Why I'm Voting YES on Value Them Both as someone who is Pro-Choice
Opinion
A lot of people I have talked to, both pro-choice and pro-life, have had serious questions and misunderstandings about the Value Them Both bill that is going to be voted on, on August 2. It has been shrouded in mystery and confusion due to a lot of political talk meant to do just what it has done to the public. So, I’m taking the time to explain a few things about the Value Them Both bill, and why I, as someone who is actually pro-choice, is voting in favor of this bill.
Roe v. Wade and why it was overturned
In the court case of Roe v. Wade, Roe argued that she needed an abortion as she had been raped which resulted in her pregnancy. This was not true, but using the 14th amendment’s “right to privacy,” the Supreme Court ruled that there was enough wiggle room to legalize abortion, anyway. This was a faulty ruling from the get-go and the fact that it is now repealed proves that. The reality is, when people say they have a right to an abortion, they sound as ridiculous as people who believe in the right to an education. Those are not rights and that’s a good thing. Having an abortion or getting an education means someone else must do something for you. Therefore, these can’t be rights as they rely on the will of other people. Your rights come from God or nature (depending on what you believe). These would be things like right to free speech, right to self-defense, religious freedoms, and so on—all the things that you can do without having to rely on another person’s input. When Roe v. Wade was overturned, pro-abortionists freaked out about religion infringing on their rights, but the reality is abortion was never a right and there was no mention of religion in the decision that repealed this law.
Furthermore, all the overturning did was take power away from the federal government by decentralizing a law and giving the decision back to the states where people have more of a say in where they want to draw the line on abortions. This is going to be different all over the country, and that’s a good thing. That was kind of the whole purpose of why our government works as it does. We are meant to be 50 different laboratories where we get to experiment with different laws (when the federal government isn’t overreaching in power like it did in the Roe v. Wade ruling, of course). We were meant to be one country where people could vote with their feet. If you don’t like the laws in your state, you don’t have to move to another country, you can simply move to another state. We may not like the laws of other states, but we also don’t have to live there and be dictated by those laws if they don’t suit us. This goes for those who are pro-abortion, pro-choice (yes, this is different, keep reading to find out), and those who are pro-life.
Pro-Abortion Propaganda
A lot of pro-abortion propaganda has come out, and while I thought a lot of it was laughably far-fetched, the more people I talked to, the more I realized people were legitimately worried about some of these ridiculous claims. For one, and I say this as a man who happens to be gay and open to dating other races, I have absolutely zero worries about the Supreme Court ruling against marriage equality for gay people or interracial marriage. These were founded on completely different things that hold a lot more weight, and even if they were to go back to the state level, interracial marriage would still be fine and the majority of states would still have marriage equality for gay people, including Kansas, as Kansas legalized gay marriage before it was a federal law.
A lot of propaganda on the Value Them Both bill has made people believe that by voting yes, they will be banning abortion outright. This is NOT true. What the bill does is ban taxpayer funded abortions. So, for any pro-abortionist who wants to argue that men shouldn’t have a say, tell that to our tax dollars! Pro-abortionists have also used the phrase “government mandate” to fear monger people into voting no. However, pro-abortionists have typically been the ones who loved the government mandates on things like masks and vaccines, so why would they be against these mandates? Because the mandates the bill would for sure enforce include reinstating specific abortion clinic safety regulations (how horrible) and banning third-trimester abortions (you know, when the baby is most likely to survive outside the womb). Furthermore, this would not result in any immediate changes.
The text that would be added to the Kansas Constitution is as follows:
“§ 22. Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.”
Current Abortion Restrictions in Kansas
In Kansas, the following restrictions are already in place before a woman can get an abortion, and I think that these are important to know.
A patient must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion, and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided.
Private insurance policies cover abortion only in cases of life endangerment, unless individuals purchase an optional rider at an additional cost.
Health plans offered in the state’s health exchange under the Affordable Care Act can only cover abortion in cases of life endangerment.
Abortion is covered in insurance policies for public employees only in cases of life endangerment.
The use of telemedicine to administer medication abortion is prohibited.
The parents of a minor must consent before an abortion is provided.
Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.
A patient must undergo an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion; the provider must offer the patient the option to view the image.
An abortion may be performed at 20 or more weeks postfertilization (22 weeks after the last menstrual period) only in cases of life or severely compromised physical health. This law is based on the assertion, which is inconsistent with scientific evidence and has been rejected by the medical community, that a fetus can feel pain at that point in pregnancy.
The state prohibits abortions performed for the purpose of sex selection.
Personally, I’m pretty good with how this is already. And furthermore, nothing here would really change by voting yes. Could lawmakers create more restrictions on abortion by voting yes? Absolutely. Could they also repeal restrictions? Sure. Again, the only concrete thing that happens by voting yes to Value Them Both, is things go back to how they were prior to the Kansas Supreme Court’s 2019 decision on Hodes & Nauser, MDs, P.A. v. Schmidt which made abortion a right—which again, it is not, and if you want to argue that it’s healthcare, congrats, that’s not a right either.
How our Elected Officials Have Voted on Abortion Issues
Many pro-abortionists in Kansas have been saying that abortions will be banned outright should the Value Them Both bill be passed, including when a woman may need one to save her life. However, when looking at how Kansas Republicans voted on issues regarding abortion, a different story gets told. In 2015, Kansas bill SB 95 was passed with 88 Republicans, and even 8 Democrats in the Kansas House of Representatives voting in favor of the bill. SB 95 prohibited “dismemberment abortions”—described in the bill as knowingly dismembering and causing the death of a fetus and extracting it one piece at a time from the uterus using certain tools, including clamps, scissors or similar instruments—unless one of the following conditions were met: The abortion would be needed to save the life of a pregnant individual or the abortion would be needed to prevent substantial and irreversible physical impairment to a pregnant individual. This fits in with the very definition of safe, legal, and rare—something Democrats used to believe in, including President Joe Biden.
Kansas Democrats have actually voted against women having choices though, and this is why I say pro-abortion and not pro-choice. In 2019, all 41 House Democrats voted against Kansas bill SB 67 which would require abortion reversal drugs to be made known to the patient and available. These abortion reversal drugs can be used to reverse the effects of some medication abortions. The fact that Kansas Democrats unanimously voted against women having the right to know about these drugs and thus, taking away a choice regarding abortion shows that they do not actually care about women’s body and health, they care about abortions, and that is sick.
Conclusion
Abortion is a nuanced topic, and I will have to go into detail in future articles about the problematic history and statistics that would make people, regardless of stances go, “huh.” As I said, I am pro-choice, but only to an extent. Third-trimester abortions, in my opinion, are not okay, and we need to find a line to draw as Kansans. Voting yes on Value Them Both would provide the opportunity for further discussions on the topic of abortion in Kansas. Voting no would shut down conversation on this nuanced topic that changes with society. It is for these reasons I believe in voting yes for Value Them Both.