START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
922,914 people care about Women's Rights

Don’t Ever Come to Kansas. It’s the Worst.

Don’t Ever Come to Kansas. It’s the Worst.

That headline might be the most obvious statement ever written. But that doesn’t keep it from being true.

I used to defend my home state to outsiders. Who are they to talk smack on the prairie? It’s like I can say horrible things about my family, but you can’t say anything bad about my family. That’s a privilege you have to earn.

But now? Now I’m done. There is nothing left to defend.

You see, I’m convinced that the state of Kansas wants nothing more than to be the most conservative and reality-denying state in the Union. And, boy howdy, is it on its way.

Exhibit A: New, epic abortion restrictions. I say restrictions, but I mean a ban because it defines “life” as starting at fertilization. It also requires that doctors tell women of the non-existent link between abortion and breast cancer. Yeah. The law now requires doctors to lie to their patients. Because accurate information might lead a woman to make the best decision for her, which might be an abortion? Well, we can’t have that.

But let’s get back to this “life” issue. What is ultimately so enraging is that this is largely a symbolic gesture, at least at the moment:

While it would not supplant Kansas law banning most abortions after the 22nd week of pregnancy, it does set the state up to more swiftly outlaw all abortions should the U.S. Supreme Court revisit its 1973 ruling making abortion legal, Nash said.

“It’s a statement of intent and it’s a pretty strong statement,” [Elizabeth] Nash [state issues manager of the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute] said. “Should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade or should the court come to some different conclusion, the state legislature would be ready, willing and able to ban abortions.”

Yeah, because the Kansas legislature has a really hard time getting its act together when it comes to restricting abortions in the state. Gotta get right out there on the precipice, ready to jump.

If my esteemed state lawmakers are super organized when it comes to getting all up in my uterus, they are mercifully inept when it comes to teaching controversial science topics. And when I say “controversial,” I mean factual. Which brings me to Exhibit B: The desire to raise a generation of climate change deniers.

This is essentially what it sounds like. Teach the controversy! Even if that controversy doesn’t exist, even a little bit. If there is one thing I’ve learned from living in a bright red state it’s that it doesn’t matter what the facts are. If you can say it with enough conviction, it’s true. And I guess if you can keep people from being educated enough to question you, all the better.

Luckily, one recent bill to mandate climate denier education is dead. But not because state legislators saw the light. The bill just wasn’t filed in time. Hey, whatever works, I guess.

If you’re the kind of person who thinks there is a scientific controversy surrounding climate change, then you’re probably the kind of person who might want to eliminate sustainable development entirely.

Oh, what’s that, Universe? Such people live in Kansas? By golly, you’re right! I give you Exhibit C.

Wichita Republican Dennis Hedke is super concerned about sustainable development. He thinks that state and local governments shouldn’t be allowed to do it. Because reasons?

This isn’t a matter of interpretation. The bill Hedke introduced is pretty in-your-face about it, right from section one:

No public funds may be used, either directly or indirectly, to promote, support, mandate, require, order, incentivize, advocate, plan for, participate in or implement sustainable development.

Ok, ok. Maybe the law defines sustainable development really narrowly. Oops. Nope.

“sustainable development means a mode of human development in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come, but not to include the idea, principle or practice of conservation or conservationism.

Yeah…because that would be the worst thing in the world.

I could go on, but you get the point. This state is hostile to women, science and education. And it doesn’t look to be letting up soon. Just stay away. Save yourself.


Related Posts:

Forcibly Quarantining People with HIV? Seriously, Kansas?

You Thought Kansas was the Worst for Women? It Gets Worser.

Kansas Doctor May Lose License for Refusing to Force 10-Year-Old to Birth


Read more: , , , , ,

Image credit: HPZ

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it


+ add your own
6:57AM PDT on Apr 22, 2013

Religious nutters.

When will they realise it is just superstition ?

It is amazing tha ta country that can put men on the moon has parts that are just so backward.

5:16AM PDT on Apr 20, 2013

Cletus W. You're a total idiot!

11:00AM PDT on Apr 17, 2013


You said: "how liberals are just fine with a procedure that has a 100% kill rate, but are totally hysterical about an inanimate object that is used to kill at an EXTREMELY SMALL rate."

The huge differences you conveniently ignored are:

Those who die from guns are living breathing independent humans; people who are loved & wanted by their families; people whose death leaves a big void in the lives of others. Whereas abortion kills a fetus, one that is not wanted by the mother, thus has little or no potential for a good life.

Furthermore, it is not an inanimate object that kills people, but idiots or criminals. Either by accident or with criminal intent. Abortion is neither accidental nor criminal, simply a necessary procedure done under controlled conditions.

Abortion is SUPPOSED to have 100% success rate (if not it's a botched abortion with horrible consequences to all). Whereas people are NOT supposed to die from gunshots. Even one accidental gun death is one too many.

10:23AM PDT on Apr 17, 2013

No Susan S. you still don't get it, the statement has nothing to do with "kill rates," that is a construct that you made up and interjected into the conversation. The statement has to do with constitutional rights, one of which the conservative right is more than happy to shit all over and the other they scream and rant whenever the tiniest restriction is considered.

8:50AM PDT on Apr 17, 2013

Susan S, and what really is the difference between reproductive rights and gun-owning rights? That one is backed by a wealthy, white, conservative, male group and the other backed by just women who might be liberal???

And another thing: You seem to be unaware that there are "liberals" who own guns and would never choose an abortion.

10:27PM PDT on Apr 16, 2013

Kevin B wrote: No Susan S. you are the one that doesn't understand. The Constitution gives a person the right to own a gun and women the right to have an abortion. What Carole described are what you right wing types have done to interfere with that right and she gave an example of how they could be applied to gun ownership.

Yeah, Kevin, as I said in my previous post, I understood what Carole was trying to say. I GOT IT!! What I was trying to point out in my post was how liberals are just fine with a procedure that has a 100% kill rate, but are totally hysterical about an inanimate object that is used to kill at an EXTREMELY SMALL rate.

8:44PM PDT on Apr 16, 2013

Carole L wrote: I just feel there needs to be regulations such as how many rounds can be fired by the single squeeze of the trigger.

There already are laws about automatic weapons. It's very expensive to get a license to own one of these and you must go thru an extensive background check. Very few people have this license. The handguns, rifles, and shotguns that are in common use and ownership are semi-automatic weapons - one round fired with one pull of the trigger. Our government is trying to confuse people who aren't familiar with how weapons work by calling some common use weapons as assault weapons. So, you already have your wish.

7:54PM PDT on Apr 16, 2013

I'm disappointed that certain states at the moment are pushing religion into the political sphere. They are giving the rights of some people's religion, or idea, more rights than a real person. This is ridiculous. People have rights, ideas don't have rights.

And to deny climate change is just ridiculous..

4:44PM PDT on Apr 16, 2013

Good point Dale, we have had a rash of comments urging people to leave Kansas & other states where stupidity has taken hold of state governments but with no one to push back Kansas is lost forever. I realize I’m probably dreaming but it sure would be nice if some very wealthy Democrats could foster a cadre of Democrats to move from state to state and return such outliers to America.

2:53PM PDT on Apr 16, 2013

Elaine A. -- You are aware that your 'caps' button and your 'stupid' button are both stuck in the 'ON' position? And you keep typing anyway?

And, you are aware that Jesus IS much closer to an east-coast "liberal" than a Kansan self-styled "conservative", aren't you? Please stop trying to belittle Jesus.

Although, I do suspect he will forgive you, sensing your debilitating affliction with a severe form of viral Teatardism.

You and the malignant troll Susan S. must have had a conjugal socio-cultural visit recently.

add your comment

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

Fantastic creatures. They should be out there living free.

The age range given for the lifespan is quite broad. Anyway, this is a splendid story! Thanks!

Thanks for sharing.

ads keep care2 free

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.