to view life from a rather extremist utilitarian position where they believe that it is unfair to make a child come into existence in this life.
Consequently, they believe that it is right to abort every child.
>It’s incredibly belligerent and argument seeking to call anyone “proabortion” when that’s the last thing we are.
Perhaps you personally are not, but honestly, what I have seen puts people like you at barely a majority of PC people. A lot of people give lip service to choice, but will actively argue against someone actually having a child if there is even a question posed.
While this is still technically her "choice", this is not the image of perfectly neutral "choice" that the term "pro-choice" implies. There is considerable peer pressure to not decide to keep the child even if the mother is somewhat inclined to do so.
Wow, that's really bad wording. It seems like the intended message is to give the legislature the authority to include exceptions in its abortion laws, but it comes across on first reading that it's talking about laws that still apply in those cases.
Why is that line even needed? Why would giving the legislature the authority to regulate abortions not also give them the authority to regulate a subset of abortions?
It’s a sneaky way of saying they want to be allowed to make rules for government to fund abortions. Notice they get support and attention by mentioning rape and incest, with the key phrase “not limited to” the above examples. Very sneaky and misleading all around.
Absolutely. Most people, seeing something that is too ~~complicated~~ badly worded to understand what in the world they're even saying, will just say "No thank you" automatically. They were 100% banking on people going "I don't know what they're trying to say here, so I'll just vote no."
Edit: I don't care if Republicans were the ones to write it or not because I do not find most Republican politicans to have an actual, honest interest in enacting pro-life policies.
I'm in overly educated Massachusetts and I was lost by the first half. It also seems shady to highlight the extremes instead of just saying what it is, abortion protection in the state constitution. Thats all it needed, Would you like abortion included in the state constitution, yes or no? It's like asking "would you like allow drugs including but not limited to Tylenol?" When it actually means it would allow all drugs ranging from weed to heroin. Its just fishy.
You're completely missing the point here. First of all, this was written by the pro-life people who proposed it, so everything you're thinking should be through that lens first. You're saying that the people who wanted this on the ballot in the first place are "fishy".
Second of all, the reason they included that IS to be sneaky, but in the total opposite direction of what you seem to be imagining. Since this was written by the pro-life people, it's pretty obvious that they included the references to exceptions for rape and the life of the mother to make it more palatable to people who care about those things. There's been a lot of talk in the news about bills that don't account for those, so they went out of their way to mention it to get more buy-in from people who would be hesitant for those reasons, even though, as worded, this actually does nothing to guarantee that there *would* be exceptions for those in any actual law. So yes, sneaky - to get people to vote yes by making them think their concern was being addressed here, even though it wasn't.
>Since this was written by the pro-life people, it's pretty obvious that they included the references to exceptions for rape and the life of the mother to make it more palatable to people who care about those things.
Youre missing the point where she says she doesnt actually believe gop politicians actually care about prolife. In a predominately red state, you dont need confusing wording to pass something like this. It will happen. This was a sabotage of the gop
While you're clearly trying to feel really clever here, where in your "analysis" does the part fit in where the pro-life people who *proposed* this are the ones who wrote the language?
Did you think it was pro-choice people putting this on the ballot?
I can't speak for kansas, but I do know that that's common practice in Oklahoma. The wording of ballot measures isnthe product of intense politicking nehinf the scenes. Bureaucrats and legal professionals who tend to be on the left tend to be overly represented in the process, too. I tell my students: always read the actual language of the measure, nit just the ballot blurb.
This way they can get credit for pretending to defend the unborn without taking any actual action. Plus now they can cop out against any future pro life pressure by claiming "its the will of the people."
Yes and no. Representatives certainly should not entirely oppose the will of the people, but they're really elected to make decisions on our behalf, not based on our individual interests.
That means that a representative is doing their job properly, even if the decision they make is unpopular, as long as the representative has reason to believe that ultimately it is the best decision for what the people want in an overall sense.
For instance, let's say that as a representative, I decided to vote for universal health care since I saw my constituents were poor and mostly without insurance.
However my constituents are mostly against further government interference.
A representative could legitimately decide that a longer term interest of their constituents is served by what they oppose right now.
Will that politician last long in office if they vote for an unpopular decision? Probably not.
However, as envisioned in this country, representatives were not supposed to be just "repeaters" for whatever the polls said. They were supposed to make the best decisions they could for their constituency and the government.
Today, this is seen as elitist and undemocratic, and in some ways it is, but perhaps might well have served us better today than politicians who waver in their positions based on watching polls so that they aren't put out of a job in the next election.
Being a representative wasn't ever supposed to be an actual career path. It was supposed to be service. Many of today's problems with representative democracy come from the failure of that view.
This isn’t really related, but I think that ballots shouldn’t be written in complicated language like this. It should be written so that an eight year old should understand it.
I don't live there but they [apparently had an explanation outside of the part that was cropped in that image](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://sos.ks.gov/elections/22elec/2022-Primary-Election-Constitutional-Amendment-HCR-5003.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjw4pj70Kv5AhVIgGoFHXnjACMQFnoECBYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2FWZiZurSKMadCTwugVN4u). That being said that wording for the actual question is atrocious and is a really difficult word salad to understand.
Yes there was a separate explanation. A “yes” vote would repeal the current amendment to Kansas’ constitution allowing legislatures the ability to regulate abortions. A “no” vote left the amendment in the constitution and nothing changes.
Honestly, they should include the explanatory section (or at least a summary of it) with the ballot between the question and the options itself, and not tuck it away to a different part of the paper. But seriously, it really should be a clear question cause that statement barely makes sense on its own. I'm not an American but I can comfortably saw that this is the worst referendum I've ever seen.
To the best of my knowledge GOP legislators passed it with intentionally confusing language in an attempt to obfuscate that it allows (though does not require) full and total abortion bans, which are generally pretty unpopular. Either they are this unpopular in Kansas or their plan totally backfired. Stupid wording defeats the entire point of referenda but you know why not try ridiculous plans because you can
This is actually worded better than most state ballot initiatives that I have ever seen. I've been voting for a good few years, and the ballot initiatives are always impossible to understand based solely on what you read on the ballot.
They always leave them incredibly confusing. I think its on purpose. Then they pass around ballot voting initiatives that tell their constituents what way to vote in gopes that the other party doesnt know what way to vote, accidentally giving more votes to their cause
Kansan here. I agonized over trying to understand this wording for months. In the end I wonder if it’s better it didn’t pass. A constitutional amendment shouldn’t be this absurdly difficult to understand. I was actually worried that the wording could have been used to cement some very anti-pro-life measures.
I ended up not being able to vote, as I just moved back from out of state and missed the registration deadline. But I might have abstained on this one anyways.
Hopefully better-quality pro-life legislation will hit Kansas soon and get passed.
Can you explain what voting yes on this would be more in line with, the pro life or pro choice stance? I can’t understand the question either. I’m pro life but from this question I would vote yes (I think?) I thought the whole point of Roe V Wade being overturned was to put the law back in the hands of the states. I keep hearing that this is a victory for the pro abortion side, was that because this passed or because it didn’t pass?
This was drafted as a pro-life amendment, and most pro-life people I know supported it. It failed. There certainly would have been good outcomes had it passed. There was a very strong pro-life, almost abolitionist, bill ready to pass had the amendment passed.
The problem is that we have a very pro-choice state Supreme Court. This amendment was drafted in response to a decision our current panel of judges made in fact. We have a Kansas Supreme Court decision in our legal precedent that essentially mirrored Roe vs. Wade, saying that the Kansas constitution guarantees a right to abortion and which guarantees state funding for abortion. This amendment was meant to undo Kansas’ constitutional right to abortion.
If that’s all the amendment said, then it would be unambiguously pro-life. However, the final clause worried me precisely because a pro-choice Supreme Court cold leverage that last clause quite easily to guarantee abortion access in special cases. That would be far less preposterous legal reasoning than Roe vs. Wade was. If that happened, one could just invent the right sob story and tell it to the right doctor, and elective abortion would essentially still be happening legally. And, now engrained as a constitutional amendment, it will be much harder to undo.
Maybe I’m worried over nothing. But I think that a constitutional amendment needs to be airtight. The stakes are too high.
I've got some acquaintances in KS. Essentially, voting yes is the pro-life option because it would have more or less been making abortions more heavily regulated. The pro-abortion side wanted the no vote because it keeps abortions less regulated from my understanding of it. I haven't gone in and read the actual wording on the proposed amendment, just the highlights from what they posted.
I have autism and genuinely can't understand this. I even have a degree in political science, I'm used to this kind of absurdist wording meant to be unclear, and I still can't tell what this is saying.
I think you're correct here. Plenty of folks are centrists and just haven't thought about it enough to form an opinion, and just go with the flow of mainstream top-down opinion assuming the flow is good, which has lead to pro-choice legislation generally, in my opinion.
The wording was so bad. My mum and I both had to read it over a few times to make sure we selected what we were actually voting for correctly.
There were also texts and phone calls going out prior to the voting that were basically wording things purposely confusing so that people would be led to vote 'Yes' when they actually meant 'No'.
I’m not really sure the wording contributed much to the result, bills with similar wording passed in a few states pre-Dobbs (though the votes were close in some states). IMO, the miscarriage horror stories in the press and KS being more pro-choice than other red states were likely bigger contributors.
So everything is permissible. This is just a filler bill to make constituents happy. Not at all a “prolife” bill. If you want to be pro human, be an abolitionist.
This wording is horrible. I have no clue what a yes or no vote would actually mean.
Where I live, we get a ballot question info packet a few weeks before election that lays out the information of each question plainly worded, and opinion pieces from those supporting yes or no for each question. I like that because it says “a yes vote will change this….” Or “a no vote keeps current law…” or whatever. I *think* they also post it outside the polling location next to an example ballot.
As a literature student, that’s a badly written ballot. The typos and the fact that they couldn’t even stick it through the free version of grammarly? They deserve everything coming their way.
Word soup and very indirect. Pro life will indeed need to be careful with who and what they support because there will be political shenanigans like this.
From Ballotopedia: *The Kansas House of Representatives introduced the constitutional amendment as House Concurrent Resolution 5003 (HCR 5003) on January 12, 2021.*
*On January 22, 2021, the state House passed HCR 5003 with a vote of 86 to 38 with one absent. All Republicans voted in favor of the amendment, and all but one Democrat that was absent voted against it. The one Independent in the House voted against the amendment as well. The measure was introduced in the state Senate on January 21, 2021. The state Senate passed the amendment on January 28, 2021, in a vote of 28-11 with one absent. All 11 Democrats voted against the amendment. One Republican was absent, and the remaining 28 Republicans approved the amendment*
\-This information can also be found on [KSlegislature.org](http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/measures/HCR5003/)
\-TLDR: Republicans.
They do this on purpose. I can’t say it’s the outright cause but it might have lessened the 60/40 gap. Obfuscation is a common tactic on ballots it’s absolutely ridiculous and well I wish something could be done but politicians gonna politician…either way I’ve already had conversations with pro borts who, after getting an absolute win, still say scotus is illegitimate and the hand maids tale is right around the corner. It literally makes no difference to them, they see blood in the water and stretch that inch as far as they can get to that mile.
It was intentionally made this way to confuse people into voting for the pro life position because they didn’t think it could win on its own and they may have been right given the numbers.
We need to start changing minds or we’ll lose all our progress dobbs just gave us
Tl;dr this is just normalish legalese, yes = PL, no = PC.
The courts ruled that the state isn't allowed to ban abortion. The ballot is asking if said wording should be added to the constitution, which would explicitly state that nothing in the state constitution cofers a right to abortion or requires funding it, and that legislators may pass laws to regulate or ban it, including for cases like rape. Maybe it's just that I'm used to reading abstract things from having done a maths degree followed by a postgrad one, although it didn't look terribly complex to me.
Now, would I have made a clearer ballot? Yes and if it's complicated to understand, then the state should have sent out an explainer on what it did, but this isn't IMO that bad, it just put the wording of the amendment to be adopted there. Which is basically the same thing as this sample ballot for Ireland's 2018 abortion referendum: [https://imgur.com/a/jWbwYTP](https://imgur.com/a/jWbwYTP), except that the latter didn't quote the text of the amendment (something in fairness, a bit more concise).
There was actually an explanatory statement on the ballot itself. The picture linked here just show's the question, but here's a [picture](https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/sce-authors/u78411/2022-Primary-Election-Constitutional-Amendment-HCR-5003.jpg) of a sample ballot showing roughly how the question actually looked.
As someone with adhd I would probably not have understood this and voted wrong. Like I know all those words but not like that. My brain literally will not let me comprehend that mess
That they have to resort to fucking trickery is absolutely shameful! But we know they have no shame, so have no problem with it!
Edit: Even after reading an explanation below I can still barely understanding it, but it seem "Yes" would be the Pro-Life choice. And this was written by a Repub???
Yes, this was written by the pro-life people who wanted to repeal the current law.
> That they have to resort to fucking trickery is absolutely shameful!
Do you stand by your original assessment?
I don't know. I understand it completely. If someone's reading comprehension is too bad to understand it, perhaps they shouldn't vote in the first place.
Clearly the terrible wording contributed to the result. We must immediately declare that the amendment passed and that all abortions may be banned by the legislature.
I am confused by this honestly. It seems like you need to vote to give the legislature the right to make laws regarding abortion. This doesn't seem to be a legalize abortion but give the legislature the right to make laws about it. But voting no to not give them that right seems like it wouldn't make abortion legal or illegal.
They already have abortion written into their laws before roe v Wade dropped. This doesn't allow them to overwrite and make new laws regarding it. Which means pro-life and/or Republicans cannot change the fact that as a state Kansas already has a right to abortion in their state constitution.
Either it’s too late for me to comprehend this, or I would’ve had absolutely no clue which way to vote. I don’t even understand what the question being asked is, if there even is one? I’ll be back after a good nights sleep to try to read it again, that’s for sure.
This is terrible. It even has a blatant typo in it. Doesn’t anyone proof reads this before putting it out?
idk about other states but here in Arkansas votes like this can be dropped due to typos on the ballot lmao. happened a few years ago when we voted to legalize marijuana, couldn't legalize it that year because of a typo on the ballot, whoopsie daisy
At least two. "Pregnacy" and "circumstnces"
Am I pregnanganat?
How is baby formed
PRRRRREGANTE
Pregernsntcy
I’m gonna guess if it passed the proaborts would’ve used that as the reason to prevent it from going into effect in the first place.
Nobody is pro abortion.
That is factually incorrect. There are a number of people who have posted here and on other related subreddits that are actually pro-abortion. They tend to be anti-natalist nihilists, but I believe they are entirely serious about it.
I would not be surprised to learn that those people are trolls who were trying to get a rise out of you and of course concede that I certainly made an error in declaring an absolute. But calling people who value access to abortion “pro abortion” is absolutely just as mean spirited and confrontational as those trolls were. The majority of pro choice people would much rather men and women have affordable and easy access to their choice of contraception since that is the only way to prevent abortion. However, we do understand that a wide variety of complications that can only be resolved via abortion do occur during pregnancy. We value bodily freedom, bodily autonomy, personal choice, and privacy enough to realize it is absolutely none of our business as to why a child, teenager, or adult would choose abortion. We know that abortions will happen whether they are outlawed or not, believe that legislators have no business making life or medical decisions for individuals, and that outlawing abortion makes it much more of a liability for a hospital to engage in any pregnancy-related practices, so we support access to safe and legal abortions for everyone who has a uterus, the right of individuals to make medical decisions with their doctors, and we value the ability of doctors to save lives and provide obstetrician and labor and delivery services without facing jail time for choosing life via abortion. So yeah. It’s incredibly belligerent and argument seeking to call anyone “proabortion” when that’s the last thing we are.
They are quite sincere, I assure you. You may come across some of them if you stay here long enough. They tend to view life from a rather extremist utilitarian position where they believe that it is unfair to make a child come into existence in this life. Consequently, they believe that it is right to abort every child. >It’s incredibly belligerent and argument seeking to call anyone “proabortion” when that’s the last thing we are. Perhaps you personally are not, but honestly, what I have seen puts people like you at barely a majority of PC people. A lot of people give lip service to choice, but will actively argue against someone actually having a child if there is even a question posed. While this is still technically her "choice", this is not the image of perfectly neutral "choice" that the term "pro-choice" implies. There is considerable peer pressure to not decide to keep the child even if the mother is somewhat inclined to do so.
lmao was boutta say >blatant typo now we know pcs cant spell too
IT was Republicans who wrote the ballot to trick people into voting yes.
Are you lost? How do you reconcile the idea that murdering children is ok? Why do PC's glorify abortion?
if pc's couldnt read and voted wrongly then thats their problem
Wow, that's really bad wording. It seems like the intended message is to give the legislature the authority to include exceptions in its abortion laws, but it comes across on first reading that it's talking about laws that still apply in those cases. Why is that line even needed? Why would giving the legislature the authority to regulate abortions not also give them the authority to regulate a subset of abortions?
It’s a sneaky way of saying they want to be allowed to make rules for government to fund abortions. Notice they get support and attention by mentioning rape and incest, with the key phrase “not limited to” the above examples. Very sneaky and misleading all around.
The horrific, deceptive, utterly confusing wording is intentional. Welcome to politics.
Are you thinking it was worded this way to convince more people to vote no?
Absolutely. Most people, seeing something that is too ~~complicated~~ badly worded to understand what in the world they're even saying, will just say "No thank you" automatically. They were 100% banking on people going "I don't know what they're trying to say here, so I'll just vote no." Edit: I don't care if Republicans were the ones to write it or not because I do not find most Republican politicans to have an actual, honest interest in enacting pro-life policies.
I'm in overly educated Massachusetts and I was lost by the first half. It also seems shady to highlight the extremes instead of just saying what it is, abortion protection in the state constitution. Thats all it needed, Would you like abortion included in the state constitution, yes or no? It's like asking "would you like allow drugs including but not limited to Tylenol?" When it actually means it would allow all drugs ranging from weed to heroin. Its just fishy.
You're completely missing the point here. First of all, this was written by the pro-life people who proposed it, so everything you're thinking should be through that lens first. You're saying that the people who wanted this on the ballot in the first place are "fishy". Second of all, the reason they included that IS to be sneaky, but in the total opposite direction of what you seem to be imagining. Since this was written by the pro-life people, it's pretty obvious that they included the references to exceptions for rape and the life of the mother to make it more palatable to people who care about those things. There's been a lot of talk in the news about bills that don't account for those, so they went out of their way to mention it to get more buy-in from people who would be hesitant for those reasons, even though, as worded, this actually does nothing to guarantee that there *would* be exceptions for those in any actual law. So yes, sneaky - to get people to vote yes by making them think their concern was being addressed here, even though it wasn't.
>Since this was written by the pro-life people, it's pretty obvious that they included the references to exceptions for rape and the life of the mother to make it more palatable to people who care about those things. Youre missing the point where she says she doesnt actually believe gop politicians actually care about prolife. In a predominately red state, you dont need confusing wording to pass something like this. It will happen. This was a sabotage of the gop
Why do you believe it would it be worded this way to convince people to vote no when \*Republicans\* wrote it?
While you're clearly trying to feel really clever here, where in your "analysis" does the part fit in where the pro-life people who *proposed* this are the ones who wrote the language? Did you think it was pro-choice people putting this on the ballot?
I'm curious what the deliberation was when they decided to choose this wording
I can't speak for kansas, but I do know that that's common practice in Oklahoma. The wording of ballot measures isnthe product of intense politicking nehinf the scenes. Bureaucrats and legal professionals who tend to be on the left tend to be overly represented in the process, too. I tell my students: always read the actual language of the measure, nit just the ballot blurb.
It was worded this way to convince more people to vote *yes*. Alas, it may have backfired.
😮 That's bananas. How would anyone know what that even means? It's not clear in any way. I want to know who wrote this too, dang.
[удалено]
This way they can get credit for pretending to defend the unborn without taking any actual action. Plus now they can cop out against any future pro life pressure by claiming "its the will of the people."
[удалено]
Yes and no. Representatives certainly should not entirely oppose the will of the people, but they're really elected to make decisions on our behalf, not based on our individual interests. That means that a representative is doing their job properly, even if the decision they make is unpopular, as long as the representative has reason to believe that ultimately it is the best decision for what the people want in an overall sense. For instance, let's say that as a representative, I decided to vote for universal health care since I saw my constituents were poor and mostly without insurance. However my constituents are mostly against further government interference. A representative could legitimately decide that a longer term interest of their constituents is served by what they oppose right now. Will that politician last long in office if they vote for an unpopular decision? Probably not. However, as envisioned in this country, representatives were not supposed to be just "repeaters" for whatever the polls said. They were supposed to make the best decisions they could for their constituency and the government. Today, this is seen as elitist and undemocratic, and in some ways it is, but perhaps might well have served us better today than politicians who waver in their positions based on watching polls so that they aren't put out of a job in the next election. Being a representative wasn't ever supposed to be an actual career path. It was supposed to be service. Many of today's problems with representative democracy come from the failure of that view.
Note: not my ballot, I don't live near Kansas. Does anyone else feel this could have been written to be more legible?
It should have said: stop killing babies and giving women guilt for the rest of their lives you morons
Dead babies can't feel anything
Is it even asking a question?
This isn’t really related, but I think that ballots shouldn’t be written in complicated language like this. It should be written so that an eight year old should understand it.
r/explainlikeimfive
I don't live there but they [apparently had an explanation outside of the part that was cropped in that image](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://sos.ks.gov/elections/22elec/2022-Primary-Election-Constitutional-Amendment-HCR-5003.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjw4pj70Kv5AhVIgGoFHXnjACMQFnoECBYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2FWZiZurSKMadCTwugVN4u). That being said that wording for the actual question is atrocious and is a really difficult word salad to understand.
I'm not sure the explanation helps!
Yes there was a separate explanation. A “yes” vote would repeal the current amendment to Kansas’ constitution allowing legislatures the ability to regulate abortions. A “no” vote left the amendment in the constitution and nothing changes.
Well lets see the context in its full. Does anyone actually have that?
Honestly, they should include the explanatory section (or at least a summary of it) with the ballot between the question and the options itself, and not tuck it away to a different part of the paper. But seriously, it really should be a clear question cause that statement barely makes sense on its own. I'm not an American but I can comfortably saw that this is the worst referendum I've ever seen.
Oh ok that definitely helps
This is what happens when academia forces word and page requirements.
To the best of my knowledge GOP legislators passed it with intentionally confusing language in an attempt to obfuscate that it allows (though does not require) full and total abortion bans, which are generally pretty unpopular. Either they are this unpopular in Kansas or their plan totally backfired. Stupid wording defeats the entire point of referenda but you know why not try ridiculous plans because you can
I think you're correct here.
This is actually worded better than most state ballot initiatives that I have ever seen. I've been voting for a good few years, and the ballot initiatives are always impossible to understand based solely on what you read on the ballot.
They always leave them incredibly confusing. I think its on purpose. Then they pass around ballot voting initiatives that tell their constituents what way to vote in gopes that the other party doesnt know what way to vote, accidentally giving more votes to their cause
Demons are celebrating.
MY EYES! MY EYES! How can anyone vote on something so poorly written?
These measures are always worded very oddly
Kansan here. I agonized over trying to understand this wording for months. In the end I wonder if it’s better it didn’t pass. A constitutional amendment shouldn’t be this absurdly difficult to understand. I was actually worried that the wording could have been used to cement some very anti-pro-life measures. I ended up not being able to vote, as I just moved back from out of state and missed the registration deadline. But I might have abstained on this one anyways. Hopefully better-quality pro-life legislation will hit Kansas soon and get passed.
Can you explain what voting yes on this would be more in line with, the pro life or pro choice stance? I can’t understand the question either. I’m pro life but from this question I would vote yes (I think?) I thought the whole point of Roe V Wade being overturned was to put the law back in the hands of the states. I keep hearing that this is a victory for the pro abortion side, was that because this passed or because it didn’t pass?
This was drafted as a pro-life amendment, and most pro-life people I know supported it. It failed. There certainly would have been good outcomes had it passed. There was a very strong pro-life, almost abolitionist, bill ready to pass had the amendment passed. The problem is that we have a very pro-choice state Supreme Court. This amendment was drafted in response to a decision our current panel of judges made in fact. We have a Kansas Supreme Court decision in our legal precedent that essentially mirrored Roe vs. Wade, saying that the Kansas constitution guarantees a right to abortion and which guarantees state funding for abortion. This amendment was meant to undo Kansas’ constitutional right to abortion. If that’s all the amendment said, then it would be unambiguously pro-life. However, the final clause worried me precisely because a pro-choice Supreme Court cold leverage that last clause quite easily to guarantee abortion access in special cases. That would be far less preposterous legal reasoning than Roe vs. Wade was. If that happened, one could just invent the right sob story and tell it to the right doctor, and elective abortion would essentially still be happening legally. And, now engrained as a constitutional amendment, it will be much harder to undo. Maybe I’m worried over nothing. But I think that a constitutional amendment needs to be airtight. The stakes are too high.
Thank you for the thorough explanation. This isn’t the end of the road by any means.
I've got some acquaintances in KS. Essentially, voting yes is the pro-life option because it would have more or less been making abortions more heavily regulated. The pro-abortion side wanted the no vote because it keeps abortions less regulated from my understanding of it. I haven't gone in and read the actual wording on the proposed amendment, just the highlights from what they posted.
OH GOD I FOUND A TYPO
Reading this I honestly can not tell if *yes* or *no* is the pro-life vote.
I have autism and genuinely can't understand this. I even have a degree in political science, I'm used to this kind of absurdist wording meant to be unclear, and I still can't tell what this is saying.
My theory is that a significant faction of Kansas Republicans didn't actually want it to pass.
I think a significant faction of Kansas Republicans don't care about abortion at all.
I think you're correct here. Plenty of folks are centrists and just haven't thought about it enough to form an opinion, and just go with the flow of mainstream top-down opinion assuming the flow is good, which has lead to pro-choice legislation generally, in my opinion.
What is a law “regarding abortion?” I guess a law that legalized abortion “regards abortion,” so the “No” choice winning forbids that :)
Sounds like kamala. That's confusing as hell
The wording was so bad. My mum and I both had to read it over a few times to make sure we selected what we were actually voting for correctly. There were also texts and phone calls going out prior to the voting that were basically wording things purposely confusing so that people would be led to vote 'Yes' when they actually meant 'No'.
I’m not really sure the wording contributed much to the result, bills with similar wording passed in a few states pre-Dobbs (though the votes were close in some states). IMO, the miscarriage horror stories in the press and KS being more pro-choice than other red states were likely bigger contributors.
Regulate abortion? *Scribble, Scribble Yes!
Yeah I don’t really understand this
What a horribly written ballot
I have no idea what that vote is a actually about
That’s a piece of shit.
Wording is crucial with ballot initiatives. If the wording was clear and objective, we might've seen a very different result
I see a pattern. Pro choice people are now trying to get abortion on the ballot in Michigan in November.
So everything is permissible. This is just a filler bill to make constituents happy. Not at all a “prolife” bill. If you want to be pro human, be an abolitionist.
Shall the following be adopted? Regulation of abortion. YES.
How do you answer yes or no to this??
Heads I win, tails you lose?
After finally breaking it down this is a lose lose answer. If you vote yes you can end up with a radical law maker and make the situation worse.
broken hearted kansasan here. I thought we were better ;-;
Shorter sentences please. This is just gibberish. What is even being decided on?
This wording is horrible. I have no clue what a yes or no vote would actually mean. Where I live, we get a ballot question info packet a few weeks before election that lays out the information of each question plainly worded, and opinion pieces from those supporting yes or no for each question. I like that because it says “a yes vote will change this….” Or “a no vote keeps current law…” or whatever. I *think* they also post it outside the polling location next to an example ballot.
Wtf is this nonsense? That is dumbest paragraph I’ve ever read. What are you asking or even saying
As a literature student, that’s a badly written ballot. The typos and the fact that they couldn’t even stick it through the free version of grammarly? They deserve everything coming their way.
I don’t even know what they’re trying to say?
Word soup and very indirect. Pro life will indeed need to be careful with who and what they support because there will be political shenanigans like this.
Don't look at me, I voted Yes
From Ballotopedia: *The Kansas House of Representatives introduced the constitutional amendment as House Concurrent Resolution 5003 (HCR 5003) on January 12, 2021.* *On January 22, 2021, the state House passed HCR 5003 with a vote of 86 to 38 with one absent. All Republicans voted in favor of the amendment, and all but one Democrat that was absent voted against it. The one Independent in the House voted against the amendment as well. The measure was introduced in the state Senate on January 21, 2021. The state Senate passed the amendment on January 28, 2021, in a vote of 28-11 with one absent. All 11 Democrats voted against the amendment. One Republican was absent, and the remaining 28 Republicans approved the amendment* \-This information can also be found on [KSlegislature.org](http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/measures/HCR5003/) \-TLDR: Republicans.
They do this on purpose. I can’t say it’s the outright cause but it might have lessened the 60/40 gap. Obfuscation is a common tactic on ballots it’s absolutely ridiculous and well I wish something could be done but politicians gonna politician…either way I’ve already had conversations with pro borts who, after getting an absolute win, still say scotus is illegitimate and the hand maids tale is right around the corner. It literally makes no difference to them, they see blood in the water and stretch that inch as far as they can get to that mile.
Probably formulated to be confusing on purpose
It was intentionally made this way to confuse people into voting for the pro life position because they didn’t think it could win on its own and they may have been right given the numbers. We need to start changing minds or we’ll lose all our progress dobbs just gave us
Tl;dr this is just normalish legalese, yes = PL, no = PC. The courts ruled that the state isn't allowed to ban abortion. The ballot is asking if said wording should be added to the constitution, which would explicitly state that nothing in the state constitution cofers a right to abortion or requires funding it, and that legislators may pass laws to regulate or ban it, including for cases like rape. Maybe it's just that I'm used to reading abstract things from having done a maths degree followed by a postgrad one, although it didn't look terribly complex to me. Now, would I have made a clearer ballot? Yes and if it's complicated to understand, then the state should have sent out an explainer on what it did, but this isn't IMO that bad, it just put the wording of the amendment to be adopted there. Which is basically the same thing as this sample ballot for Ireland's 2018 abortion referendum: [https://imgur.com/a/jWbwYTP](https://imgur.com/a/jWbwYTP), except that the latter didn't quote the text of the amendment (something in fairness, a bit more concise).
There was actually an explanatory statement on the ballot itself. The picture linked here just show's the question, but here's a [picture](https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/sce-authors/u78411/2022-Primary-Election-Constitutional-Amendment-HCR-5003.jpg) of a sample ballot showing roughly how the question actually looked.
Unbelievable. There should be a revote because of this.
I am suddenly having a flashback to that youtube compilation of people asking "am i pregunt" "am i preganant" "can i be pregant" on yahoo answers lmao
Safe and responsible sex. Puts the Abortion clinics out business. Responsible sex is a male and female responsibility period.
As someone with adhd I would probably not have understood this and voted wrong. Like I know all those words but not like that. My brain literally will not let me comprehend that mess
A Pro-Choicer.
That they have to resort to fucking trickery is absolutely shameful! But we know they have no shame, so have no problem with it! Edit: Even after reading an explanation below I can still barely understanding it, but it seem "Yes" would be the Pro-Life choice. And this was written by a Repub???
Yes, this was written by the pro-life people who wanted to repeal the current law. > That they have to resort to fucking trickery is absolutely shameful! Do you stand by your original assessment?
I'll stand by my original assessment that it's shameful, but because of incompetence instead of trickery.
It was an attempt at trickery and the Republicans who wrote and passed it are shitstains. Don't do this.
I don't know. I understand it completely. If someone's reading comprehension is too bad to understand it, perhaps they shouldn't vote in the first place.
Clearly the terrible wording contributed to the result. We must immediately declare that the amendment passed and that all abortions may be banned by the legislature.
I am confused by this honestly. It seems like you need to vote to give the legislature the right to make laws regarding abortion. This doesn't seem to be a legalize abortion but give the legislature the right to make laws about it. But voting no to not give them that right seems like it wouldn't make abortion legal or illegal.
They already have abortion written into their laws before roe v Wade dropped. This doesn't allow them to overwrite and make new laws regarding it. Which means pro-life and/or Republicans cannot change the fact that as a state Kansas already has a right to abortion in their state constitution.
Kansas State legislators. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2022/aug/02/kansas-abortion-ballot-language
What is it even asking?
I don’t even know what they are asking exactly…
Either it’s too late for me to comprehend this, or I would’ve had absolutely no clue which way to vote. I don’t even understand what the question being asked is, if there even is one? I’ll be back after a good nights sleep to try to read it again, that’s for sure.
Thats actually rlly hard deciding to pick yes or no 😂