Kansas Voters Stood up for Abortion Rights in August. Republicans don't Care.

Kansas voters shocked the nation last year when they overwhelmingly rejected a proposed state constitutional amendment that would have said there is no basic right to abortion. But that hasn't stopped Kansas Republicans from opening the 2023 legislative session while still seeking to further reduce access to abortion.

A voter wears a mask reading “Forever the Free State” as she talks to friends during the pro-choice Kansas for Constitutional Freedom primary election watch party in Overland Park

Soon after last week's meeting of the Republican-controlled state legislature, GOP leaders established a plan that included further restrictions on abortion and increased funding for crisis pregnancy centers, which work to dissuade people from having abortions. They also identified the 2019 Kansas Supreme Court decision in Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, who established abortion rights in the state constitution as a key goal.

They did not provide any details about what further restrictions on abortion might be; the Kansas GOP and leadership in both legislative houses did not respond to requests for comment. But abortion advocates are anticipating everything from banning abortions after 14 weeks of pregnancy to tightened restrictions on abortion providers and abortion services offered via telehealth.

Kansas already has some of the toughest restrictions nationwide short of an outright ban. Abortion currently remains legal up to 22 weeks of pregnancy and, thereafter, only in cases where the health of the pregnant woman is at risk. There are also a number of other restrictions on the procedure, including parental consent requirements for minors and restrictions on insurance coverage. However, it has become a regional haven for those living in neighboring states with even more restrictive policies.

While some National Republicans at the time called last year's referendum results in Kansas a "wake-up call," it doesn't appear the Kansas GOP saw it as such. Rather, Republicans in the state are putting their foot down, despite the fact that Kansans voted 59 to 41 percent to save their abortion rights.

“[A]nti-abortion politicians have either forgotten how elections work or don't care about the willingness of those elected to serve,” said Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes. "It appears to be the latter, because in the first week of the session they have already doubled down on their plans to attack reproductive freedom."

The Kansas GOP is still targeting the state's constitutional right to abortion

Hodes ruled that the Kansas constitution protects abortion rights in even broader terms than it once did at the federal level in Roe v. Wade. The state government can violate that right only when it can demonstrate a "compelling interest and has closely tailored its actions to that interest," according to the ruling. As a result, the court struck down a state ban on dilation and evacuation procedures, the most common method of performing an abortion after the first trimester of pregnancy.

Republican State Senate Chairman Ty Masterson argued at last week's press conference that Democrats want "unregulated abortion until, and in some cases seen across the country, after birth" and that, "with Hodes instead, we have the potential of that. All of our common-sense restrictions are under attack."

But in a red state like Kansas, Democrats have been reluctant to take such a controversial stance on abortion, and some have even voted for abortion restrictions in the past. Now they seem more concerned with keeping abortion safe and legal and with ensuring that Republicans do not implement further restrictions on the procedure in this term.

And according to the latest available data from 2021, no Kansans have had an abortion beyond 22 weeks of pregnancy since Hodes was decided, and there have been, other than the impossibility of such a procedure, any miscarriages after the birth in any part of the country.

Despite all of this, Masterson and other Republicans are calling for Hodes' legal basis to be tested.

To that end, Republican Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, who has described himself as "100 percent pro-life," announced Wednesday that he plans to ask the state supreme court to reconsider his ruling in Hodes based on the Court's ruling. Supreme Court last year overturning Roe v. Wade and discovering that the United States Constitution does not confer the right to abortion.

"One of the things that strikes any court reviewing precedents is the intervention of events," Kobach told the Associated Press. "There were events in between."

If Hodes is overturned, Republicans would not face the same legal limitations enacting abortion restrictions and could potentially limit access not only to Kansans, but also to out-of-state patients seeking treatment from across the region.

Republican lawmakers have already introduced a bill that would lower the bar for impeaching Kansas Supreme Court justices. While it's unclear on what grounds Republicans might seek to impeach judges, it is seen as a means to change the composition of the court to be more supportive of anti-abortion advocates. They also indicated they intend to reintroduce a constitutional amendment that would require Kansas Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed by the Kansas Senate, which has been controlled by Republicans for more than a century. (A similar measure failed last year.)

Currently, justices are nominated on merit by a nine-member nominating committee and then appointed by the governor. After their first year in office, they must get a maintenance vote to serve another six years before facing another maintenance vote. All seven justices on the court survived their retention votes last year.

Why Kansas Republicans are insisting on abortion

Kansas Republicans' abortion strategy might seem ignorant in the face of the spectacular failure of the Abortion Amendment and the re-election of Democratic Kansas Governor Laura Kelly, who has already vetoed a number of Republican bills aimed at restrict abortion and has indicated that it will continue to do so this term. The GOP has an absolute majority in this term, however, meaning the party has the votes to override Kelly's vetoes.

Elections that protected abortion access also saw Republicans retain an overall majority. Indeed, the GOP caucus has become even more conservative. Republican lawmakers were elected without hiding their anti-abortion positions, so they consider themselves mandated to move forward on their agenda, said Bob Beatty, a policy expert and professor at Washburn University in Topeka.

“It will take a lot more than two statewide votes to get them to moderate on abortion. If they are not punished at the polls, they have no incentive to change,” he said.

Even Republicans in the state have long relied on the abortion issue to demonstrate their conservative bona fides, and old habits die hard.

“In this region of the country, many politicians have cut their teeth on anti-abortion legislation. It's almost like a rite of passage,” said Zack Gingrich-Gaylord, a spokesperson for Trust Women, which runs an abortion clinic in Wichita.

That could be especially true for GOP lawmakers who are aiming for a race for governor in four years, Beatty said. While no one has formally announced their candidacy yet, Kelly has a limited term and Masterson has been floated as a Republican contender.

For now, the Kansas Supreme Court decision on Hodes remains in effect, limiting how far Kansas Republicans can go, even with their ability to override the governor's veto. That means their anti-abortion rhetoric may not translate into real policy.

"It's more of a waste of time and resources on an issue that has already been decided in multiple venues, not just in the courts but also through voting," Gingrich-Gaylord said.

Barring any changes made by the court, the strategy of Kansas Republicans appears to be to try to do what they can to limit abortion and hope that their legislation legally holds up. In the process, they seem eager to use every opportunity to appeal to future Republican primary voters.

If there was a reduction in abortion access in Kansas, it would reverberate throughout the region. Gingrich-Gaylord said 70 percent of Trust Women's patients at her Kansas clinic are from Texas, which enacted a near-total ban on abortion last year. A few weeks ago, the clinic received over 16,000 calls asking about their services in just one day.

"We are experiencing this permanent bottleneck," he said. "So we enter this session with some trepidation, but also resilience and dedication to making sure lawmakers remember their August vote."

Thanks to Vox for providing us with this free information so we can find out what we don't know.

Read More

The anchors of Good Morning America have made Cheating Scandals Funny Again

What makes a scandal truly scandalous compared to something to gossip about over morning coffee?

Since a Daily Mail exposé ran Good Morning America, hosts Amy Robach and T.J. Following Holmes' alleged secret affair on Nov. 30, the pair came under scrutiny for taking their on-screen chemistry too far from the screen. The couple, who have since reportedly broken up with their spouses, have been temporarily suspended from the show while the network decides how to proceed. The audience is clear, however. Since the news broke, Robach and Holmes have been the focus of a wave of enthusiastic public response.

Wait. Enchanted?

Isn't that the same general public that engaged in an agonizing soul-searching outrage and shook hands over a relationship ending with YouTuber less than two months ago? Why is one Try Guy's alleged cheating the kind of scandal that invokes a tide of negative emotion, while two network news anchors' alleged cheating garners titillation and gleeful popcorn-chewing? Is it because the last two are so cute together?

There is a lot going on here that makes this cheating scandal different from other cheating scandals of late, more like a throwback. Or, as one Twitter user put it, “a 2004 scandal. I'm talking about tight pearls, my niece and mother know this and they have over 40 years between them.

To understand why we consider this a throwback and what that means, we need to look at where this particular cheating scandal came from. We also need to examine how Robach and Holmes, and their roles as journalists and television personalities, differ from those of a YouTube star, the stars of Don't Worry Darling, or even a parasocial prodigy like John Mulaney — you know, the other celebrity types whose cheating scandals have been big news lately.

So let's jump in.

If you've kept up with the cheating scandals of 2022, you may have noticed that the reaction to most of them has involved a fair amount of jaw-dropping and a certain air of "who are these people and why should I care?" In the case of the Try Guys scandal, many fans of the YouTube collective suffered further mourning over the breakdown of a public wedding and the irreparable damage suffered by the entire group of creators.

But while Robach and Holmes aren't exactly household names, so far that same level of public scorn and/or dismay hasn't really associated with them. Instead, audiences seemed overall intrigued and supportive, with many media outlets gushing about how the love-struck couple looked, and fans scouring their on-air story for signs of how they truly felt. So why the relative lack of judgement?

The first significant thing that distinguishes the Robach/Holmes cheating scandal from the typical drama of 2022 is the mode of discovery. The couple's relationship reportedly lasted nearly six months before the scandal broke. Both Robach and Holmes wed their respective partners in 2010, but once the relationship reportedly kicked off in March, the pair were said to only have eyes for each other.

The game was over when the Daily Mail "got" extensive photos of the pair dining together in New York, perhaps captured by some eagle-eyed fan ... or a private investigator hired for just that purpose. Speculation has centered around the dropped spouses as the culprits behind the big reveal, which sounds plausible at the very least, but the bottom line is whoever took those photos knew they had a bombshell and knew what a big old-school tabloid media at their fingertips. but no. to. Not only is the Daily Mail one of the world's most popular news organizations, it's also one of the most unabashedly sensationalist – the perfect place to park an old-school exposé on the sort of celebrity whose private lives are usually kept tightly under the buttons.

So the nature of the tabloids is part of why this scandal looks different. Because we all learned it at the same time — through a flashy news reveal, including images of a "playful smack from behind" headshot — we're all on the same page about what happened and what the details were. The sheer number of photos (65!) posted alongside the allegations paints a pretty clear picture of the pair, so that's not in dispute either: plain and simple, they've been busted.

This alone might have been enough in a different era to be considered harmful. But no matter how you look at it, the pair look adorably happy together — that photo of the two of them laughing in a bar is priceless — and in this case, they seem to have done a lot to improve whatever negative effect their relationship might have on the public opinion. We also have to consider that their GMA fan base is already inclined to enjoy seeing them together because their professional roles involve selling their on-screen chemistry as show hosts. We shouldn't be surprised when a) they actually sell us on their relationship and b) they sell their relationship so well that they sell themselves on it. Even avowed non-fans have flocked to the party, with many people on the internet popcorn arcade enjoying the pair's offline antics despite never having seen the show.

(Incidentally, this couple's relationship trajectory may have boosted fandoms everywhere, whose members now have one more reason to believe that their favorite on-screen vessels may be sizzling into sexy real-life relationships. A win!)

It's important to note that this isn't all fun and there are likely bad parties here, namely Robach's husband, actor Andrew Shue, and Holmes' wife, attorney Marilee Fiebig.

People reported on Dec. 1, the day after the story broke, that the couple didn't start seeing each other until after both had informally separated from their spouses. But while this news may have lessened the relationship damage for many of their fans, it's, of course, damage control after the fact. It's unlikely we'll ever learn just how accurate this version of history is. (The spouses have yet to make any public statements, but Shue has since deleted Robach's photos from his Instagram.)

Currently, this one-sided narrative is a boon for Robach and Holmes, but it could also backfire; Already, other allegations have surfaced that Holmes had multiple extramarital affairs with multiple GMA staffers over the years, including a three-year affair with a producer. It's not exactly happily ever after stuff, and it could significantly change the way we discuss the relationship, moving it from a story about soul mates finding each other on set to a cautionary tale about serial sexual entanglements in the workplace.

The other major factor here is perhaps harder to parse but equally important: Robach and Holmes are still, above all else, journalists first — their public role isn't to entertain, despite any flirting they do on set. They haven't cultivated the same type of perceived connection with their fans that many other celebrities have to develop as a matter of personal branding: Their roles are defined by what they do while they're in the hot seat of live network broadcasting, which is a pretty limited and contained window through which to build parasocial relationships with their fans.

That enforced distancing is a saving grace for this particular scandal, but that's also why a Daily Mail drop with not two, not three, but dozens of photos of the secret couple is particularly juicy. We're not supposed to see anchors behaving badly! In fact, we're not really supposed to see anchors anywhere but at their desk; this type of gossip is a rare glimpse behind the curtain.

The paradox here is that of course we are: We're so accustomed to on-air flirting between morning show anchors that we practically expect them to tease their relationship but never deliver. In other words, it's a kind of journalist asymptote: Always keep your on-air subtext heady and omnipresent, titillating viewers, forever approaching reality but never actually getting there. Ultimately, they are journalists, not entertainers, and the moment they cross that line, it's a serious workplace relationship issue. All true, but not uncomplicated.

This is a fine tightrope to walk, and it seems GMA's decision to suspend them speaks to the complexity around the issue. Still, if gossip is to be believed, there may be additional issues at play, which might include Holmes's other alleged affairs and intrashow rivalries with fellow anchors, as well as any contractual issues involved. Heck, it could also be that the network was simply unprepared for the sudden uptick in the public's interest in the drama — probably many more people than actually watch Good Morning America 3, the couple's paradoxically mid-afternoon show.

But that, in and of itself, kind of speaks to the innate appeal of a good scandal, and why 2022 has witnessed a huge resurgence in gossip as a popular medium for discussion and debate. As long as no one else was hurt and the damage to the parties involved is fairly minimal, this is just a look at a flirty couple that many are rooting for — dropped into our laps out of nowhere as a late fall treat.

Thanks to vox for providing us with this free information so we can find out what we don't know.

Read More