In Kansas, the pro-lifers aren't being entirely forthright
Who are we kidding here?
You have probably heard that Kansas is heading toward an Aug. 2 referendum on a constitutional amendment that would let the state legislature regulate abortion. It’s a prelude to an abortion ban and everybody knows it, but the people campaigning for the amendment keep saying that’s not quite the case.
Here is a recent ad in favor of the amendment:
This is … less than forthright, as reporting from the Kansas Reflector indicates:
In the audio, Lori Chrisman identifies herself to the crowd as an 18-county regional director for the Value Them Both Coalition.
An unidentified man in the audience then asks if someone can explain what happens when the constitutional amendment passes.
“We do have one ready — HB2746 — so we’ll move that up,” Chrisman said.
The bill she referenced was introduced this past session by Rep. Trevor Jacobs, a Fort Scott Republican. The legislation would criminalize all abortions from the moment of fertilization until birth. The felony level would be the same as murder. There are exceptions for miscarriages, stillbirths and ectopic pregnancies, but not for rape, incest, or to save the life of a mother.
Mackenzie Haddix, a deputy spokeswoman for the Value Them Both Coalition, said Chrisman is no longer with the organization and didn’t speak on behalf of the coalition.
The proposed constitutional amendment, Haddix said, “is not a ban on abortion.”
In a very strict legal sense, the state constitutional amendment that would enable a ban on abortion is not in and of itself a ban on abortion. And theoretically, the amendment would enable legislators to do more limited regulations like the kind described by Peggy Dunn in the ad above.
But c’mon. Who are we kidding here?
Even if we didn’t have the Kansas Reflector’s tape, it doesn’t take a genius to understand that the intent of pro-life activists is to ban abortion outright. All we have to do is look at all the other red states where that has been done already.
I suspect the advertising and coy “the amendment is not a ban” messaging is aimed at the many, many voters in the mushy middle on abortion — the folks who are uncomfortable, morally, with the procedure and yet also don’t want it to be outlawed entirely. The campaign seems designed to give those voters permission to ignore their qualms. But it seems misleading to me.
Cards on the table: I will be voting no on the amendment. I don’t think a just-fertilized egg has the same moral weight as a fully alive person. And I think some of the early results of the new abortion bans in other states continue to demonstrate that women’s health and freedom will be undermined by efforts to eliminate the procedure. I can’t support that.
But as I’ve said a few times: I know and love pro-life people. (I’m not sure if they’ll keep loving me, now that abortion is a live issue in ways it hasn’t been for 50 years, but that’s another story.) I don’t agree with their viewpoint, but I understand it and I am occasionally even challenged by it: I sometimes wonder if I am a moral monster and simply don’t know it. I’m in that mushy middle, probably.
So I’d respect the efforts of the amendment’s backers if they would be honest about their movement’s intent. Instead, they seem to be trying to fool the voting public. It’s certainly not a “scare tactic” — as Dunn says in the ad — to point out that an abortion ban is likely the end result, and certainly a possible outcome, of approving the amendment.
So let us speak plainly: If you vote yes, you want abortion banned. Not regulated. Banned. If you vote no, you don’t. Everything else is commentary.
Polls are open. Election Day is Aug. 2.