What to say about the decisive 61% to 39% rejection of the Kansas abortion law amendment that that would have removed the right to abortion from the state’s Constitution? It seems to me that it proves the forgotten obvious. The larger the turnout in an election, the more representative the result.
Kansas has been in this territory before. When it was a territory slated for statehood, Kansas suffered violent political battles between its pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions -- a prelude to the Civil War.
War is not the answer here and it remains an American tragedy that it took a war to eliminate slavery in this country. Ponder what U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said after the Kansas vote on the abortion held in conjunction with the state’s August 2 primary:
“Since the day that Dobbs was decided, the Justice Department has made clear that we will be relentless in our efforts to protect and advance reproductive freedom. As we have said repeatedly, women who reside in states that have banned access to abortion must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal. Under fundamental First Amendment principles, people must also remain free to inform and counsel each other about the reproductive care that is available in other states. States may not ban the abortion medication Mifepristone on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its efficacy and safety. And federal agencies may continue to provide reproductive health services to the extent authorized by federal law.
“Last week, I also said that the department is vigilantly monitoring state laws and enforcement actions to ensure that states do not infringe on federal protections of reproductive rights. And I said that when they do, we will consider every tool at our disposal, including filing affirmative cases, statements of interest, and intervening in private litigation,” Garland said.
Reproductive freedom is an issue that has strongly held beliefs on both sides. Consider this from the Supreme Court’s website on The Court and Constitutional Interpretation https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx. “When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.”
When The Court Interprets a Statute, New Legislative Action Can Be Taken.
Voters in states like Kansas matter. It appears from recent poling and punditry (appears until we have larger voter samples) that a majority of voters in a majority of states -- even with their misgivings -- do not want to restrict reproductive freedom. It is in a sense a form of slavery. This is between a woman, her partner and their families, and her physician.
Genuine dialogue is needed here between the politicians who purport to represent “We the People.” It must not take the form of active and ongoing efforts to prevent people from voting or from overturing legal elections by violent force. This is not our constitutional tradition.
This calls for reasoned empathy, not the politics of hatred or binary positions. If the current political parties are not up for this, then we should create new ones with our votes. As to the Supreme Court, which Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papersviewed as the weakest part of the federal government and one that should be above partisan politics, it should not impose extremist positions on how our citizens should be ruled. You cannot take away that right. So let’s get on with the voting in the primaries and midterm elections, and for the moment ignore the perjurers who acknowledged in their Supreme Court justice nomination hearings that Roe v. Wade was established law.
We will enact new laws to circumvent their perfidy.
Zino is contributing pundit On the Left at thehustings.news
COMMENT: editors@thehustings.news