Comment history

Does Kansas need an equal rights amendment to its constitution?

The reason it is needed is because it makes a stronger case for true discrimination cases against women. As it stands, all brown haired males or farisian..or whatever you said, you're all still covered. Women are NOT covered under the constitution, and the previous SCOTUS rulings have SAID SO.

You will see a stronger support of the 2nd amendment supporting someone's gun rights, but a woman? To be considered constitutionally equal? We just can't have that now can we?

It is a sad state to think that 40% of this poll says we don't need equal rights for women in the constitution of Kansas. And it is even sadder that some of those are from women.

This bill benefits men too, it says women are no more and no less equal. It would also keep women from having SPECIAL rights.

February 25, 2009 at 9:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Proposed equal rights amendment to state constitution draws praise, fears

This is so ridiculous. The language is as simple as can be for just this reason, so that nobody could try to make it mean anything else.

Women are equal to men. How much more out there can you be to be opposed to such a notion?

Protecting rape? Seriously- you think NOW would be trying to protect rapists? NOW pushed for many of those rape laws, and there is NO WAY they want to see those laws weakened.

You had to be there to see just how ridiculous the arguments from 'concerned women' were.

February 24, 2009 at 4:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Victim had worked to reduce violence against women

What a bunch of f'd up bs you people spew. Trying to get inside her mind, what she knew, what she didn't know...this is what happens with women who were abused, the blame gets thrown back on them. BS. Women never fall in love with an abuser. They fall in love with very charming men and sometimes the signs that they're going to abuse aren't so very crystal clear. The education that she fought for was that women can find themselves in that situation so easy, and then feel that it isn't so bad, that it can't happen to them...whether you're an advocate OR NOT. She had LEFT the relationship. That is THE most dangerous time for a woman. And it also shows you can do EVERYTHING RIGHT and still wind up a victim. There is no CONTRADICTION about her. I'm glad the scumball died. And you know what- I realize that innocent till proven guilty blah blah- I believe in it. But I'm not sitting in a darn courtroom as a juror- and that was someone who inspired MY life dead now, so I CAN make my judgement in the court of public opinion. Impartiality can kiss my hind end.I know that many of you are barely out of high school, but I was just thinking about this on my way home from work...I didn't ever look at Jana as if she was someone just out of high school or just another college student. I looked at her as a peer and a friend and I'm 36 years old. So maybe some of you ought to take a lesson from Jana's playbook- look at how far it got her so soon.And as far as the racial crap, that can just stop too. Jana hated racism, and she wouldn't be racist today- even if she knew what was going to happen to her. This guy obviously had serious issues. Lets deal with that rather than his race. And no, I'll never say that he should had never been released. I think the time should equal the crime. We lock people up for what they do- not for what they might do.

July 5, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


Well considering that I live clear across the state, and others as well, we've been on the phone, sending emails. The man was cuban so he was not illegal. There isn't even any justification for using this as an issue. I could mention that he was such a 'christian'....but I don't think that has anything to do with it either.I hope right now that he's on a raft going back home and is being circled by big angry hungry sharks. Such an emotional rollercoaster. I'm furious and baffled and so so sorrowful and those emotions just keep coming in waves. And really I wasn't THAT close to her, but I adored her just the same. Whenever we got together it was just like we were all best friends.

July 4, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


And just what are we, her friends, supposed to be doing?What the hell are we supposed to do?

July 4, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )


Jana was a truly great person, she was a lobbyist for Kansas NOW. NOW advocates against violence against women. Its so wrong in this world that she fought against this kind of thing only to become a victim.She has friends all over this state and beyond. And that's a lot for a 25 year old to have such an amazing record. She had the brightest future of anyone I knew.My heart just breaks today. I always looked forward to seeing Jana.

July 4, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

City not alone in defending smoking ban

Marion I disagree with you about this being liberal vs Neocon. Libs believe in choice, remember?

Most of the ones I've encountered for the bans are neocons.

Haven't you figured out yet, this isn't about ideology, this is about dictating what others do with their lives- a very neocon philosophy!

March 4, 2007 at 7:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

City not alone in defending smoking ban

Smoking bans are not for protecting the health of non-smokers, it's a bunch of hooey. Amazing we have so many centurians when they were exposed to all that deadly smoke for so many years!

Take for example all the new businesses banning smoking on all their properties- even the public owned sidewalks. Not in your car, not in a bar.

This is just what nonsmokers wish to do, dictate what others do, and it doesn't matter what the real science is on second-hand smoke, they ignore it.

They don't like it, therefore you shouldn't do it.

Next they'll be forbidding cheesecake. Non smokers need to just get over themselves.

February 26, 2007 at 7:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Measure calls for equal rights

I would like to point out also that this amendment has ZERO to do with a woman's right to choose. Whoever put that out there is misguided, and it's not an attempt to sneak that in as part of the deal.

Roe could still be overturned with this bill, the merits of choice are completely separate from this.

So ALL people should be able to get behind this amendment no matter how they feel on the abortion issue. This merely states that men and women have equal protection under the law, the rights that are guaranteed to men will apply to women as well. That is it, nothing more.

The only people who would not support this are those who feel women are not equals. And it's a very sad day in America if there are enough of them to keep this bill from passing.

This is something that should have been done thirty years ago. It's just long overdue.

February 20, 2007 at 7:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )