Posted on 04/26/2019 9:51:52 AM PDT by Coronal
Kansas women have the right to end a pregnancy, the state Supreme Court ruled in a decision that sets up a bitter fight among lawmakers over abortion.
While abortion has been legal for decades under the U.S. Constitution, the court found Friday that the Kansas Constitution also protects the right to an abortion.
Today we hold our Kansas Constitutions drafters and ratifiers proclamation of natural rights applies to pregnant women. This proclamation protects the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy, the justices said in the courts majority opinion.
Six of the seven justices found the state constitution protects the right to an abortion. Only Justice Caleb Stegall dissented.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansas.com ...
Seems that everyone who supports abortion is already born...
What has happened to Kansas?
Lawyers.
The Kansas Constitution protects the right of a woman to kill her baby? I thought that murder was against the law?
How did the silver-tongued servants of satan pull that off?
My question for quite a while.
Being in the heartland and historically very conservative, my guess is that the left has concentrated its efforts on infecting Kansas at all costs, to make an example of them.
They did the same to conservative Utah first, in the fallacious district court order to redefine marriage there soon after Windsor was decided (the first state to fall by federal court order.) Hitting conservative centers first gives the left orgasms.
Kansas went "Bye Bye"
I guess they have become a Wayward Son.
Easy. You completely ignore and suppress the scientific fact that an unborn human is a human. Without that important fact, getting an abortion is no different than getting a wart removed.
As a useful thought experiment, try bringing up that fact in discussion with a pro-abortion person. They'll keep changing the subject and never address it. Eventually, they will become very angry and start shouting or start crying. I've seen this a hundred times.
Many of these western states have a weird legal setup. Many of the laws drafted and voted on become part of a state’s constitution.
Insanity, it is insane that judges would argue that the folks in 1861 adopted a constitution that allowed infanticide.. These people need strung up.
You answered the question in your own tagline:
Thinking themselves wise, they have become fools.
Today we hold our Kansas Constitutions drafters and ratifiers proclamation of natural rights Does NOT Apply to Babies. This proclamation protects the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy,
The article references section 1 of the Kansas Constitution bill of rights as providing the ‘right’ to abortion. I must be missing something.
§ 1.Equal rights. All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
https://www.kssos.org/other/pubs/KS_Constitution.pdf
Judges such as this should be subjected to the public revulsion they have so fully earned. Spit on the sidewalk as they pass. Hold their household up to the shame they have earned. Pass resolutions of contempt for their murderous disservice.
six of the seven justices (discovered) the right to an abortion in the Kansas constitution.........
“Today we hold our Kansas Constitutions drafters and ratifiers proclamation of natural rights applies to pregnant women.”
But not to unborn children!
It is a broad reading of the Constitution of Kansas and its very non-detailed definition of “natural rights” that preceded the Kansas Constitution and of which the Kansas Constitution says cannot be denied.
On the other hand, a similar broad reading of the non-detailed definition of “natural rights” the Kansas Constitution declares must be upheld COULD find the child in the womb was in effect a “Kansan” and deserving of their “natural rights” as well.
A lot of the dychotomy of the two persons is one side defends the woman with a “right to control her own body”, which is fine to an extent, but denies the other side, which recognizes their is another human body involved, the immature human in the womb.
The debate always centers around denying or trying to reconcile which “body” as a greater right to consideration; or put differently - the interests of which “body” must be compromised for the sake of the other “body”.
We who support the life in the womb believe that pregnancy itself has already made that choice, that the mother’s manner of living will be comprised, and is a compromise, for the sake of the child. We believe the “different” choice open to the mother was to not conceive the child in the first place; to not enter into coitus with a man unless she was prepared to make compromises for the sake of a child in her womb; but once THAT choice - to prevent the pregnancy - was not applied, then killing what she could have preventing in the first place is just that - killing a life she could have prevented in the first place, if she had chosen to. She chose to allow for the child’s conception. Now it is not just her “body” that is the only issue.
Sam Brownback was only able to appoint one S.C. Justice and that Justice was the only dissenter to this atrocious decision.
The RAT Kathleen Sibelius appointed four of the 6 judges who reached this decision. Two of those four must stand in the 2020 retention election. In 2020 vote those two monsters out of office. And in 2022 vote the remaining four monsters out when they must stand for retention.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.