image0 (12).jpeg

Here is the history and facts behind Value Them Both.

Kansas Passes a Law to Ban Live Dismemberment Abortions

In 2015 Kansas lawmakers unanimously passed bill SB95 to ban live dismemberment (Dilation and Evacuation) abortions in both the House and Senate. The banned procedure occurs in the second trimester and involves pulling a live, unborn child apart limb by limb. At 13-24 weeks when this procedure occurs, an unborn baby is fully capable of feeling pain. During this same period, in utero surgeries are performed to correct birth defects, but unlike the barbaric D&E procedure, unborn babies are given anesthesia before the operation to prevent pain. At 12 weeks an unborn child can hiccup, suck its thumb, and kick. At 13 weeks the baby can feel pain. At 19 weeks the baby can taste, touch, smell, see, and hear your voice and have successfully survived premature delivery. At 24 weeks babies have a 60-70% survival rate.

The Ban was Overturned and Our Constitution Changed

Late-term abortion doctors, Herbert Hodes and his daughter Traci Nauser challenged the 2015 law in the Kansas Supreme court. In April 2019 the court not only ruled in their favor, they changed the Kansas Constitution. In their summary, they argued the words “right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” means a right to abortion. As a result of the change in the constitution, Hodes along with two other abortion clinics challenged the law on abortion clinic licensing and health inspection (SB 36), the only Kansas law that addresses the health and safety standards of abortion clinics. This law also required the reporting of complications and deaths of women in abortions. The law was struck down as unconstitutional in December 2021. This means there no longer are any sanitation and safety standards for abortions clinics. Nail and hair salons have more regulations.

Bipartisan Passage of the Value Them Both Amendment

With over a two-thirds majority, the Kansas House and Senate unanimously passed HCR5003 (the Value Them Both Amendment) in February 2021 to restore the Constitution prior to 2019. The amendment does not add any laws and does not ban abortions. It reads: “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.”

The Value Them Both Amendment Vote

A vote yes will restore our Constitution and protect common-sense, bipartisan laws. It’s an amendment everyone should be able to support as the vast majority of Kansans believe that there should be limits and regulations on abortions and not be taxpayer-funded.

(41) comments

HometownGirl

Kansas Senate Bill 95 did NOT pass unanimously! It was adopted by a Republican majority in both the Kansas House and the Kansas Senate. It was contested in the courts, and here is a link to a synopsis about the Kansas Supreme Court decision that determined that under our CURRENT Kansas Constitution, ratified in 1856, a woman's right to choose whether to continue her pregnancy is HER DECISION. The Legislature didn't like that, and so now they are attempting to amend our Constitution so that they will be able to prevent a woman from making her own choices about her own body. Don't be fooled by the misinformation and lies in this opinion piece--it isn't factual, and it isn't unbiased. Here's that link, if you're interested in learning what started this controversial amendment.

https://www.kscourts.org/Newsroom/News-Releases/News/2019-News-Releases/April-2019/Supreme-Court-announces-decision-in-Hodes-Nauser?fbclid=IwAR3UEb-kI1_iKIjK4ELQm1cKsAwOBIJCM_yAHszPeJAioC5hDI0-o88YXCw

Aim_High

The Value Them Both website and its supporters are full of liars. From taxpayer funded abortions, baby coming down the birth canal minutes before delivery abortions, and post-term abortion (whatever that is), eating fetuses for lunch, they just keep making stuff up. I believe the repeated misuse of "unanimous" is just another intentional trick to fool voters into believing there is more support for their abortion ban than there actually is.

Next time the Catholic church is having fundraisers or selling greasy tacos I hope many people think twice and pass. I'd rather just eat Taco Bell than have my money helping to fund religious attacks on the constitution.

Ricky

There you go again Aim, out to hurt children. Those fundraisers are for the school and helping fund various programs for the children. Seems like all you wanna do is either kill unborn babies or hurt innocent living children by taking money out of their hands.😔

Dilly919

When we lived in Emporia my wife and I always loved going to St. Catherine’s taco events. One didn’t have to be Catholic to see that the “nun’s tacos,” as we came to know them, were labors of love, as was their school. There were very few people in town that didn’t love the nuns or their tacos. Taco Bell, which was started by an Anglo named Glen Bell and now owned by corporate giant PepsiCo. It’s quite a profitable venture, but they don’t make a better taco than St. Catherine’s nuns. Their love of the kids they serve is far more important to them than megaprofits. It shows in the food they prepare.

Dilly919

Keep in mind, Ricky, there are neighborhood bullies lurkin’ about, picking on nuns who want to serve the kids under their care and make their lives better.

Every school has a few. So does every town. Don’t fret!

Ricky

Yes I agree the nuns make the best tacos, and they are the most popular in the city when they go to events and serve their tacos. They always have some thing for all the children when they come to their bus that they serve their tacos out of.

HometownGirl

What a load of BS! First of all, the 2015 Senate bill 95 did NOT pass unanimously. It was adopted by a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate. Second, it was determined by the Kansas Supreme Court that this was an UNCONSTITUTIONAL bill, because it violated a woman's right to make her own medical decisions as CURRENTLY guaranteed by the Kansas Constituion. Since they couldn't make this unconstitutional law stick, the REPUBLICAN Legislature decided to AMEND OUR KANSAS CONSTITUTION, which has been in effect since its ratification in 1856. Abortion in the State of Kansas is, and has been, already strictly regulated under Kansas law. This amendment is not proposed for the purposes described by Mr. Antes. It is a blatant attempt by the Legislature to pave the way for a BAN ON ALL ABORTIONS. The amendment won't technically do that, but it will allow passage of a bill to do that--a bill that will no longer be unconstitutional. The Court is one of the checks and balances in place on the Legislature, and the Legislature that proposed this amendment is trying to undo that check and balance on this issue. Do not be fooled that this is for the protection of the unborn--it's for the control of women!

Ricky

Abortion, whether it’s six weeks six months nine months is still killing an innocent defenseless baby. No matter how much you sugarcoat it you’re killing in a human life. And it’s sickening to think all of you that support this could care less about that baby each time it’s aborted.

Vote yes.

So sad.

Dilly919

Ricky

While you and I may have some points of differing philosophy/theology, I share your willingness to stand by your convictions when they’re under assault. Stand firm. The insults only confirm thr derp seated hatred they have for you and other pro-lifers,

16 Fools show their annoyance at once,

but the prudent overlook an insult.”

Proverbs 12:16 (NIV)

Fremon

Ricky, I am surprised at the notion that your opposition "has any deep seated hatred" for you. I have no personal animosity for you. If fact, in my opinion, the pro-life movement has treated with kid gloves. No one wants to challenge anyone's faith, that's their personal guidance, but when you feel that your calling is to force part of your faith on others by "Unsettling Constitutional Law" suddenly, now we remember that you, and your faith can cause real trouble. In this life didn't God grant us free will to make our own choices and mistakes? They say that He awaits us in the next life, and the final answers will be there. And that's probably is why it's such a mess here. But again, not your call. God's got this. Bear in mind, I make no claims of Theological expertise, I'll leave that to others. Shalom!

Fremon

Perhaps we would all benefit if the Gazette would open up a separate Religious Opinion section to cover proselytizing and preaching to the choir.

Rationa1

Utter drivel, Fremon. This is clearly an OpEd piece. Its appearance here is absolutely appropriate.

Fremon

Yeah, a Religious Opinion, Everybody has one, and it takes a lot of space. That sounds rational to me. So, you disagree angrily on such a minor point? Try to chill, we have a long way to go.

Ricky

😱 that’s my Surprise face. I didn’t think you believed in God, I just figured you only used him, and twisting some of his preachings To try to suit your purpose. I’m pretty sure he wants people to followed the 10 Commandments, and one of them is thou shall not kill. 50 million(give or take a few million) Defense Babies.

Fremon

Hi Ricky, I'm sure you would see me as having a "Lesser God", it seems that "everybody else" does get it wrong. I do admire your dedication though. Now that only two of the original ten commandments are actually illegal today, the biggies; don't kill and don't steal, the rest seem to be a judgement call. It has been a long time, and things do get lost in translation. We all do the best we can without judging others, I tend to judge what's right for you is out of my hands, and what's right for me is out of yours. I don't claim to have near your absolute certainty. Having all the answers on this must be a heavy burden, especially with your conclusion. We'll see what the people of Kansas think soon. Next Time

Aim_High

Ricky, Jesus asked me to let you know it's not Christ like to judge another persons relationship with His Father.

Fremon

Ricky, is this one of your, because "The Bible Tells Me So" ideas? If so, then that is YOUR Bible but this is OUR Democracy. I still believe in that whole Church/State divide that some dismiss so easily. The MAGA Church thanks you for your faith.

Ricky

Saving lives, especially Ones that cannot speak up for Themselves. That is coming from what I believe is the difference between right, or wrong, pro life is right, pro death wrong. It’s pretty simple anybody should be able to understand that, at least ones that are for saving lives.

Dilly919

Ricky

This generation, for the most part, worships itself above all else.

Rudyard Kipling wrote “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” in 1919. He was describing his so called “utopian “ generation. He was also quite prophetic.

Read this snippet and see if you don’t agree.

“As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man

There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.

That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,

And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins

When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,

As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,

The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return.”

Ricky

👍

Fremon

Dilly, (Yeah, a separate Religious Opinion section)...... While the major religions do share many common ideas and history, He sure appears in many forms with varying doctrine. While ANYONE can lobby Congress with their ideas, it's only when one bunch tries to grab control of basic life decisions for everyone, that we'll have trouble. (remember the progression which I explained) I do believe that popular quote and opinion; "If God did not exist, it would have necessary to invent HIm". Voltaire I believe. I also believe He can serve a real purpose, He's just not in charge down here. While our Faith can be a source of tremendous comfort, it's personal.... Also, The Gazette and The Constitution asked me for my opinion.

Fremon

Savings lives or creating lives? Since it's all theoretical, we should avoid setting policy, let alone making laws picking sides here. The progression seems obvious here. From Moral guidance into Church guidance. From Moral leadership into Church leadership. And, from Moral laws into Church laws. and CONTROL. This begs the question, "Whose Church?" I still can't imagine how Trump fits into either morality or religion, just a "tool", I guess. Actually, Trump uses his fan base as "tools" as well, ''To the Glory of The Donald"!!! But, try to keep our Constitution in mind and that part about freedom "FROM" religion, because there are some strange ones out there. While Morality doesn't need Religion, Religion does need Morality. Democracy also requires Morality and Religion has been known to help here without taking charge. This principle is personal AND it's Universal; but your religion does not "trump" my Liberty. Thanks for asking.

Dilly919

Fremon

I understand the First Amendment. Congress “can make no law respecting an establishment of religion” nor can it make “any law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

You can try to twist it, but your critique doesn’t work. Speaking in favor of a proposed amendment is NOT establishing a religion. Speaking in favor of laws against theft, murder, is not establishing a religion. It’s saying that we need to have laws against crimes like murder and theft. I’m a Christian and I know Buddhists, atheists, Zoroastrians, Muslims, Confucians who also believe we should have laws against murder and theft. I am a pro life Christian. In In keeping with the First Amendment I have the Constitutional right to express those convictions in the public square. I believe abortion violates a moral and religious standard. I don’t ask Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Muslims, atheists, etc to embrace my religious beliefs when it comes to abortion. Actually, I don’t need to. I know Buddhists who believe that abortion is the taking of an innocent life and is, therefore, immoral. The same holds true for Muslims I know. I’ve even marched with more than a few atheists who believe very strongly that abortion is an immoral act. That’s why they march with Christians like me, even Buddhists andMuslims. We have different religious beliefs, but we hold a firm conviction abortion is an immoral act (with some exceptions) and there should be laws prohibiting or limiting it.

In this case, then, believe my

morality trumps your morality. It’s rooted in respect for life.

By the way, I didn’t ask you a question, nor would I ask for your advice on any matter. When it comes to that I have avenues of trust and fellowship at my disposal.

Dilly919

Interesting you should cite Voltaire. He detested Christianity and believed it was only for imbeciles. Late in his life he declared that he was living in the time of “the twilight of Christianity.” Within about fifty years of his death his home had become a warehouse for the Geneva Bible Society.

The Gazette has also asked for my opinion many times. I wrote op eds for several years. It was a very satisfying arrangement. I was never told what to write, so I wrote freely about what I believed the state of Emporia’s civil society was. As often happens, some took enough offense at what I wrote to call me at home and scream obscenities at me. I learned to tell them to let me know when they were done, then say good night and turn in to have a good night’s sleep. Folks would occasionally ask me if the calls bothered me. “No,” I told them. “If I had written something that prompted my wife to tell me that was done with me and was getting a divorce lawyer or if my dog stopped wagging his tail when I got home st night I would have been very troubled.” I’m still happily married and, while my buddy Ranger has moved on to the greener pastures in the sky, he still loved me to the end.

And, wouldn’t you know, the Constitution even wants my opinion on matters of import. Like you, I am an American citizen and have that right. Please note that I’m not the one trying to squelch you. Actually, you’re the one who seems to be trying to squelch me, Ricky, and others you don’t care for.

One last thing. The Trump tag won’t work. I’ve never been one of his acolytes. My preferences are more aligned with folks like Ben Sasse or Marco Rubio. If he were alive in my time I’d claim membership in the Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk acolytes society. But Donald Trump? Never!

Ricky

Well said Dilly919. 👍 vote yes for life.

Rationa1

Sorry, Dilly; the Constitution is mute on the topic of your opinion. The Constitution merely enjoins the government from restricting your right to free speech absent due process. It does not guarantee you a forum, or an audience, and certainly it does not solicit your opinion. It merely stops your government from preventing these things from you. Fortunately for you, the 14th Amendment prevents the State and its political subdivisions from doing the same.

Fremon

Dilly...Let's see if I hear you right. Your idea of "Right to Life" is that you want to assign "personhood" to a zygote, a single cell organism at conception, to claim murder. I consider conception to be the beginning, and birth to be finish and the Beginning of a fellow citizen. Surely in a civilized society we can work out a reasonable compromise. And please don't tell me that God doesn't compromise, because my God is reasonable while we are here on Earth and understands human frailties. If you are pro-life you helped Trump, only because he claimed it. Have you ever heard him speak on the "Sanctity of Life", other than his own? (and he talks a lot, soon under oath). -EOR- (end of rant) you win.

Fremon

Some will claim to speak for the "voiceless people" they imagine, and they will VOTE to silence the voices they disagree with. NO! thank you

Ricky

There’s no imagining unborn babies, maybe for you so you can feel better about yourself for supporting killing all those thousands of defenseless babies. You have somehow convinced yourself it’s ok to kill babies. 😢

Ricky

There’s no unimagining unborn babies, and you’re the one that’s trying to silence voices.

Dilly919

Fremon

Of course I believe in compromise, But it may not be compromise as you think of it. My view of compromise is not so elastic that it ends in surrender.

As to when human life begins, I’m comfortable with “in the beginning.”

The proposed amendment was born out of a Kansas law (SB95) that outlawed dismemberment abortion in Kansas. There were compromise provisions in that law concerning rape, incest, the health of the mother. It also held that women would not be held criminally responsible in cases where a dismemberment abortion took place in violation of that law. I can say with certainty that Kansas abortionists weren’t dismembering zygotes. They were tearing apart human beings, limb by limb, crushing skulls, etc.

It was the pro choice side that took the law to court. They wanted wanted authority to continue this ghoulish practice. And, they won. So, here we are. Each year since that ruling there have been about 450 of these dismemberments performed in Kansas.

For pro lifers like me this is not acceptable compromise. Pro choicers may try yo soothe their consciences by declaring these unborn children as meaningless blobs of tissue, but that dog doesn’t hunt.

That brings us to the Value Them Both Amendment. It passed the Kansas House and Senate with significant majorities. It may have been along party lines, but those representatives were all elected by the citizens of Kansas. That doesn’t seem unfair or unreasonable to me. In August, therefore, the people of Kansas will decide.

I’ve never solicited Donald Trump’s views on abortion. I’ve written in a pro life candidate (Rubio) twice. Claiming that I must be a Trump supporter because he has adopted a pro life stance is not sound logic. Playwright Eugene Ionesco once wrote about a logician who used a fractured A form proposition/syllogism to claim that dogs were actually cats becsuse both creatures had four legs.

Socrates must have rolled over in his grave when he saw that.

Fremon

So you are willing compromise, but you are sticking with your opinion? We always enjoy your lectures Professor Dilly. I can see in your writing that your opinion has much more value than mine. Revel in your "victory". So, you won't change your vote then?

Dilly919

I live in Missouri.

freedom fighter

A voice for those who have no voice

Thank You for your comments

Ricky

Thank you Carl.

Vote yes.

Fremon

With over a "two-thirds majority", the Kansas House and Senate "unanimously" passed HCR5003..?......This is the type of petty hyperbole that doesn't help your case. I'm glad to see so many Americans are involved in this basic principle, Your presentation looks very impressive. Financial Advisors are usually well educated and well spoken. While I might take your financial advice, we disagree here. Vote how you Choose.

Aim_High

It also says HB95 was unanimously passed, but the vote was 31-yea, 9-nay.

The final vote on the "unanimously passed" HCR5003 was 28-yea, 10-nay.

Rationa1

I think it is fair to say the editorial's author does not understand what the word "unanimous" means.

Ricky

I have read, and watched on TV news reporters using the word unanimous when it comes to US House of Representatives voting on bills that it’s only unanimous Democrat vote and zero Republican vote. So I guess in your mind it just depends on who is saying it to someone who believes in what you believe or someone who doesn’t.

Aim_High

Ricky... by your comment it appears you don't even know what the word "unanimous" means... No news reporters are calling votes "unanimous" when each side has votes... and even if they did, that's not an argument for why the author is misusing the word... the meaning doesn't change depending on if a Republican or Democrat uses it, lol... good lord Ricky.

Ricky

Oops my bad, a lot of times I don’t proofread when I post, and forget to add another word which was unanimous bipartisan vote on a bill which in my mind means everybody voted for when then they point out it was two or three of the other parties Representatives voting for that bill that made it a unanimous bipartisan vote, My source is news nation which I’ve feel you probably don’t watch since it is by Pardison news they are pointing out the hypocrisy of Fox News, CNN, news, MSNBC news using that phrase on votes in the House of Representatives and, or senate. I don’t always have the time to proofread so I apologize for making that mistake, I realize you have all the Time in the world when you’re at work to proofread your comments. so in reiterating what it should’ve said is by unanimous bipartisan vote, and it was News nation that pointed out the hypocrisy of all three so-called news channels.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.