START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
1,438,132 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
6:46AM PDT on Mar 10, 2015

No State is the WORST. It's up to the people in the State.

3:24AM PDT on Mar 10, 2015

too bad the tornado didn't sweep kansas away... sickening, the kansas state legislators are amerikkka's isis.

9:00PM PDT on Mar 9, 2015

@Claire J, fetuses have not been proven t feel either pain or fear. An adult woman facing an unwanted pregnancy CAN experience those things and so much more.
@Susan S, Heather is spot on, in her analysis of who supports which. Obviously the sheeple will bow to the will of rich white males, who, by the way, have no business denying abortions, as they will never get pregnant. It is beyond me how anyone can claim to be pro-life but support assault weapons and deny sick women abortions which may save their lives.They also deny social programs for all those precious fetuses once they are born. These folks are messed up and Kansas sounds like hell.

4:57AM PDT on Mar 9, 2015

Well, imo once an embryo has enough of a nervous system to experience pain and fear as it's killed, you shouldn't kill it without an extremely good reason, and I don't think it's actually a tragedy to teach kids to examine both sides of a debate, even if one side has a lot more evidence going for it. But wanting to ban sustainable development is just insane, and suggests Hedke may not understand what sustainable development is. Banning sustainable development is like obliging local authorities to spend all their capital without re-investing.

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!

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.

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

Paul, you wrote " So a cheetah killing a gazelle is a murderer? And your second point about the differences…

Recently I watched Al Gore's film he made in 2006 - An Inconvenient Truth. Similar statistical tracking…

A rare person ... May God double his blessing over and over!

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.

site feedback


Problem on this page? Briefly let us know what isn't working for you and we'll try to make it right!