I have some questions about your referendum

[Captain Zero]

I posted this in response to a GD thread already:

. The amendment was in place protecting abortion
And the referendum was to REPEAL THAT AMENDMENT, which is why a NO vote was required to not repeal the amendment. Correct?

If the amendment already in the constitution had been repealed with a yes vote to REPEAL, then the legislature could have begun work on restrictions to abortion.

This is how I understand it. Am I correct?

My question is when did the amendment to protect choice go into Kansas's constitution?
Seems like to me this had to have happened some time ago.

Am I understanding all this correctly?
Thanks for any clarifications!

[In It to Win It]

1. The proposed amendment, as I understand it, was to remove the interpretation of a right to an

abortion in the state constitution.

It's goal was to reverse the state supreme court. The state supreme court interpreted the state constitution to encompass the right to an abortion in the state constitution's bill of rights.

The vote was essentially to VOTE YES on reversing the state supreme court's decision, amending the state constitution to expressly say there is no right to an abortion, or VOTE NO to reaffirm the state supreme court's decision keeping the right to an abortion in the state constitution as interpreted by the state supreme court.

[rsdsharp]

2. The Constitutional provision is nothing more than the

“Life, liberty and happiness” clause from the Declaration of Independence. The Kansas Supreme Court interpreted that as supporting the right to abortion.

That decision is two years old. Four years ago, the Iowa Supreme Court announced a similar holding — that there was a right to abortion in the Iowa Constitution. In June, they said, “Oops, never mind. There is no such right.”

What the court giveth, the court can taketh away.

[In It to Win It]

3. +1

Last edited Fri Aug 5, 2022, 10:41 PM - Edit history (1)

That's why Governor Kelly's supreme court appointees and Justice Biles have to win in their respective retention elections. That's the next battle, to make sure the people who agree with that decision remain on the court, and/or re-elected Governor Kelly so that she can appoint Justices that also agree if the current appointees don't win their elections.

[rsdsharp]

4. True. The Iowa Supreme Court found provisions against same sex marriage to violate

the Iowa Constitution. The vote was 7-0. Three of the justices were up for retention in the next election, and all were voted out. Terry Braindead appointed their successors. Things have been going downhill since.