What Happened to the Abortion Amendment in Kansas?

Republicans shoot themselves in the foot and manage to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.

So what happened in Kansas last night? Pro-lifers had a proposed amendment on the ballot that would have effectively overridden a 2019 Kansas Supreme Court ruling enshrining abortion in the state’s constitution (kind of like Roe v Wade, but just for the Sunflower State). According to polling data, Kansans supported the amendment by a 47% - 43% margin. But on election night, the measure went down in flames, 59% - 41%.

So what happened? Were the polls wildly off? Did 6% of pro-amendment voters change their mind and then virtually 100% of undecideds all break towards dismemberment of unborn children?

Details Matter

Whether you’re buying a used car, going out on a first date, or even just ordering a meal, it’s important to know what you’re getting. My wife is gluten intolerant and will usually ask to see gluten-free options on a menu when we go out to dinner. Likewise, someone who is a vegetarian would almost certainly want to know if a dish has any meat before he or she orders it.

Speaking of vegetarians, what if I told you there was a candidate for office who was a vegetarian? This person also didn’t drink or smoke and never cheated on his wife? This candidate also was a rousing speaker and was named Time magazine’s Man of the Year.

Would you vote for him?

What if he was running against a man who would cut people’s chests open and pull their hearts out. Would you vote for him then?

Well, maybe you need some more information. The man cutting into people’s chests is a heart surgeon who saves lives; the first candidate mentioned is Hitler (yes, evil Hitler was faithful to his wife, although the marriage only lasted one day).

Dennis Prager has a saying: “Clarity over Agreement.” It’s important to get as many facts as possible before agreeing to anything or making an important decision; the bigger the decision, the more facts you’ll probably need. This is especially important if you don’t want to vote for Hitler.

Problem is, way too many politicians don’t care about facts; facts often get in the way of their agenda. So they come up with tricky stuff like what happened in Kansas yesterday.

Caitlin Wilson / AFP - Getty Images

Muddy Waters

Of course the Left is always going to be dishonest when talking about abortion and this was no exception. Misinformation about the proposed amendment included erroneous claims about banning all abortions, as well as banning treatments for ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, and septic uterus.

In reality, all the amendment would have done was remove the so-called “right to an abortion” the Kansas Supreme Court interprets as being in the state constitution. Then, if Kansans wanted to change the laws on abortion, they would have been free to do so.

However, while it’s true the pro-abortion crowd misrepresented the amendment, the Republicans who wrote the amendment did themselves no favors either. If you wanted to deliberately confuse people about what a measure was actually about, you couldn’t do much better than the text of the proposed abortion amendment:

§ 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.

The amendment is very wordy. What’s with all this stuff about “government funding of abortion” and saying legislators “may pass laws regarding abortion”? Phrases like “including, but not limited to” don’t exactly make for the most digestible reading. As The Guardian noted on election day, the language was confusing. Vox, carrying a very pro-abortion bias, chimed in as well:

The language could trip up the average voter, said Neal Allen, a political scientist at Wichita State University. “You could read it and think you were voting to eliminate state funding of abortion when there is no state funding to abortion,” he told Vox. “And there is language that refers to exceptions to preserve the health of the mother, and for rape and incest, but there’s nothing about the amendment itself that would create those exceptions.”

Of course the left-wing media made these claims because they felt the wording might “trick” pro-abortion voters into voting for the measure but it looks like the unclear wording cut the other way and hurt the pro-life cause.

As Erick Erickson tweeted last night: “How many Kansans who are generally pro-life but not plugged in went to the polls, read the ballot language, and thought, ‘S**t, I don't want to let the legislature pass abortion laws. I'm pro-life.’’’

There’s a saying, “A confused buyer says ‘no’”. Even if you want to buy that new car but are unclear on the terms of the financing, chances are, you’re going to walk away and just say “No, let me think about it; let’s just leave things they way they are for now.”

Yes, if you read through the amendment carefully a couple times, you’ll get what they’re saying. But it would have only taken less than 10% of the population to become confused and end up voting the opposite direction of what they might have intended for this vote to go the other way.

The Text Message

Apparently former Kansas GOP congressman Tim Huelskamp thought it was a good idea for his political action committee to put out a mass text message on Monday framing a “yes” vote on the amendment in pro-abortion euphemisms like “choice” and “reproductive rights.” According to the Washington Post, the text read:

“Women in KS are losing their choice on reproductive rights,” the text warned. “Voting YES on the Amendment will give women a choice. Vote YES to protect women’s health.”

Now, if most pro-lifers are like me, they won’t buy into this kind of language. We recognize that “choice” in the context of the abortion debate means having the choice to abort babies and that women already have the right to reproduce - what they don’t have is the right to kill their children after that choice has already been made. If anything, that text would make a pro-lifer more likely to vote “no” on the amenemnet.

I realize that this text was most likely targeted at those on the pro-abortion side of this debate. But even then, that was a mistake. Word will eventually get out and the end result was bound to be more chaos.

But even more importantly, deceptive tactics are just the wrong way to do things, what’s more, it damages the pro-life brand. We should be the ones people trust; we should heed Reagan’s call for “bold, unmistakable colors with no pale pastel shades.” and wrapping our message in pro-abortion language is the palest of pastels.

Let’s do better next time (and there will definitely be a next time).