Wall Street Journal gives surprisingly even-handed coverage to Kansas abortion vote

I get a free Wall Street Journal subscription through work, otherwise I probably wouldn’t bother since I already subscribe to two national “dailies.”

However, the WSJ news pages have always been quite good, despite the fact that it is owned by Rupert Murdoch. In fact, its article today about the surprisingly lopsided Kansas abortion amendment vote in favor of abortion rights has been one of the best articles I’ve read in terms of analysis. And the article’s authors don’t waste a single sentence on the ridiculously baseless arguments coming from some Republicans as to why they lost in Kansas. (Interestingly, neither did the paper’s normally whack-a-doodle editorial writers when they weighed-in about the Kansas vote.)

“If it’s going to happen in Kansas, it’s going to happen in a whole lot of states,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.). “The strong pro-choice turnout we saw last night in Kansas will continue well into the fall, and Republicans who side with these extremist MAGA policies that attack women’s rights do so at their own political risk.”

State election records show that women accounted for 70% of Kansans who registered to vote after the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling, according to Tom Bonier, a Democratic voter-data analyst.

The referendum was soundly rejected in the state’s suburban and metropolitan areas, losing by 16 percentage points in the Wichita area and by 36 points in the area around the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park.

Support for the amendment was stronger in the state’s rural communities. Still, the results suggested that some Republicans opposed it. In Cowley County, on the southern border with Oklahoma, Mr. Trump drew 68% support in 2020, but voters there narrowly rejected the referendum on Tuesday, 52% to 48%. Mr. Trump had won 72% support in rural Allen County, but voters split evenly on the referendum, with 50% for and against it.

Another thing I found interesting about the WSJ coverage of Kansas is that it gave prominent front-page placement in the print edition for the story. (See below.)

However, when I last checked the online WSJ home page, the Kansas news article was nowhere to be found, but the in-house editorial was there.

You can read the rest of the news article here.

Leave a Reply