An Assessment of the Value Them Both Amendment: What it Says, Does, and Establishes

My Kansas Brothers and Sisters, is the Value Them Both Amendment in Bleeding Kansas right or wrong?  Should Christians vote for it?  It is time to ASSESS THE MATTER.

In Bleeding Kansas, for decades there have been numerous pro-life bills passed, which have regulated how, when, where, and so forth killing of the preborn is to be committed under color of law. These iniquitous bills are opposed by abolitionists as iniquitous, and will need to repealed when a true bill of abolition is passed into law. However, on August second of this year, Kansas voters will face an even deeper question on the ballot. What do we want to engrave into our state constitution concerning abortion?  This is wise to ponder, for however hard making an amendment to the constitution may be, it is exponentially more difficult to remove an amendment once inserted.

Abolitionists understand that there are many who sincerely believe that this is needed and will be good in Kansas for babies. Therefore when we speak, we must have charity and clarity and above all verity-the TRUTH. Our intent is to glorify the true and living God by speaking for truth and justice. Let's consider the amendment, see what it says, what it does, and what it seeks to establish.

I. What does the VTB actually say? Most of the people I have spoken with who support the amendment have not read it for themselves.  So let’s do that, reading the whole paper:

  A PROPOSITION to amend the bill of rights of the constitution of the state of Kansas by adding a new section thereto stating that there is no constitutional right to abortion, and reserving to the people the ability to regulate abortion through the elected members of the legislature of the state of Kansas. WHEREAS, This proposition to amend the bill of rights of the constitution of the state of Kansas shall be known and may be cited as the Value Them Both Amendment. Now, therefore: Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Kansas, two-thirds of the members elected (or appointed) and qualified to the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the members elected (or appointed) and qualified to the Senate concurring therein:

Section 1. The following proposition to amend the constitution of the state of Kansas shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the state for their approval or rejection: The bill of rights of the constitution of the state of Kansas is hereby amended by adding a new section to read as follows: "

§ Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother." 

Section 2. The following statement shall be printed on the ballot with the amendment as a whole: 

"Explanatory statement. The Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion, including, but not limited to, in circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother. 

"A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion. 

"A vote against the Value Them Both Amendment would make no changes to the constitution of the state of Kansas, and could restrict the people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion by leaving in place the recently recognized right to abortion."  

Now we have read what the VTB Amendment says.

II. What does the VTB do with abortion? While the amendment says that abortion is not a right in the state constitution, it also tells us what they want to do with abortion. REGULATE IT.

Five times the word regulate, regulating, or regulation is found in the whole paper, the introduction, the amendment itself, and the explanation. There is no wording that conveys the idea that the amendment gives space for abortion to be abolished, only regulated. 

Consider the following terminology of the actual amendment (the portion which would be in the state constitution):

§ Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother." 

“Regulation of abortion.” - The heading for the VTB is Regulation of abortion.  What is abortion?  It is homicide.  The intentional premeditated killing of an individual human.  Murder.  Regulating homicide as if it is “healthcare” (even unsavory healthcare that we don’t approve of) is unjust and unjustifiable.  It is not true telling about, nor true treatment of abortion. Yet, regulation is what this amendment is all about.  This amendment is for making laws to regulate the murder of a people group under color of law, rather than to protect that people group under the law from murder.

“Because Kansans value both women and children…” - This is the basis for the name of the amendment: “The Value Them Both” amendment. Yet, this amendment is NOT valuing women and children equally.  It does not secure equal protection AT ALL for children, as the rest of the amendment makes clear. It perpetuates partiality, which God hates.  He says that we are to have NO respect of persons. 

Deuteronomy 1:16-17 “And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. 17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's...”

James 2:1,4,8-9 “My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. ... 4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? ... 8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.”

(Exodus 23:2-3,6-7; Psalm 82; Psalm 119:126-128, Isaiah 10:1-2; Jeremiah 22:3). So the Value Them Both Amendment fails to value them both, and the rest of the amendment bears this out.  Let’s go on.

“…the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion…” - What if there had been a proposed wording for the Kansas state constitution back during the question of slavery at our beginnings as a state, that said, “Because Kansans value both slave holders and slaves” and went on to say that they were not saying that slavery was a right in Kansas, nor that the state government would give funding to slave holders to get slaves, but that they would secure the right to regulate how slaves were to be treated in Kansas, in what circumstances you could rape your slave woman or whip your slave if you had a mind to in Kansas, or wait a certain amount of days before you could tear a child from the arms of your slaves and sell the baby or parent away in Kansas? 

Could Christians, or any honest person really consistently say that it was “valuing them both”?  Jesus commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves.  That “as ourselves” gives the required level.  What is that level, what is that plain?  Give them the same protection we enjoy and expect for ourselves. That is, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW.  Anything less is partiality, respect of persons, and iniquity before God.

To say that we value both of two groups, and so we are establishing the right to regulate how, when, where, why, and in what circumstances we will let one group murder the other group is hypocritical on a heinous homicidal level. To my mind, VTB fits better as standing for “Violence to Babies” than “Value Them Both”.

“To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States,” - This wording exposes the false narrative that is embraced by the ProLife Movement, that Roe v Wade is the law of the land.  The U.S. Constitution, just like the Kansas State Constitution does NOT give anyone the right to commit murder against babies.  If they did, we would be bound to defy and obey God’s higher Law, which states “Thou shalt do NO murder” (Matthew 19:18).  However, both the National Constitution and the State Constitution recognize the right to life, to equal justice, etc., for mankind, humans in general.  This amendment’s wording is treating the idea that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe v Wade (and subsequent declarations), allowing a “right to abortion”, it is treating it as if it were constitutional.  That is false.  The Supreme Court is dead wrong in this.  They were wrong about slavery, and they are wrong now.  When they violated the law of the land (constitution) and the higher law of God, they were the ones who were unconstitutional.  They have NO authority to say that murder is okay.  As Rusty Thomas says, “Roe v Wade is the LIE, not the law of the land.”  And courts don’t make laws.  But the Pro-Life Movement has believed for decades that we must bow to the courts and fit within their parameters.  As Wesley Thomas and Bradley Pierce have said, “The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being.”

So the fact is, the only constitutional legislation about abortion that would truly be in accordance to the U.S. and Kansas Constitutions would be a bill that establishes “equal justice, protection from murder for the preborn just as for the born.”  And that would be a bill of abolition.

“the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion,” - Do the people of Kansas or the legislators who represent them, have the right to regulate murder?  NO.  They do have the right and DUTY to secure equal protection for those targeted for murder by abortion.       

“may pass laws regarding abortion,” – This phrase may be construed by some to mean that perhaps a bill to outlaw abortion could fit. However, it is not standing alone. Right afterwards, come express situations of exception that do not square with that interpretation. It does not say that the Kansas legislature may pass laws to abolish or do away with abortion. 

Summing up the 2^nd question: So what does the Amendment want to do about abortion? The volume of the whole Proposition is saying that regulation is the focus and intent.

 1. In the introduction: “and reserving to the people the ability to regulate abortion through the elected members of the legislature of the state of Kansas.”

 2. In the title of the amendment: “Regulation of abortion.”

 3. In the explanation statement on the ballot: “would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion”

 4. In the summary of what a yes or no vote is interpreted to mean:

YES “would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion.”

NO “could restrict the people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion by leaving in place the recently recognized right to abortion.”

It is in the light of all of those that we must see the intent in the wording “…may pass laws regarding abortion …” The laws are understood to be laws regulating the practice of murder by abortion.

“including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.” – Now some have pointed out the wording of the amendment “may pass laws…including, but not limited to…” and then the particular situations listed, thinking that it perhaps could be read to say that a law that would outlaw abortion in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother could be passed.  They surmise that hopefully it could allow even a bill of abolition.  Again, we do not want to misinterpret the messaging.  I can comprehend the caution and question here.  However, from the wording and the past record, strategy, and mindset of the Pro-Life Movement, it must be confessed that the intent is that it is speaking of laws allowing abortion in those circumstances, not outlawing abortion in those circumstances.  Pro-Life lobbyists, leaders, and legislators are the ones writing in those exceptions into their bills.  Pro-Life presidents openly have stated that those are the cases where they think abortions should be permitted.  This wording is simply giving one of the most common component of standard Pro-Life regulatory legislation: that of writing in those exceptions in which abortion will be allowed.

III. What does the VTB establish?  What will be the fruit of putting this into the Constitution law of Kansas?  It will establish partiality against the preborn, legitimize wicked opinions and iniquitous decrees, and preclude the most oppressed, marginalized, and murdered people group in our society today from the rights recognized to all humans in general given by our Creator and professed by our state.

Psalm 119:128 “Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.”

Abortion must be abolished, not regulated.