Did the Kansas amendment mean anything for future elections?

[zeke4ahs]

Surprised I didn’t see anything on the overwhelming majority of voters in Kansas voting to keep abortion legal. In a very red state, where Donald Trump won by 15 points. In Kansas, you must declare R or D to vote. Over 100,000 independents voted just to vote on the abortion issue. Even though it’s allegedly left up to the states now, I’m anxious to see how many states will actually bring it to a vote after the Kansas results. Seemed to be a pretty significant victory for women’s rights to choose advocates.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

Surprised I didn’t see anything on the overwhelming majority of voters in Kansas voting to keep abortion legal. In a very red state, where Donald Trump won by 15 points. In Kansas, you must declare R or D to vote. Over 100,000 independents voted just to vote on the abortion issue. Even though it’s allegedly left up to the states now, I’m anxious to see how many states will actually bring it to a vote after the Kansas results. Seemed to be a pretty significant victory for women’s rights to choose advocates.

I'm not sure other states will care. Red states will follow Indiana's lead. Feeling only shame for the direction of my state.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I'm not sure other states will care. Red states will follow Indiana's lead. Feeling only shame for the direction of my state.

Indiana allowed exceptions for rape, incest, fetal viability, and the life of the mother.

http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2022ss1/bills/senate/1#digest-heading

"Abortion. Terminates the licensure of abortion clinics. Specifies that the abortion statutes do not apply to in vitro fertilization. Makes changes to when an abortion may be performed, including when: (1) the abortion is necessary to prevent any serious health risk of the pregnant woman or to save the pregnant woman's life; (2) the fetus is diagnosed with a lethal fetal anomaly; or (3) the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. Specifies time frames and conditions that must be met in order for the abortion to be performed. Provides that the statute requiring consent of a parent or legal guardian for a minor's abortion does not apply to a minor who is pregnant as a result of rape or incest by a parent, legal guardian, or custodian of the unemancipated minor. Requires the revocation of a physician's license for specified violations. Provides a defense for a pregnant mother charged with a criminal offense for terminating or seeking the termination of her pregnancy. Specifies that a person who terminates the pregnancy of a pregnant woman upon her request may only be charged with certain crimes. Exempts from the crime of feticide: (1) the pregnant mother; (2) a person who provides medical treatment in good faith to a pregnant woman that results in the accidental or unintentional termination of the pregnancy; and (3) a physician who performs a medical procedure to terminate the pregnancy upon request of the pregnant woman. Requires the maternal mortality review committee to study how changes in the state's abortion laws affect maternal mortality in Indiana and extends the committee until June 30, 2027. Voids certain administrative rules concerning abortion clinics. Establishes the prosecutorial oversight task force and specifies duties of the task force. Makes conforming amendments."

Seems to me like they addressed all of the "but whatabout"s that abortion supporters throw out. Women's health is protected, rape and incest victims are protected, healthcare workers operating in good faith are protected.

The Kansas attempt was for the ability to ban the procedure. They tried to bite off too much.

 

[UncleMark]

Surprised I didn’t see anything on the overwhelming majority of voters in Kansas voting to keep abortion legal. In a very red state, where Donald Trump won by 15 points. In Kansas, you must declare R or D to vote. Over 100,000 independents voted just to vote on the abortion issue. Even though it’s allegedly left up to the states now, I’m anxious to see how many states will actually bring it to a vote after the Kansas results. Seemed to be a pretty significant victory for women’s rights to choose advocates.

Kansas was unique. Very few red state legislators will be concerned. What might concern them is being made accountable at the olls. But even that seems to be a long shot unless it's a tight race in a close district.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Kansas was unique. Very few red state legislators will be concerned. What might concern them is being made accountable at the olls. But even that seems to be a long shot unless it's a tight race in a close district.

How was Kansas unique? I obviously missed all the coverage. Because there were no exceptions?

 

[outside shooter]

Just my impression, but voters are going to be way, way WAY more favorable than old white male state legislators to giving abortion allowances on rape, incest, life of the mother, and a date in the 15-22 week range or before

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Indiana allowed exceptions for rape, incest, fetal viability, and the life of the mother.

http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2022ss1/bills/senate/1#digest-heading

"Abortion. Terminates the licensure of abortion clinics. Specifies that the abortion statutes do not apply to in vitro fertilization. Makes changes to when an abortion may be performed, including when: (1) the abortion is necessary to prevent any serious health risk of the pregnant woman or to save the pregnant woman's life; (2) the fetus is diagnosed with a lethal fetal anomaly; or (3) the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. Specifies time frames and conditions that must be met in order for the abortion to be performed. Provides that the statute requiring consent of a parent or legal guardian for a minor's abortion does not apply to a minor who is pregnant as a result of rape or incest by a parent, legal guardian, or custodian of the unemancipated minor. Requires the revocation of a physician's license for specified violations. Provides a defense for a pregnant mother charged with a criminal offense for terminating or seeking the termination of her pregnancy. Specifies that a person who terminates the pregnancy of a pregnant woman upon her request may only be charged with certain crimes. Exempts from the crime of feticide: (1) the pregnant mother; (2) a person who provides medical treatment in good faith to a pregnant woman that results in the accidental or unintentional termination of the pregnancy; and (3) a physician who performs a medical procedure to terminate the pregnancy upon request of the pregnant woman. Requires the maternal mortality review committee to study how changes in the state's abortion laws affect maternal mortality in Indiana and extends the committee until June 30, 2027. Voids certain administrative rules concerning abortion clinics. Establishes the prosecutorial oversight task force and specifies duties of the task force. Makes conforming amendments."

Seems to me like they addressed all of the "but whatabout"s that abortion supporters throw out. Women's health is protected, rape and incest victims are protected, healthcare workers operating in good faith are protected.

The Kansas attempt was for the ability to ban the procedure. They tried to bite off too much.

Indiana banned almost all abortions. Don't pretend it's something other than it is.

We came very close to getting rid of the rape and incest exceptions, too.

 

[UncleMark]

How was Kansas unique? I obviously missed all the coverage. Because there were no exceptions?

Kansans voted against overturning their state's version of Roe. Far different from the legislature banning abortion.

 

[Cortez88]

Indiana banned almost all abortions. Don't pretend it's something other than it is.

We came very close to getting rid of the rape and incest exceptions, too.

This is a big shift. Indiana will be one of the most restrictive states in the country.

More R Reps voted against the rape and incest exceptions than voted for a 13 week compromise. A compromise offered up by a fellow R.

 

[Ladoga]

Kansans voted against overturning their state's version of Roe. Far different from the legislature banning abortion.

Whatever current restrictions Kansas now has in statutory law remain in place. What was defeated was an amendment to the Kansas Constitution.

 

[UncleMark]

Whatever current restrictions Kansas now has in statutory law remain in place. What was defeated was an amendment to the Kansas Constitution.

That amendment was to overturn the state version of Roe.

 

[Ladoga]

And the amendment was defeated. Thus the only law remaining on abortion in Kansas is the statutory restrictions which exist and limit abortions though not very strictly.

 

[UncleMark]

And the amendment was defeated. Thus the only law remaining on abortion in Kansas is the statutory restrictions which exist and limit abortions though not very strictly.

Those laws are what are allowed by the Kansas Supreme Court.

 

[Stuffshot]

How was Kansas unique? I obviously missed all the coverage. Because there were no exceptions?

Zeke, I think most of these responses overlook the real point -- Kansas voters were voting to approve (or not) an actual amendment to Kansas' Constitution. Hardly any state has a state Constitution that protects abortion rights, but Kansas does.

According to FoxNews:

In 2019, the state's supreme court struck down a ban on surgical abortions in a 6-1 decision, ruling that the state's constitution protected women's choice to engage in that activity as a "right."​

​

The Court ruled that the state constitution incorporated language from the Declaration of Independence that recognized that certain rights predated the country. The Declaration's "natural, inalienable rights," the Court said, included "personal autonomy," which covered decisions about abortion.​

"This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life — decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy," the majority opinion read.​

Kansas abortion constitutional amendment rejected by voters

Residents in Kansas have voted down a constitutional amendment that would have given state lawmakers the ability to ban or impose restrictions on abortion.

www.foxnews.com

So, the Kansas vote probably serves only as a barometer of public opinion about abortion in a conservative state, not as any kind of legal precedent. And, of course, steamroller Republicans in control of a state like Indiana are still going to do (1) whatever they think necessary to falsely claim they are morally superior, (2) whatever they think necessary to get reelected, and (3) whatever else they are too stupid to avoid.

Sad, really.

 

[cosmickid]

Surprised I didn’t see anything on the overwhelming majority of voters in Kansas voting to keep abortion legal. In a very red state, where Donald Trump won by 15 points. In Kansas, you must declare R or D to vote. Over 100,000 independents voted just to vote on the abortion issue. Even though it’s allegedly left up to the states now, I’m anxious to see how many states will actually bring it to a vote after the Kansas results. Seemed to be a pretty significant victory for women’s rights to choose advocates.

It's a lot more significant than some folks on this board as well as the media in general is making it out to be. The Primaries in Kansas attracted a combined 700,000 or so votes. The amendment attracted over 950,000, so roughly 200,000 more people voted on the amendment than voted in either the GOP or Dem Primary races...

Pre election day polling had the yes slightly ahead in a close race. The actual result was NO in a landslide, so again there were a lot of unaffiliated voters who turned out and were not picked up by pre-election polls. The reason it will be significant in the fall is because so many GOP nominees (at least for the Senate) are so hardcore in their opposition to abortion. Some people in this thread are trying to play up the "no-exception" aspect, and that may allow some slippage in redder areas.

But the problem for the GOP is going to be that it is going to drive up Dem turnout against GOP numbers that are basically already baked in. Oz is not going to get new votes from anti-abortion voters who weren't already going to vote for him, but Fetterman will pick up votes from people who likely would not have voted without access to abortion being a huge deal.

Johnson Co (Kansas) illustrates exactly why my friend crazy is seriously misreading the tea leaves...We're not talking about Indiana, but rather battlefield states where the GOP was hoping to recapture the suburban vote they've lost for the past 6 yrs or so. That won't be possible this cycle, because of the candidates like Oz, Walker and even Vance who are all the "hardline "pro-life" candidates that the GOP nominated in states filled with exactly the type of County that Johnson Co is...



Now this 2nd video is more stark, but let me summarize why the GOP (despite downplaying the effect, some of which has been echoed in this thread) should be wishing like Hell Roe wasn't decided till after election day. These numbers are stark...

In 2012 Romney won Johnson Co by 58-40%. In 2016 Trump won by 47.4% to 44.8% (a little over 8,000 votes...

Then in 2020 Biden won 53.1- 44.8% , roughly 184,000 votes to Trump's 155,631... So just short of a 30,000 vote margin in the states largest county, probably representing close to 25% of the total 2020 votes cast in Kansas...

In the referendum Johnson County represented about 27% of the total vote with over 166,000 votes for NO vs only 77,000 votes for yes. (68.4-31.6%). No votes last week exceeded Trump's entire 2020 vote total in Johnson Co by over 11,000 votes.



The reality is that people turned out to protect the right to choose, and this sort of increased engagement is the exact opposite of what the GOP is hoping for in Nov. This could even become a factor is "safe" Red states like MO. The KC suburbs include Jackson Co, which has a population of over 700,000 Only about 27% of eligible Jackson Co voters turned out and the two main Dems drew about 53,000 votes compared to Schmitt and his runner up in the GOP that drew about 30,000.

Biden got 200,000 votes there in 2020, so there is a huge potential for untapped votes, who (imho) can be mobilized by Busch-Valentine if she can tie Schmitt's hard line anti-abortion stance to him as a negative, with basically the exact same voters that turned out so hugely in Kansas. And MO actually has suburbs and large urban areas in St Louis ,as well as more suburbs in Springfield and Jeff City. Schmitt is definitely a hardliner, and on the surface he looks vulnerable. Definitely wasn't a state where the GOP was anticipating a battle...

I realize none of this applies to State Legislatures, who in many cases do not represent the will of the populace and are basically gerrymandered. But the goal for pro-choice people should be to galvanize voters to expand the Dem Senate majority, and open up the possibility of bypassing Mancin and Sinema to promote legislative action by suspending the filibuster. That's the only way to get around dictatorial Legislatures that won't allow people to actually vote on the issue.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Indiana banned almost all abortions. Don't pretend it's something other than it is.

Of course they did, because most abortions are birth control which is the point I, and many others, have been bringing up for a long time. And whenever that does get brought up we get trotted out the "rape, incest, life of mother" argument because selling it as a form of birth control is much harder. That is the thing about all of the support for abortion, that support is not what the polls would have people believe when you start talking about more concrete things then, "Do you think abortion should be legal?"

The S.C. decision is going to do what I said it would, it forces the pro-abortion side to actually have to start arguing some of their beliefs as well.

 

[IUCrazy2]

It's a lot more significant than some folks on this board as well as the media in general is making it out to be. The Primaries in Kansas attracted a combined 700,000 or so votes. The amendment attracted over 950,000, so roughly 200,000 more people voted on the amendment than voted in either the GOP or Dem Primary races...

Pre election day polling had the yes slightly ahead in a close race. The actual result was NO in a landslide, so again there were a lot of unaffiliated voters who turned out and were not picked up by pre-election polls. The reason it will be significant in the fall is because so many GOP nominees (at least for the Senate) are so hardcore in their opposition to abortion. Some people in this thread are trying to play up the "no-exception" aspect, and that may allow some slippage in redder areas.

But the problem for the GOP is going to be that it is going to drive up Dem turnout against GOP numbers that are basically already baked in. Oz is not going to get new votes from anti-abortion voters who weren't already going to vote for him, but Fetterman will pick up votes from people who likely would not have voted without access to abortion being a huge deal.

Johnson Co (Kansas) illustrates exactly why my friend crazy is seriously misreading the tea leaves...We're not talking about Indiana, but rather battlefield states where the GOP was hoping to recapture the suburban vote they've lost for the past 6 yrs or so. That won't be possible this cycle, because of the candidates like Oz, Walker and even Vance who are all the "hardline "pro-life" candidates that the GOP nominated in states filled with exactly the type of County that Johnson Co is...

View embedded media

Now this 2nd video is more stark, but let me summarize why the GOP (despite downplaying the effect, some of which has been echoed in this thread) should be wishing like Hell Roe wasn't decided till after election day. These numbers are stark...

In 2012 Romney won Johnson Co by 58-40%. In 2016 Trump won by 47.4% to 44.8% (a little over 8,000 votes...

Then in 2020 Biden won 53.1- 44.8% , roughly 184,000 votes to Trump's 155,631... So just short of a 30,000 vote margin in the states largest county, probably representing close to 25% of the total 2020 votes cast in Kansas...

In the referendum Johnson County represented about 27% of the total vote with over 166 votes for NO vs only 77,000 votes for yes. (68.4-31.6%). No votes last week exceeded Trump's entire 2020 vote total in Johnson Co by over 11,000 votes.

View embedded media

The reality is that people turned out to protect the right to choose, and this sort of increased engagement is the exact opposite of what the GOP is hoping for in Nov. This could even become a factor is "safe" Red states like MO. The KC suburbs include Jackson Co, which has a population of over 700,000 Only about 27% of eligible Jackson Co voters turned out and the two main Dems drew about 53,000 votes compared to Schmitt and his runner up in the GOP that drew about 30,000.

Biden got 200,000 votes there in 2020, so there is a huge potential for untapped votes, who (imho) can be mobilized by Busch-Valentine if she can tie Schmitt's hard line anti-abortion stance to him as a negative, with basically the exact same voters that turned out so hugely in Kansas. And MO actually has suburbs and large urban areas in St Louis ,as well as more suburbs in Springfield and Jeff City. Schmitt is definitely a hardliner, and on the surface he looks vulnerable. Definitely wasn't a state where the GOP was anticipating a battle...

I realize none of this applies to State Legislatures, who in many cases do not represent the will of the populace and are basically gerrymandered. But the goal for pro-choice people should be to galvanize voters to expand the Dem Senate majority, and open up the possibility of bypassing Mancin and Sinema to promote legislative action by suspending the filibuster. That's the only way to get around dictatorial Legislatures that won't allow people to actually vote on the issue.

I am not misreading anything about 2022. Abortion was specifically on the ballot in Kansas, it won't be in the majority of states in November. I understand grasping at any hope you can find but abortion in poll after poll is behind the economy, the economy, and the economy.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Of course they did, because most abortions are birth control which is the point I, and many others, have been bringing up for a long time. And whenever that does get brought up we get trotted out the "rape, incest, life of mother" argument because selling it as a form of birth control is much harder. That is the thing about all of the support for abortion, that support is not what the polls would have people believe when you start talking about more concrete things then, "Do you think abortion should be legal?"

The S.C. decision is going to do what I said it would, it forces the pro-abortion side to actually have to start arguing some of their beliefs as well.

Just as the bogey man of third trimester abortions or 9 month abortions is practically a nil point. Less than 1% of abortions are in last trimester and nearly all of those are medical reasons, mainly health of fetus and sometimes mother. The fact that the anti abortion group acts like women suddenly decide they don’t want a child after carrying for 8 months is hyperbole and dishonest.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Of course they did, because most abortions are birth control which is the point I, and many others, have been bringing up for a long time. And whenever that does get brought up we get trotted out the "rape, incest, life of mother" argument because selling it as a form of birth control is much harder. That is the thing about all of the support for abortion, that support is not what the polls would have people believe when you start talking about more concrete things then, "Do you think abortion should be legal?"

The S.C. decision is going to do what I said it would, it forces the pro-abortion side to actually have to start arguing some of their beliefs as well.

Most Americans already think abortion should be allowed for any reason or no reason at all early in the pregnancy. The pro-choice activists don't have to make the case, because the voters already agree with them. Indiana's law is pretty extreme. It was almost a lot more extreme, but let's not pretend it's the kind of compromise that most voters would find acceptable. It's not.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I am not misreading anything about 2022. Abortion was specifically on the ballot in Kansas, it won't be in the majority of states in November. I understand grasping at any hope you can find but abortion in poll after poll is behind the economy, the economy, and the economy.

It's all going to come down to the nearly cryptozoological "unlikely voter." If abortion motivates enough of them to turn out, the Dems could do surprisingly well. If not, well, then not.

I don't see any reason historically for people to be optimistic. Every time people expect the unlikely voter to turn out en masse, they end up disappointed. But, we've never had a potential motivating factor quite like abortion, so who knows?

 

[Stuffshot]

Indiana banned almost all abortions. Don't pretend it's something other than it is.

We came very close to getting rid of the rape and incest exceptions, too.

Until the Republicans figure out how to make money from it. Yes, I'm serious.

Those supposedly-moral Indiana Republicans would not allow (1) alcohol purchases in a restaurant with a credit card, (2) Sunday beer/wine sales, (3) Sunday hard liquor sales, (4) state lottery tickets, (5) riverboat casinos, (6) real casinos, (7) horse race betting, (8) alcohol sales at gas stations -- until they figured out they could make money by taxing it. Then, those big Republican morals did not stand in the way. Imagine that.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Just as the bogey man of third trimester abortions or 9 month abortions is practically a nil point. Less than 1% of abortions are in last trimester and nearly all of those are medical reasons, mainly health of fetus and sometimes mother. The fact that the anti abortion group acts like women suddenly decide they don’t want a child after carrying for 8 months is hyperbole and dishonest.

That's why I have specifically not kept my argument to late term.

You and I are peas in opposite pods on this. Each of us represents probably the furthest position for or against on this board. All the wrangling being done right now is deciding where the argument starts from in the years to follow. California and states like it will start the conversation where you are at and Indiana is starting it where I am basically at.

I know the timeframe when most abortions occur, that is why I have never been a proponent on here of the first trimester as an end point. I think it is a good starting point in a place like California. Getting them to accept any restrictions would be a battle won.

 

[Stuffshot]

I am not misreading anything about 2022. Abortion was specifically on the ballot in Kansas, it won't be in the majority of states in November. I understand grasping at any hope you can find but abortion in poll after poll is behind the economy, the economy, and the economy.

Your post reflects naivety in saying that abortion "won't be (on the ballot) in the majority of states in November."

Every candidate in every election in every state at every level is probably going to be asked whether he/she supports Trump and whether he/she believed in an abortion ban.

Steve Bannon and other conservative activists have already announced their goal to flood all local, state and national offices in America with like-thinking individuals.

Edit to explain why: Bannon said, by doing it this way, even if they can't get things like an anti-abortion statewide law, they might still get anti-abortion policy enacted by multiple local city councils, local school boards, local library boards, local township trustees/supervisors etc. to accomplish much of their goals anyway.

 

[IUCrazy2]

It's all going to come down to the nearly cryptozoological "unlikely voter." If abortion motivates enough of them to turn out, the Dems could do surprisingly well. If not, well, then not.

I don't see any reason historically for people to be optimistic. Every time people expect the unlikely voter to turn out en masse, they end up disappointed. But, we've never had a potential motivating factor quite like abortion, so who knows?

Yeah we have all been there. When Obama was getting ready to cream McCain I was there until the bitter end thinking, "well if this goes well...."

Abortion was literally something you could vote yes or no on in Kansas, I don't believe that is going to be the case in most states. It gets harder to convince those unlikely voters to come out and vote for candidates who may have other things they disagree with them about. A guy like Ranger might vote against making abortion illegal but that isn't going to get him to vote for a Democrat this cycle (some other things might, but not that) and I think there was some of that in that Kansas referendum.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Your post reflects naivety in saying that abortion "won't be (on the ballot) in the majority of states in November."

Every candidate in every election in every state at every level is probably going to be asked whether he/she supports Trump and whether he/she believed in an abortion ban.

Steve Bannon and other conservative activists have already announced their goal to flood all local, state and national offices in America with like-thinking individuals.

"I don't believe in a ban but I do think there should be restrictions. Abortions should be safe, legal (in these instances) and rare." Again, there are two extremes at play here and all it takes is a politician smart enough to put the Democrat they are running against in a position of defending later term abortions, abortions after a heartbeat is detected, etc.

I welcome the discussion in more depth than yeah we have it and no we don't.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

A guy like Ranger might vote against making abortion illegal but that isn't going to get him to vote for a Democrat this cycle (some other things might, but not that) and I think there was some of that in that Kansas referendum.

This is exactly why I said a while back that I thought this country was going to head toward even stricter abortion restrictions. I really think it's going to end with some form of fetal personhood. I don't know how many years it will take, but I think that's where we're going. And it's because I think there are a lot more pro-life voters who are single-issue voters than there are pro-choice. Pro-choice voters may be a majority, but I think most of them are going to vote for whom they vote for based on reasons other than abortion.

 

[Baller23Boogie]

Until the Republicans figure out how to make money from it. Yes, I'm serious.

Those supposedly-moral Indiana Republicans would not allow (1) alcohol purchases in a restaurant with a credit card, (2) Sunday beer/wine sales, (3) Sunday hard liquor sales, (4) state lottery tickets, (5) riverboat casinos, (6) real casinos, (7) horse race betting, (8) alcohol sales at gas stations -- until they figured out they could make money by taxing it. Then, those big Republican morals did not stand in the way. Imagine that.

The reason why Indiana will be one of the last states to legals weed.

The state would make so much money on the tax it would produce....

 

[IUCrazy2]

This is exactly why I said a while back that I thought this country was going to head toward even stricter abortion restrictions. I really think it's going to end with some form of fetal personhood. I don't know how many years it will take, but I think that's where we're going. And it's because I think there are a lot more pro-life voters who are single-issue voters than there are pro-choice. Pro-choice voters may be a majority, but I think most of them are going to vote for whom they vote for based on reasons other than abortion.

I think that and there are quite a few pro-choice people who are squishy on what that really means to them.

Zeke's pro-choice is not the position of the majority opinion on abortion right now either. At the moment most people say first trimester. I find that positions change when people realize that it is OK to have an opinion that isn't the established narrative.

 

[IUCrazy2]

The reason why Indiana will be one of the last states to legals weed.

The state would make so much money on the tax it would produce....

You can thank Eli Lilly for that just like it was the liquor lobby you could thank for lack of Sunday sales.

 

[UncleMark]

I really think it's going to end with some form of fetal personhood. I don't know how many years it will take, but I think that's where we're going.

In GA, you can already claim a fetus as a deduction on your state taxes.

 

[zeke4ahs]

That's why I have specifically not kept my argument to late term.

You and I are peas in opposite pods on this. Each of us represents probably the furthest position for or against on this board. All the wrangling being done right now is deciding where the argument starts from in the years to follow. California and states like it will start the conversation where you are at and Indiana is starting it where I am basically at.

I know the timeframe when most abortions occur, that is why I have never been a proponent on here of the first trimester as an end point. I think it is a good starting point in a place like California. Getting them to accept any restrictions would be a battle won.

I don’t think we are opposites. I would be fine banning third trimester abortions, barring medical complications of baby and mother . But specifying those complications could be tricky too.

 

[IUCrazy2]

In GA, you can already claim a fetus as a deduction on your state taxes.

That's a good thing, there are costs associated with prenatal care that mothers should be able to take credit for just like they can for children that have been born. Why not let them offset some of those expenses like we do with other children?

 

[IUCrazy2]

I don’t think we are opposites. I would be fine banning third trimester abortions, barring medical complications of baby and mother . But specifying those complications could be tricky too.

Ok, then neither of us are the far extreme of total ban or anything goes. I still think if you drew a line with those two things on opposite ends that I would fall about as far from the total ban side as you would from the anything goes side.

We'll see where things go, the GOP becoming more working class might lead to some unexpected compromises that would make the whole pregnancy thing less burdensome.

 

[secondasky]

Surprised I didn’t see anything on the overwhelming majority of voters in Kansas voting to keep abortion legal. In a very red state, where Donald Trump won by 15 points. In Kansas, you must declare R or D to vote. Over 100,000 independents voted just to vote on the abortion issue. Even though it’s allegedly left up to the states now, I’m anxious to see how many states will actually bring it to a vote after the Kansas results. Seemed to be a pretty significant victory for women’s rights to choose advocates.

It was on Fox News Special Report multiple times

 

[zeke4ahs]

It was on Fox News Special Report multiple times

I’ve been out of country and haven’t turned on a tv in almost three weeks. I meant discussed here.

 

[cosmickid]

I am not misreading anything about 2022. Abortion was specifically on the ballot in Kansas, it won't be in the majority of states in November. I understand grasping at any hope you can find but abortion in poll after poll is behind the economy, the economy, and the economy.

You sure have a weird definition of "grasping at hope" if you think I would be posting extensively on this particular issue if I wasn't pretty convinced of the soundness of my analysis and that I actually believe I'm right. I assure you I don't pick fights over issues I don't feel really good about, So while of course I could be wrong, if I thought that was the case I wouldn't be on here posting about it. Part of that is wrapped up in my opinion of the relative political analytic skills of the people I'm on the opposite side of. No offense...

Charlie Sykes agrees with me, fwiw...




Of course the huge qualifier is that Dems have to be smart enough to (figuratively) put abortion on the ballot, and point out the extremist positions of their opponents. Which they're starting to do...



But over all (at least in the Senate) the Dems have better more politically savvy candidates with a lot more money heading down the stretch. . People like Vance ,Walker and OZ have never run for elective office and they have HUGE deficits (in terms of funds) AND HUGE NEGATIVES when it comes to favorability. . All 3 of their opponents have smoked them in fundraising, and it's really hard to combat a baked in negative of you that voters have, when your opponent has far more $$ available than you do.

I'm actually much more bullish than Enten's tepid comments here, but I don't have to risk my reputation on National tv. But the video is instructive because it points out 2 huge issues that actually help the Dems in 2022- bad GOP candidates, and the competitive battlegrounds compared to an election like 2018 where more people voted for Dem Senate candidates than Republicans, but the majority of Senate seats being contested were safely held GOP seats...




By contrast, Warnock is an actual incumbent, and both Fetterman and Tim Ryan are current office holders. And they all are on the plus side with Independents when it comes to approval ratings, which is not true of their opponents. They have experience in running statewide campaigns and both are homegrown locals facing people who basically moved to the respective states of PA and Ohio to run for office. That's even true of Herschel, who up to a year or so ago called Texas home.

House races are hard because they are limited by districts and the Pubs have dome enough gerrymandering to likely secure a majority. But the Senate, which is where my analysis is centered is just a different story. There has been a huge shift in Senate projections almost universally, and unless some Dem candidates completely screw up down the stretch the Dems look poised to pick up seats in PA and maybe even Ohio, while not losing a single seat.

Here is an interesting index of Senate polling. The most significant aspect that I see is that Lee's lead in Utah is only 5 points, and that in the most recent NC poll (by Trafalgar- a definitely GOP oriented poll) the latest poll (from July) shows Budd only up 3 over Beasley in NC. Those are two more states that are currently GOP held, but and are much closer than anyone ever thought they'd be. The Pubs will likely hold on to both, but it means they have to expend energy and money on races they should have sewn up already...

Latest 2022 Senate Election Polls - 270toWin

The most recent polls for the 35 Senate races contested during the 2022 elections. Includes links to all 2022 Senate polls and polling averages by state.

www.270towin.com

Senate Dems didn't cheer widely when they passed the IRA because they didn't think it will help them. I know you and other voters who were already going to vote against them don't like it, but a LOT of people do. And despite Joe S's cheerleading here, the bottom line is that these are accomplishments that will increase Democrat enthusiasm and turnout...



I'd ask you why exactly you think GOP Senators voted against capping insulin at $35? Even if it helps them with GOP voters, it's gotta hurt with Independents, so I don't get the rationale. Noting that Hawley was one of only 7 GOP Senators voting for the cap, Mary Trump tweeted that he must have someone with diabetes in his family. I'm even more cynical and think he just doesn't want to explain a vote against insulin caps in his attempt at a Presidential run. But I'm curious why you think these GOP Senators are opposed to an insulin cap? Is that an issue that resonates in MAGA world? It's so hard to keep up...

 

[IUCrazy2]

You sure have a weird definition of "grasping at hope" if you think I would be posting extensively on this particular issue if I wasn't pretty convinced of the soundness of my analysis and that I actually believe I'm right. I assure you I don't pick fights over issues I don't feel really good about, So while of course I could be wrong, if I thought that was the case I wouldn't be on here posting about it. Part of that is wrapped up in my opinion of the relative political analytic skills of the people I'm on the opposite side of. No offense...

Charlie Sykes agrees with me, fwiw...

View embedded media

Of course the huge qualifier is that Dems have to be smart enough to (figuratively) put abortion on the ballot, and point out the extremist positions of their opponents. Which they're starting to do...

View embedded media

But over all (at least in the Senate) the Dems have better more politically savvy candidates with a lot more money heading down the stretch. . People like Vance ,Walker and OZ have never run for elective office and they have HUGE deficits (in terms of funds) AND HUGE NEGATIVES when it comes to favorability. . All 3 of their opponents have smoked them in fundraising, and it's really hard to combat a baked in negative of you that voters have, when your opponent has far more $$ available than you do.

I'm actually much more bullish than Enten's tepid comments here, but I don't have to risk my reputation on National tv. But the video is instructive because it points out 2 huge issues that actually help the Dems in 2022- bad GOP candidates, and the competitive battlegrounds compared to an election like 2018 where more people voted for Dem Senate candidates than Republicans, but the majority of Senate seats being contested were safely held GOP seats...

View embedded media

By contrast, Warnock is an actual incumbent, and both Fetterman and Tim Ryan are current office holders. And they all are on the plus side with Independents when it comes to approval ratings, which is not true of their opponents. They have experience in running statewide campaigns and both are homegrown locals facing people who basically moved to the respective states of PA and Ohio to run for office. That's even true of Herschel, who up to a year or so ago called Texas home.

House races are hard because they are limited by districts and the Pubs have dome enough gerrymandering to likely secure a majority. But the Senate, which is where my analysis is centered is just a different story. There has been a huge shift in Senate projections almost universally, and unless some Dem candidates completely screw up down the stretch the Dems look poised to pick up seats in PA and maybe even Ohio, while not losing a single seat.

Here is an interesting index of Senate polling. The most significant aspect that I see is that Lee's lead in Utah is only 5 points, and that in the most recent NC poll (by Trafalgar- a definitely GOP oriented poll) the latest poll (from July) shows Budd only up 3 over Beasley in NC. Those are two more states that are currently GOP held, but and are much closer than anyone ever thought they'd be. The Pubs will likely hold on to both, but it means they have to expend energy and money on races they should have sewn up already...

Latest 2022 Senate Election Polls - 270toWin

The most recent polls for the 35 Senate races contested during the 2022 elections. Includes links to all 2022 Senate polls and polling averages by state.

www.270towin.com

Senate Dems didn't cheer widely when they passed the IRA because they didn't think it will help them. I know you and other voters who were already going to vote against them don't like it, but a LOT of people do. And despite Joe S's cheerleading here, the bottom line is that these are accomplishments that will increase Democrat enthusiasm and turnout...

View embedded media

I'd ask you why exactly you think GOP Senators voted against capping insulin at $35? Even if it helps them with GOP voters, it's gotta hurt with Independents, so I don't get the rationale. Noting that Hawley was one of only 7 GOP Senators voting for the cap, Mary Trump tweeted that he must have someone with diabetes in his family. I'm even more cynical and think he just doesn't want to explain a vote against insulin caps in his attempt at a Presidential run. But I'm curious why you think these GOP Senators are opposed to an insulin cap? Is that an issue that resonates in MAGA world? It's so hard to keep up...

For the first part, we'll find out in a few months. For the last question, conservatives have always been leery of government instituted price controls on privately produced products. I don't think MAGA world as you all define it is a monolith so it will hit different depending on who is examining the subject.

 

[Stuffshot]

This is exactly why I said a while back that I thought this country was going to head toward even stricter abortion restrictions. I really think it's going to end with some form of fetal personhood. I don't know how many years it will take, but I think that's where we're going. And it's because I think there are a lot more pro-life voters who are single-issue voters than there are pro-choice. Pro-choice voters may be a majority, but I think most of them are going to vote for whom they vote for based on reasons other than abortion.

Did you see this, GOAT?

Embryos can count as dependents on Georgia state tax returns: For many families 'there is no benefit at all,' says analyst

Residents of Georgia may now claim embryos as dependents on their 2022 state income tax returns. But the policy raises many questions.

www.cnbc.com

 

[twenty02]

Of course they did, because most abortions are birth control which is the point I, and many others, have been bringing up for a long time. And whenever that does get brought up we get trotted out the "rape, incest, life of mother" argument because selling it as a form of birth control is much harder. That is the thing about all of the support for abortion, that support is not what the polls would have people believe when you start talking about more concrete things then, "Do you think abortion should be legal?"

The S.C. decision is going to do what I said it would, it forces the pro-abortion side to actually have to start arguing some of their beliefs as well.

Obviously irrelevant in a state like Indiana that has no mechanism for ballot initiatives...... but I would wager any amount of $$ possible that a ballot initiative in this state would not support the legislation that was just passed here. The gerrymandered mess of our State House/Senate maps has given us a Legislature that is far to the right of the median voter in this state.

Lilly and Cummings have both already announced they plan do future job expansion outside of the state, based upon this legislation

 

[UncleMark]

Lilly and Cummings have both already announced they plan do future job expansion outside of the state, based upon this legislation

Yet they stayed silent until it was a done deal.