The Kansas State Constitution does NOT guarantee a right to abortion.

T

Text Drivers are Killers

Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
It's the same as roe v wade 50 years ago. The Kansas court just made it all up . Their 2019 ruling says "pursuit of happiness" means right to abortion!!

https://www.kcur.org/2019-04-26/kan...state-constitution-protects-right-to-abortion

april 26 2019 The Kansas Constitution protects a woman's right to an abortion, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The landmark ruling now stands as the law of the land in Kansas with no path for an appeal. Because it turns on the state's Constitution, abortion would remain legal in Kansas even if the Roe v. Wade case that established a national right to abortion is ever reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision turbocharged efforts among conservative legislators to ask voters to add an abortion ban to the Kansas Constitution. Lawmakers return to the capital, Topeka, next week.

The decision, in which one of the seven justices dissented, cites in its first sentence the first section of the Kansas Constitution's Bill of Rights: "All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The decision continues: "We are now asked: 'Is this declaration of rights more than an idealized aspiration? And, if so, do the substantive rights include a woman's right to make decisions about her body, including the decision whether to continue her pregnancy? We answer these questions, 'Yes.' "

The court continued that "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
Click to expand...
 
Don’t think anyone would believe a state constitution authored in the 19th Century specifically protected the right to an abortion. The right has always been inferred from language like that in the Kansas Constitution. You can bet politicians in Kansas will be in no hurry to seek a Constitutional amendment voiding abortion rights.
 
Last edited:
martin said:
Don’t think anyone would believe a state constitution authored in the 19th Century specifically protected the right to an abortion. Constitutions mean what Supreme Courts say they mean. You can bet politicians in Kansas will be in no hurry to seek a Constitutional amendment voiding abortion rights.
Click to expand...

Sorry


I accidentally groaned at your post


I fixed it to the pos rep I intended to do



If you see a groan from me for ANYONE you will know it’s a mistake



I NEVER groan


I refuse to use that


I let my words do that in responding to the post
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
The court also used the "my body my choice" argument but that has been voided after the vax mandates of the last couple years.
Click to expand...

The court ruled in early 1900s a state can require vaccinations because not doing so could spread disease to others. A woman getting an abortion does not spread harm to others.
 
evince said:
Sorry

I accidentally groaned at your post

I fixed it to the pos rep I intended to do

If you see a groan from me for ANYONE you will know it’s a mistake

I NEVER groan


I refuse to use that

I let my words do that in responding to the post
Click to expand...

The state legislature could limit abortion to within a certain time period. After all, even Roe did not prohibit abortions after 24 weeks, so women did not control their own bodies after that period. It only provided a right to an abortion until viability.
 
Flash said:
The court ruled in early 1900s a state can require vaccinations because not doing so could spread disease to others. A woman getting an abortion does not spread harm to others.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant. The "my body my choice" argument means that if you say abortion must be legal, then you must say no to the vax mandates. THINK
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
It's the same as roe v wade 50 years ago. The Kansas court just made it all up . Their 2019 ruling says "pursuit of happiness" means right to abortion!!
Click to expand...

:rofl2: BWWWWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! :rofl2:

Look who thinks he knows more about the Kansas Constitution than the Kansas Supreme Court!!!!! :laugh:

Moron. :palm:
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
That's irrelevant. The "my body my choice" argument means that if you say abortion must be legal, then you must say no to the vax mandates. THINK
Click to expand...

Or, if you say no to the vax mandates you must think women have the right to an abortion.

I don't really accept the hands off my body argument. Under Roe states could prohibit abortion after 24 weeks--therefore, Roe did not prevent government from controlling women's bodies after a certain time. Government can tell me I can't use certain drugs--that seems to be controlling my body.

If women have the right (rather than freedom) of abortion doesn't that give them a right men do not have?
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
The court also used the "my body my choice" argument but that has been voided after the vax mandates of the last couple years.
Click to expand...

Keeping your community safe by being vaccinated is not an invasion of anyone's rights. Its about protecting your community. You pervert it into an anti-abortion argument.

Typical, right-wing fascist.
 
evince said:
Sorry


I accidentally groaned at your post


I fixed it to the pos rep I intended to do



If you see a groan from me for ANYONE you will know it’s a mistake



I NEVER groan


I refuse to use that


I let my words do that in responding to the post
Click to expand...

I did that to someone, accidentally today as well. The buttons are right next to each other!
 
Flash said:
The court ruled in early 1900s a state can require vaccinations because not doing so could spread disease to others. A woman getting an abortion does not spread harm to others.
Click to expand...

I love it when the fascists try to cart out that argument.
 
Flash said:
Or, if you say no to the vax mandates you must think women have the right to an abortion.

I don't really accept the hands off my body argument. Under Roe states could prohibit abortion after 24 weeks--therefore, Roe did not prevent government from controlling women's bodies after a certain time. Government can tell me I can't use certain drugs--that seems to be controlling my body.

If women have the right (rather than freedom) of abortion doesn't that give them a right men do not have?
Click to expand...

Wow. That last sentence is bothering me. Men don't require reproductive rights because men don't reproduce. That's why the right only affects women.
 
LurchAddams said:
I love it when the fascists try to cart out that argument.
Click to expand...

The 1905 case was about requiring smallpox vaccinations that was opposed by some for religious reasons. There can be exemptions based on religious freedom if doing so causes no harm (exemptions for pledge of allegiance, covering a slogan on a license plate) but not if doing so could cause harm (spreading disease if people did not get vaccinated).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top