Kansas Crimson

Boat race

Well done, Kansas. I was worried about you but you came through.

It's going to take a while to see the complete fallout here. I feel comfortable saying that this makes Kansas a swing state, immediately. This will change engagement and turnout going forward.

I expected a narrow margin of victory for the Vote No campaign. Was not expecting 59-41 margin of victory. When just 2 years ago, Trump won in this state by 15 points.

There was uber confidence that it would pass easily. Just shows how far the GOP is removed from what people actually want. They have some soul searching to do. And this does do some hurting for midterms in a few months.

I know plenty who are usually a pro-life, republican voting no matter what who were voting no. Surprised me, but I think this was more about sticking up for women more than babies.

I don't agree with abortion just because. That drives me crazy. But in other cases (rape, young children child carrying and other things along those lines) But I'm also of the belief that just because I don't agree with the whole premise of abortion, doesn't mean I force it on to other people.

Proud to be a Kansan ( even though i'm not a resident anymore and didn't vote ).

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 03, 2022 8:50 am It's going to take a while to see the complete fallout here. I feel comfortable saying that this makes Kansas a swing state, immediately. This will change engagement and turnout going forward.

Wouldn't go that far quite yet. But I do think that Kansas put a lot of states on notice as well as national eyeballs.

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 03, 2022 8:55 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 03, 2022 8:50 am It's going to take a while to see the complete fallout here. I feel comfortable saying that this makes Kansas a swing state, immediately. This will change engagement and turnout going forward.

Wouldn't go that far quite yet. But I do think that Kansas put a lot of states on notice as well as national eyeballs.

If anything, to your point, the overwhelming margin here - and the clear and obvious disconnect between popular sentiment and the state legislature - will drive engagement. I really think this is an inflection point, not just in Kansas but elsewhere. This vote is an overwhelming rejection of fundamentally anti-democratic behavior.

I agree there. If this happened in Kansas, where Trump just won by 15 points in 2020, imagine what could happen in a state where the election was closer like a Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina and other places.

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 03, 2022 8:53 am I expected a narrow margin of victory for the Vote No campaign. Was not expecting 59-41 margin of victory. When just 2 years ago, Trump won in this state by 15 points.

There was uber confidence that it would pass easily. Just shows how far the GOP is removed from what people actually want. They have some soul searching to do. And this does do some hurting for midterms in a few months.

I know plenty who are usually a pro-life, republican voting no matter what who were voting no. Surprised me, but I think this was more about sticking up for women more than babies.

I don't agree with abortion just because. That drives me crazy. But in other cases (rape, young children child carrying and other things along those lines) But I'm also of the belief that just because I don't agree with the whole premise of abortion, doesn't mean I force it on to other people.

Freedom of religion means freedom from religion. Pubs can kindly stay the fuck out of my wife's and daughters' pants.

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 03, 2022 8:53 am I expected a narrow margin of victory for the Vote No campaign. Was not expecting 59-41 margin of victory. When just 2 years ago, Trump won in this state by 15 points.

There was uber confidence that it would pass easily. Just shows how far the GOP is removed from what people actually want. They have some soul searching to do. And this does do some hurting for midterms in a few months.

I know plenty who are usually a pro-life, republican voting no matter what who were voting no. Surprised me, but I think this was more about sticking up for women more than babies.

I don't agree with abortion just because. That drives me crazy. But in other cases (rape, young children child carrying and other things along those lines) But I'm also of the belief that just because I don't agree with the whole premise of abortion, doesn't mean I force it on to other people.

The counts on the votes for this as compared to the counts for the other items on the ballot proved out just how important this was to KS voters. There was a huge number of people who showed up solely to vote No on this.

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Aug 03, 2022 9:07 am

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 03, 2022 8:53 am I expected a narrow margin of victory for the Vote No campaign. Was not expecting 59-41 margin of victory. When just 2 years ago, Trump won in this state by 15 points.

There was uber confidence that it would pass easily. Just shows how far the GOP is removed from what people actually want. They have some soul searching to do. And this does do some hurting for midterms in a few months.

I know plenty who are usually a pro-life, republican voting no matter what who were voting no. Surprised me, but I think this was more about sticking up for women more than babies.

I don't agree with abortion just because. That drives me crazy. But in other cases (rape, young children child carrying and other things along those lines) But I'm also of the belief that just because I don't agree with the whole premise of abortion, doesn't mean I force it on to other people.

The counts on the votes for this as compared to the counts for the other items on the ballot proved out just how important this was to KS voters. There was a huge number of people who showed up solely to vote No on this.

I saw a statistic that 30% of Kansas' registered voters are unaffiliated. That's a large chunk of the electorate where this was literally the only thing on our ballots. As an unaffiliated voter, I was in and out of the voting machine in less than a minute because the ballot was this amendment and that's it. That's a lot of people who, if it weren't for this amendment, wouldn't even have been able to participate in the primary.

Wow, completely shocked by this result. Well done Kansas.

^^^^^^^

i expected it to be close. the result, but more so the margin, is a bit shocking

I'm thinking Sara Robinson would be proud!

Kansas constitutional amendment on abortion is a bailout for the Catholic Church

Read more at: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/read ... rylink=cpy

To say the movement to ban abortions in Kansas has been fueled by the Catholic Church is no overstatement. The Sunflower State Journal noted several main funders:

▪ The Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas gave approximately $2.5 million to the campaign this year. Last year, it contributed close to $500,000.

▪ The Catholic Diocese of Wichita contributed $550,000 this year, and the Kansas Catholic Conference added another $275,000. ▪ Kansans for Life provided close to $325,000. ▪ The Catholic Diocese of Salina and St. Michael the Archangel Parish in Leawood each contributed $100,000.
…
Here is what’s interesting, though: More than half the membership of the Catholic Church believes abortion should be legal. So why has the church invested so much in this effort? The answer appears to be finances. Consider this: ▪ Over the past decade, the Catholic Church has lost substantial membership, dropping by nearly 20% since 2000, according to the Catholic News Agency.

▪ The church has paid out close to $4 billion in sexual abuse settlements involving priests. Of course, there are more cases out there. ▪ The church is “going broke” in the U.S., as a Catholic News Agency analysis recently put it. The long-term financial health of many parishes across the country is in question as people leave the church. This is not a sustainable path for any organization, let alone a denomination that enjoys opulent buildings and a massive, top-heavy hierarchy that is dependent upon strong incoming revenue.

The church has been relying on handouts to continue its power establishment, including receiving more than $1.4 billion in aid through the federal Paycheck Protection Program. Additionally, lobbyists in Kansas tied to the church work to divert taxpayer money from public schools to their private facilities. And then there’s the topic of abortion. What could that have to do with finances? It has to be a major challenge for the church to retain members with messaging about banning abortion when half its congregation believes it should be legal and accessible. Loss of membership means fewer people in the pews and a loss of revenue. If the church gets the government to ban abortion, it doesn’t run the risk of continuing to lose members by consistently bringing the topic up. It’s a government bailout.
…

I wonder how much in gummint bailouts went directly toward lobbying.

And there’s plenty of other outrage in that article yet.

No representation without taxation.

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 12:00 pm No representation without taxation.

Agreed. I would love to see someone file to have one of these diocese lose their tax-exempt status based on their multi-million dollar lobbying efforts.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

"Substantial Lobbying Activity
In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC Section
501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legis-
lation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization may
engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt
status.

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council or
similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions or similar items (such
as legislative confirmation of appointive offices), or by the public in a referendum,
ballot initiative, constitutional amendment or similar procedure. It doesn’t include
actions by executive, judicial or administrative bodies.

A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence
legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of
a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting or opposing legislation,
or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

Churches and religious organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues
of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example,
churches may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational
materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner
without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

Measuring Lobbying Activity
Substantial part test. Whether a church’s or religious organization’s attempts to
influence legislation constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is deter-
mined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The
IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compen-
sated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization
to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.
Churches must use the substantial part test since they aren’t eligible to use the
expenditure test described in the next section.

Under the substantial part test, a church or religious organization that conducts
excessive lobbying activity in any taxable year may lose its tax-exempt status,
resulting in all its income being subject to tax. In addition, a religious organization
is subject to an excise tax equal to five percent of its lobbying expenditures for the
year in which it ceases to qualify for exemption. Further, a tax equal to five percent
of the lobbying expenditures for the year may be imposed against organization
managers, jointly and severally, who agree to the making of such expenditures
knowing that the expenditures would likely result in loss of tax-exempt status."