The Proponents
Research indicates the Amendment is primarily the project of three entities: Family Policy Alliance, Kansans for Life, Inc., and the Catholic Church. The second and third are well known in Kansas politics, but the first probably is not. This essay therefore examines Family Policy Alliance and its relationship with two entities mentioned in the last essay, Kansas Family Voice, Inc. and Value Them Both Association. The essay will conclude with a brief consideration of the arguments raised by the proponents of the Amendment; arguments which do not differ much despite the diversity among the entities themselves.
Family Policy Alliance: This is a foreign not for profit corporation organized in Colorado. It is a substantial entity with a developed corporate structure and, according to its most recent annual report, over 9,700 members. Family Policy Alliance of Kansas, on behalf of which Brittany Jones testified at the January 15, 2021, hearing before the Kansas legislature, is a trade name for Family Policy Alliance.
The fact that Family Policy Alliance of Kansas is a trade name of a foreign corporation is obscured in a press release found on the Kansas Family Voice, Inc. website:
“TOPEKA, Kan. – August 2, 2021 – Today, the Family Policy Alliance of Kansas announces its decision to rebrand as Kansas Family Voice. The organization will continue with the same team and same mission but will use a new name, logo, and website moving forward.”
But this is misleading. The press release suggests that the prior actions of Family Policy Alliance of Kansas, which included advocacy for a Kansas constitutional amendment, and the actions of Kansas Family Voice, Inc., are those of the same organization—in other words, actions of a single domestic corporation which has now changed its name. But a search of the Kansas Secretary of State business entity database returns nothing for “Family Policy Alliance of Kansas,” while a search for “Kansas Family Voice, Inc.” shows it was formed on March 31, 2021, as a Kansas not for profit corporation. Kansas Family Voice, Inc., in other words, was not rebranded from Family Policy Alliance of Kansas, but separately incorporated; it did not exist when Ms. Jones was testifying to the legislature.
As for the relationship between Family Policy Alliance and Kansas Family Voice, Inc., the websites for both entities acknowledge a continuing connection. The first lists the second among its “State Allies,” and the second says it is “affiliated” with the first. This relationship is significant because Kansas Family Voice, Inc., although a separate legal entity, does not have the actual substance of Family Policy Alliance. According to its most recent report, Kansas Family Voice, Inc. has but one officer and five members, and its mailing address is, as this writer has determined, a box at a UPS store in Wichita. Family Policy Alliance would seem to be, by weight alone, quite an ally to Kansas Family Voice, Inc.
A similar situation exists between Family Policy Alliance and Value Them Both Association. This writer could find nothing on the valuethemboth.com website about Value Them Both Association aside from the subscription, “Paid for by Value Them Both, Julie Samaniego, Treasurer.” This information is required by Kansas election laws because the public has an interest in knowing the sponsor of political advertising. More on that later.
When one clicks on the “Privacy Statement” at the bottom of a page at the valuethemboth.com website, however, this is the first sentence: “Family Policy Alliance is committed to protecting the personal information that you provide and entrust to us when using our websites.” Notice, “our websites.” A privacy statement is a legal document which attorneys presumably review to protect the entity they represent. Or, at least, one could make that assumption for an entity as large as Family Policy Alliance. Considered as a whole, the privacy statement on the valuethemboth.com website appears to be a public acknowledgment by Family Policy Alliance that it is running the site.
Indeed, one could only doubt that Value Them Both Association has the resources to run the website, much less the overall campaign for the Amendment. The website was obviously developed with professional skill, not only well-designed and functional in itself, but also effective in establishing a brand. The pink and blue color scheme, the mother and child logo, the fonts and photographs—all suggest the involvement of advertising and public relations experts. The branding found on the website is then extended to numerous items of physical media: signs, bumper stickers, information sheets, etc. What entity has the personnel, office space, and information technology to coordinate all of this, and where does the money come from?
Value Them Both Association, according to its most recent corporate report, has three officers and three members, the latter of whom could be the officers themselves. For the location of its principal office, Value Them Both Association lists an address in Topeka which, according to this writer’s research, is also the address of at least two law firms, one of which clarifies that it meets clients there by appointment only. This writer has not driven to Topeka to confirm his suspicion, but the address appears to be shared office space.
Admittedly, Value Them Both Association could be a funnel through which the money flows, thereby satisfying the “Paid for” statement on the website. But a mere funnel does not make decisions. Who’s running this ship? Like much concerning the Amendment, that is not clear.
Arguments: The Amendment’s proponents argue in a fashion common among today’s elites: There is a crisis! Only extreme measures will work! Now, do as you are told! Each is considered in turn.
Crisis. The rhetorical advantage of a crisis is the motivation it provides for extreme measures. If you want a family to abandon their house and all their belongings, for example, you must convince them of a crisis, perhaps that the house is on fire. Now they will run out with nothing in their hands. Only a crisis will do.
This writer has before him an information sheet produced by Value Them Both Association. At the top are a number of graphics purporting to show that the Hodes & Nauser decision in 2019 produced a significant increase in Kansas abortions. So there are really two parts to the claim: 1) the number of abortions in Kansas has significantly increased since Hodes & Nauser, and 2) Hodes & Nauser caused the increase.
The source cited for the number of abortions is a 2020 report from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. This report confirms, as the information sheet alleges, that more out-of-state residents received abortions in Kansas than did Kansas residents. It also confirms that Kansas abortions increased from 2019 to 2020 by about 9 percent. When combined with a 2019 report, the information sheet’s statements about significant increases of abortions for out-of-state residents from Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas are similarly confirmed.
Thus with splashy graphics and evidence of an increase, the panic has already begun. Arguments based on contrary facts, such as that, according to the same report, the number of abortions in Kansas during 2020 was lower than nearly every year before 2013, would hardly make a dent. And it would matter little that even cursory research shows abortions were up nationwide in 2020, with a number of causes suggested, including covid. Such arguments could even be perceived as evidence of a cold-hearted disregard.
That is the tragedy of crisis mongering. There are genuine crises in the world, but crisis is useful as a rhetorical trick precisely because it takes the public’s eye off the ball. Abortion itself is the crisis, and Hodes & Nauser is only part of the story. Abortion was bad in this state long before the Kansas Supreme Court issued its decision, as the first essay showed. But if someone wanted to take Kansas abortion law back the way things were in 2018, then Hodes & Nauser is precisely where they would focus the public’s attention.
This brings the analysis to the cause for the increase in abortions. The proponents of the Amendment again identify only one—Hodes & Nauser. But the increase from out-of-state residents could just as easily be driven by what is happening in those states, not in Kansas. The three states listed on the information sheet, Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas, all had significant abortion restrictions. Moreover, those restrictions have apparently increased since Dobbs. This writer has not researched the laws of each state, but according to media reports, Oklahoma has now banned most abortions, Texas has done the same, and so has Arkansas.
The proponents’ argument therefore proves too much. If the driver of abortions in Kansas is the relative availability of the procedure as compared to neighboring states, what happens after Dobbs? Will the Amendment ban most abortions, allowing Kansas to keep up with the Joneses? Not even the proponents say so. Here is the answer the valuethemboth.com website gives to the question: “Does Value Them Both ban abortion?”
“The only thing Value Them Both bans is taxpayer funded abortion. It simply allows you through your elected officials to continue to place limits on the abortion industry, as we have done for the last five decades. It does not ban abortions.”
The situation under federal law was fairly uniform. Kansas unfortunately hosted some very evil abortion doctors, and so people did travel here for late-term abortions. But Roe and its progeny ensured that no state could substantially restrict abortion. With Dobbs, however, federal oversite is lessened, and Kansas will stop being an abortion destination only when its laws become as restrictive as those of neighboring states. The Amendment does not do that.
Extreme measures. The genius of the Amendment is its presumed moderation. Here is how Elizabeth Kirk characterized things in her testimony to the Kansas legislature:
“The proposed amendment is a modest response to Hodes. It reverses Hodes by declaring the state constitution contains no right to abortion or right to funding for abortion. But, otherwise it leaves the state constitution neutral on the question of abortion, leaving difficult questions to the political and legislative processes of deliberation and compromise.”
As this writer described in his fourth essay, he disagrees the Amendment leaves the state constitution neutral on the question of abortion. He thinks the Amendment, as interpreted by the Kansas Supreme Court, probably would protect abortion. And, as described in his second and third essays, he believes the existing constitution restricts abortion under Sec. 1 of the Kansas Bill of Rights, which protects a “natural right[] . . . to life.” The Kansas Supreme Court did not see it that way in Hodes & Nauser, of course, but then the State of Kansas did not make the argument. The words of Sec. 1 are still there, waiting for another day, so long as the Amendment is not adopted.
In any event, Ms. Kirk’s statement fits the strategy of the Amendment’s proponents, which might be summarized as: “We’re not doing much, so don’t worry.” But how moderate is that approach, exactly? For a pro-lifer, it is not moderate at all. It is instead extreme—hence the need for a crisis.
The premise of the Amendment is that Kansas should go back to 2018, which given the law in place then, is simply unbelievable. The website for the Archdiocese of Kansas City puts it this way:
“The Value Them Both Amendment passed both the House and the Senate and will appear on the ballot in August 2, 2022. Voting “Yes” for Value Them Both:
-Will restore our Constitution to the way it was before a 2019 court ruling cleared the path for nearly unlimited abortion in Kansas.
-Will protect existing commonsense restrictions on the abortion industry.
-Safeguard Kansans’ ability to have:
-Parental notification requirements for minor girls
-Clinic inspection, safety & sanitation standards
-Prevent late-term and state tax-payer funded abortion
-Is supported by healthcare professionals because commonsense regulations ensure women will be safer, healthier, and more protected. Source: Minutes for HCR5003-Committee on Federal and State Affairs
While Value Them Both will not stop all abortions, it affirms that Kansans still want to be able to protect babies and women by placing limits on the abortion industry.”
This is a family running from their burning house. This is a pro-life mind in full-crisis mode. This is an archdiocese saying abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Under any rational calculation, the Amendment is an extreme measure.
Do what you are told. The final element is obvious. The Amendment’s proponents rely almost exclusively on appeals to emotion and authority. Another example recently arrived in the mail. It is a card from the political action committee of Kansans for Life, Inc., which features a picture of a young woman cuddling a baby and statements like: “YES is the pro-life vote!” But measuring 66 square inches on each side, the card omits every word of the Amendment except for “value,” “both,” and “the.”
The proponents are not treating Kansas voters as rational actors. If the proponents were to respond that this is how politics is done, they could be reminded that they are claiming moral authority. Their arguments should match the basis for their claim.