To the editor:
No, Mr. Hicks. Kansans didn’t lose their minds, they used them.
Dane Hicks calls Kansans who voted against judicial elections “sightless lemmings” who swallowed “out-of-state billionaire bait hook, line and sinker.” That is a remarkably contemptuous way to describe voters who exercised their constitutional right and rejected his preferred amendment by 61% to 39%.
But Mr. Hicks has the issue exactly backward.
Kansas voters did not “give up” their right to choose their government. They chose to keep an impartial judiciary rather than turn Supreme Court justices into politicians who must campaign, raise money and cultivate political constituencies. Under Kansas’s existing system, justices are selected from nominees evaluated by a bipartisan commission and appointed by the governor, then face voters in retention elections. That system has existed since 1958.
That isn’t “lawyer-controlled government.” It is an attempt to ensure that judges are selected for their qualifications and legal judgment, not their fundraising ability, political connections or willingness to promise particular rulings.
Mr. Hicks’s proposed alternative would make judicial elections precisely the sort of money-driven political contests he claims to fear. If Supreme Court candidates must raise millions to win statewide elections, wealthy individuals, corporations, political organizations and opaque outside groups will inevitably have greater opportunities to influence who reaches the bench. The result could be judges chosen because they are effective political candidates rather than exceptionally qualified jurists.
And then Hicks reveals what is really driving his argument: abortion.
He calls abortion “fetal murder,” but that is a moral and political characterization – not a scientific fact. An embryo or fetus is biologically developing human life, but biological development is not synonymous with consciousness, sentience or personhood. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that the neural structures and connections necessary to experience pain do not develop until at least 24-25 weeks of gestation. It also identifies abortion as an essential component of comprehensive health care and says decisions about abortion should be made by patients in consultation with their health-care professionals, without undue interference by outsiders.
Hicks’s description of the Kansas Supreme Court “fantasizing” a constitutional right to abortion is equally misleading. In Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, the court did not invent a right out of thin air. It interpreted Section 1 of the Kansas Bill of Rights – which guarantees “equal and inalienable natural rights” including liberty – and concluded that those protections encompass personal autonomy, bodily integrity and the decision whether to continue a pregnancy.
That is called constitutional interpretation, not judicial “fantasy.”
And in 2024, the court struck down Kansas’s ban on dilation and evacuation abortions because it conflicted with that constitutional protection.
Mr. Hicks is entitled to believe abortion is morally wrong. He is not entitled to disguise that moral belief as medical fact or demand that every Kansas woman surrender control of her body to his theology.
Pregnancy occurs inside a woman’s body. Its risks, circumstances and consequences are hers – and her doctor’s – to evaluate.
Abortion is health care. The decision belongs to the patient and her medical professional, not to newspaper editorialists, political donors, legislators or judges chosen through partisan campaigns.
Kansans understood that.
They voted accordingly.
Michael Hathaway
St. John
