HomeNewsA constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to abortion was approved in...

A constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to abortion was approved in Kansas

Since the Supreme Court’s decision

to overturn Roe v. Wade, Kansas has been the first state to have a vote on the issue of abortion rights.

On Tuesday night, voters in the state of Kansas decided to keep abortion rights protected in the state constitution, which resulted in a significant victory for pro-choice advocates across the United States.

Numerous news outlets in the United States, including NBC News, the New York Times, and Decision Desk HQ, made their predictions for the race.

The move will be considered a significant setback for the anti-abortion movement and a significant victory for proponents of abortion rights across the United States, who will view the decision as a bellwether for the views of the general public.

Since the decision of the United States Supreme Court in late June to strike down abortion-related constitutional protections, the first state in the United States to hold a vote on the issue of abortion rights is the staunchly conservative and consistently Republican state of Kansas.

Because it is one of the few states in the Midwest where the abortion process may still be carried out legally, the sanctuary will continue to serve as a sanctuary for women seeking abortions in the region. Since June, a number of additional states have passed legislation or taken other steps to significantly restrict access to abortion services.

Joe Biden has delivered

a statement in which he expresses his satisfaction with the outcome. The President of the United States made the following statement in response to the vote: “This vote makes plain what we know: the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion and should have the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions.”

Democrat Dinah Sikes, who represents Kansas in the state legislature, was seen crying as the results of the vote came in. She then went to her friends and colleagues and showed them the goosebumps on her arm.

It’s really great. She told the Guardian that it was “breathtaking” that the opinions of women were heard and that “we care about women’s health,” after having admitted that she had anticipated the vote would be close. She stated, “But we were near in a lot of rural regions, and that really made the difference—I’m just so glad.” “But we were close in a lot of rural areas.” As the majority of ballots were being tabulated, the “No” group, which was fighting to safeguard rights to access abortion, held a commanding lead in the referendum. They had received 62% of the votes cast.According to the statistics kept by the state’s campaign finance agencies, this results in a loss of several million dollars for the Catholic church, which contributed more than three million dollars toward the elimination of abortion rights in the state of Kansas.

On Tuesday, a large number of Kansans participated in a referendum that was brought forward by the Kansas Republican legislature. The referendum was criticised for being misleading, fraught with misinformation, and filled with voter suppression tactics. However, large numbers of Kansans turned out to vote.

Republicans attempted to place a referendum with a more straightforward name, “Kansas No State Constitutional Right to Abortion,” on the 2020 ballot, but were unsuccessful.As a result, this amendment was given the term “Value Them Both.”

The vote was planned to take place in August, which is usually a month with low voter participation, especially among independents and Democrats. Additionally, the wording on the voting paper was criticised for being confusing, which contributed to further confusion.

“That financing has never truly been on the agenda,” Mary Ziegler, an expert on US abortion law from the University of California, Davis, told the Guardian on Monday. The ballot references a state constitutional right to abortion funding in Kansas, but that funding has never actually been on the table.

On July 27th, members of Kansans for Life, a group that was one of the primary proponents of a yes vote, claimed to church congregants that removing protections for abortion in Kansas would prevent late-term abortions, lack of parental consent, and taxpayer funding for abortion, despite the fact that none of these things are currently illegal in Kansas. In Kansas, abortions can only be performed during the first 22 weeks of pregnancy if the mother’s life is in danger or there are serious medical difficulties.

In a state where the abortion doctor, George Tiller, was killed by anti-abortion protestors in 2009, this was a heated and hotly contested campaign that saw churches destroyed and yard signs stolen.

On the other hand, scenes of excitement broke out on Tuesday night during a watch party for the successful No campaign in Kansas City. Oneal, who was working at the bar when the vote was called and a rush of customers poured in to purchase drinks, exclaimed, “We’re free!” after the vote was called.

“I don’t want any government instructing me what to do,” she said. “I couldn’t be happier,” was her response.

Rachel Sweet, the campaign manager for Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, made a speech shortly after the victory was officially secured in which she stated that the victory had been achieved despite all of the odds.

“We knew from the minute we started that the deck was stacked against us, but we did not despair-we did it, and these stats speak for themselves,” Sweet added.

We went door to door and made hundreds of thousands of phone calls. She said that “we battled millions of dollars’ worth of falsehoods.” “Extreme restrictions on abortion are not going to fly in our state,” they said.

According to Ashley All, the spokeswoman for KCF, who spearheaded the no campaign alongside Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, she told the Guardian that the most important factor in increasing voter participation in Kansas was to refrain from seeing abortion as a political issue.

She stated that “we exhibited Kansas’ free state heritage” in her response. It would be fascinating to see how other states react when they realise this is not a party issue after watching this. Everyone from Republicans to unaffiliated voters to die-hard libertarians came out to say “No, we don’t want the government engaged in what we do with our bodies.” “No, we don’t want the government involved in what we do with our bodies.”

If we may make a small request of you.Every day, the Guardian is the source of choice for millions of people looking for open, independent, and high-caliber journalism, and readers from more than 180 countries are now helping us financially.

We are of the opinion that everyone should have access to information that is founded on science and the truth, as well as analysis that is founded on authority and honesty. Because of this, we went in a different direction and decided to make our reporting accessible to all readers, regardless of the region in which they reside or the amount of money they can afford to spend. This indicates that a greater number of people will be able to get improved information, become more unified, and be encouraged to take meaningful action.

In these troubled times, a worldwide news organisation that strives to uncover the truth, like the Guardian, is very necessary. Because we do not have shareholders or a billionaire owner, this differentiates us from other media outlets because it ensures that our coverage is not influenced by commercial or political interests. At a time when maintaining our independence has never been more crucial, it enables us to examine, confront, and expose people in positions of authority without fear.

explore more


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here