· 56 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Mar 29, 2026 at 3:36 AM

Hours after Kansas governor rejects pregnancy center protections, Legislature overrides her veto

Posted by 804Brady


Hours after Kansas governor rejects pregnancy center protections, Legislature overrides her veto • Kansas Reflector
Kansas Reflector
Hours after Kansas governor rejects pregnancy center protections, Legislature overrides her veto • Kansas Reflector
Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed a partisan, anti-abortion bill that offered protections to crisis pregnancy centers, which can function as alternatives to abortion clinics.

🚩 Report this post

56 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
South_Butterfly_6542 Mar 29, 2026 +1130
I always remind anyone I know that until 1974, it legal for a bank to turn down a woman's application for a credit card simply because she was a woman, and thus, most women that had credit cards (or bank accounts) had to get it in their husband's or father's name until 1974. 1974 wasn't that long ago. And if you're a woman and you want republicans in charge, we will rollback to 1974. Then 1874. And then 1774.
1130
Clicquot Mar 29, 2026 +582
My grandma (my dad's mom) told my mom and me a story once (my mom could not believe she hadn't heard it before). My grandpa was in Europe fighting in WWII, she was left at home with 2 kids. Something came up with the house and she went to the bank to get some money to deal with it. The bank guy refused to give her any money, asking her to have her husband come on in and get what he needed. She got LOUD, about how her husband was not really around at the moment, shouting about WHY he was gone and yadda yadda, assholes, GIVE ME MY Money, NOW. She promised that they would eventually meet her husband, and they were going to wish they hadn't. Much respect for this tiny but mighty woman who held all of it together for a couple years with a toddler and a newborn (my dad was born in 1943, my uncle in 1939) while my grandpa was busy being antifa. All those women, like my grandma are heros, battling uphill, backwards and in uncomfortable shoes. Grandpa did come back, safe and sound.
582
Main-Inspection-8605 Mar 29, 2026 +1
My grandfather was there at the liberation of Buchenwald. All his life, he’d talk about this guy higher up in his unit who was facing court martial for refusing to take his men somewhere. I think I found the guy, years after both men had passed laid to rest in a cemetery somewhere in Ohio. I remember reading up on history & basically that’s the forgotten history of that camp. This guy & three others snuck into the camp, starting releasing prisoners—they knew where they were going and who was held where—and before long they started releasing others & the prisoners were the ones that took down the guards & staff. Then _they_ started taking prisoners. But the worst were dispatched swiftly & violently. They liberated themselves. To add to this scene, the first Americans roll up in force. It’s an all-black regiment. I remember from a documentary years ago, where an older woman was explaining that most had never seen a black face, while many others had not seen one in years & now here there so many coming up to the fences. And when someone asked if they were afraid, she said not in the least. The scene is described as pandemonium but the former inmates are singing & cheering and the black GIs must’ve looked like angels then. By the time my grandpa’s unit arrived half a day later, the killing was all long well & done. I think the black GIs just saw the world they were forced into in there & understood. F****** commandant’s wife had lampshades made of human skin. You’d understand wanting vengeance in that case. I remember my grandfather telling me how they were instructed to not give any chocolate bars to the kids who ran up begging for them. By this point many had distended bellies. So this NCO hatched a plan to avoid casualties by having troops just storm the gates (the camp would’ve been on alert over this by this point in the month of the war that year), went in with a few buddies, started releasing & arming the prisoners guerilla-style so they could secure the camp themselves. He later got in hot water because some officer wanted bag him for not letting him call the shots. And every year my grandpas war buddies would meet up at different cities in the Midwest every year, all wanting to buy this dude a beer or know whatever happened to him. Wish I could share the story with someone. I worry about accounts getting lost in the cracks of time ever since I started studying lost media.
1
pecos_chill Mar 29, 2026 +1
Thank you for sharing that - you’re right, it’s important to tell these stories
1
dedsqwirl Mar 29, 2026 +1
They couldn't give food to the prisoners because they could die. It's called [refeeding syndrome.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refeeding_syndrome)
1
N1ck1McSpears Mar 29, 2026 +1
I’ve watched holocaust survivor stories on YouTube. There’s a lot of foundations that made an effort to record the stories so they aren’t lost.
1
Aggressive_Noise6426 Mar 29, 2026 +1
……did he go to the bank!!??? You can’t just leave us hanging like that. 
1
impy695 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Did they end up letting her access her money?
1
BigMikeInAustin Mar 29, 2026 +1
What's even more annoying about telling people this is some of the people I tell this to are women who actually lived it. They completely forgot.
1
Secure_Course_3879 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Ugh this happens to me with my mom and aunt. Interestingly enough, my grandma never forgets
1
ender8343 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Reminds me of a protest sign at a No Kings protest I went to yesterday. The sign had an image of the idealized fantasy 1950s house wife with the statement: We will not quietly go back to the 1950s. The people that envy the 1950s seem to mostly be too young to have experienced it at all or as an adult, so their view is for the TV shows that take place in the "1950s". Even those distorted views were only a "good" life if you were a cis hetero white male with the privilege to be at least middle class, and that is a lot of qualifiers on their so-called perfect society.
1
gardengarbage Mar 29, 2026 +1
They also forget how much the rich were taxed in the 50's.
1
Cicero912 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Not that much more. Marginal ≠ Effective tax rates. The tax system was set up differently, and just looking at the top line tax brackets isnot equivalent.
1
PropagandaPagoda Mar 29, 2026 +1
"I want a do-nothing job that pays me enough to maintain a family, and for the bank to pay half my mortgage because of stagflation and COLA adjustments, but f*** the labor class? I guess?"
1
wpbfriendone Mar 29, 2026 +1
When concervatives pretend to be "CIS hetero", it should really come with a disclaimer. Those bathhouses were as popular with "cis hetero" men in the 1950's, as Grindr is today at a republican convention.
1
marsisblack Mar 29, 2026 +1
Who the hell espousing going back to the 50s or looks at it idyllic? Not disagreeing or angry at this comment, but just disbelief there is anyone other than white males who like that time period.
1
accidentlife Mar 29, 2026 +1
There are women who want that life for themselves. If their family is fortunate enough to be able to have someone (husband *or* wife) stay at home to support the household, I am happy for them. The problem comes, of course, when they try to force their views on others. Especially when they don’t consider not everyone is as fortunate as them.
1
ender8343 Mar 29, 2026 +1
It does seem to be what a bunch of the MAGA folks want. Of course they normally match the qualifiers of cis hetero white male, but some seem to believe they would magically be in the at least middle class category if it happened.
1
kehakas Mar 29, 2026 +56
Here's a list of when women gained various rights  https://www.instagram.com/p/DVp2suADgTA/?igsh=MTlvYnU3dnM0eDB6bA==
56
wpbfriendone Mar 29, 2026 +1
And if the SAFE act passes, women's right to vote will be restricted. The whole thing about it being about requiring an ID is a lie, unfortunately you need to read the details of the bill and compare it with national statistics to see that its clearly going after women's voting rights, particularly non-white, married/divorced, poor women. They are changing the rules right before an election on purpose, some of the documents required are documents that have never been needed in the past, the bureocrazy and cost to get them will be too high for many.
1
thiosk Mar 29, 2026 +3
You gotta roll those numbers back. 1974 is rookie numbers 1874
3
impy695 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Nah, that's still post civil war
1
Jdevers77 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Originals at its finest… Our current Supreme “Court”: “Well, one of the founding fathers had a friend who had a daughter who clearly made poor decisions, this shows that our founding fathers all believed women couldn’t be trusted and were basically there purely to cater to the men who made all the decisions for them. This incontrovertible historical fact from the very founders of our country show that women should have no rights as ultimately they should be considered property of their rightful white Christian male next of kin or spouse.”
1
brain_overclocked Mar 29, 2026 +267
>Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed a partisan, anti-abortion bill that offered protections to crisis pregnancy centers, which can function as alternatives to health clinics with abortion services. >Within hours, the House and Senate voted to overturn her decision. >Kelly said Kansans have been clear. They don’t want the government involved in private medical decisions, she said in a Friday announcement. >“That means we shouldn’t be spending tax dollars trying to interfere with that very personal, very private, medical decision,” she said. “That’s why I’m vetoing this bill.” >The House voted 87-35 and the Senate voted 30-9 to override the veto. >House Bill 2635 exempted centers from regulations that dictate what information, services and resources centers can provide on pregnancy, childbirth and parenting. Centers, sometimes called pregnancy resource centers, typically don’t provide abortions and, instead, dispense inaccurate information about abortion pill reversal treatment, undercut regulatory oversight and target low-income populations, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
267
sackofmangoes Mar 29, 2026 +83
> Kelly said Kansans have been clear. They don’t want the government involved in private medical decisions, she said in a Friday announcement. In response to her veto in order to keep involving government with restricting private medical decisions. 
83
PlaneAffectionate113 Mar 29, 2026 +362
This article is confusing, just as confusing as pregnancy crisis centers are for women. She vetoed a bill that loosened restrictions on what information pregnancy crisis centers are allowed to dessiminate to the women seeking help from them. The information that they would like to give out it all the stuff like “your baby is YOURS” “At 4 weeks it has a heartbeat, a soul, etc”. These ‘crisis’ centers are usually religious centers aimed at manipulating women’s emotions just long enough so that they miss the cutoff for a legal abortion. They disguise and market themselves as crisis centers but are pro-life centers preying on vulnerable women. Basically, she vetoed a bill that seeks to PROTECT and ENCOURAGE these crisis centers. Hence why the article says “bi-partisan ANTI-abortion bill”, not “pro-choice bill”. The governor is listening to the women in Kansas who want abortion/autonomy protections. The state senate and house across party lines are ignoring what the voters want and are pushing pro-life legislation.
362
gardengirl99 Mar 29, 2026 +1
I hate those places. John Oliver did a Last Week Tonight episode about them a while back. They actively discourage abortion and lie to girls and women. They waste their time, running out the ticking clock during which women can still get an abortion. And "5 weeks gestation" is actually only 3 weeks pregnant because they count weeks from first date of last period, not ovulation. And electrical activity is not a heart. You can make a dissected frog's heart beat by adding the proper medications.
1
yarash Mar 29, 2026 +1
Thank you for this explanation.
1
Riffsalad Mar 29, 2026 +1
She vetoed a bill that is restrictive of private medical decisions, your point is nonsense.
1
yarash Mar 29, 2026 +1
Calling them medical is nonsense. Theyre biblical based decisions.
1
PlaneAffectionate113 Mar 29, 2026 +1
How is a bill that allows pregnancy crisis centers to disseminate false, misleading, and downright manipulative medical information to pregnant women “restrictive of private medical decisions”?? A woman can still seek to go to a pregnancy crisis/resource center or straight to planned parenthood. And these resource/crisis centers don’t exactly advertise on the building that they’re religious centers aimed at steering women away from abortion at all costs, even at the cost of honesty. Most women going to these centers don’t realize it’s a religious center and not an actual medical clinic, and that they’re talking to priests and religious zealots rather than doctors and councilors with medical degrees.
1
rooktakesqueen Mar 29, 2026 +197
I feel like I've gone cross-eyed reading that headline. I assume this is referring to those fake crisis pregnancy centers that just try to delay abortions long enough to be illegal? So the legislature overrode her rejection of protection for preventing abortions?
197
PlaneAffectionate113 Mar 29, 2026 +74
More like protection for misleading and manipulating vulnerable women who are considering abortion to either keep or give their child up for adoption.
74
FlemethWild Mar 29, 2026 +35
That’s it, you’ve got it right.
35
Schiffy94 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Remember when Kansas held a referendum and kept abortion legal? Take the f****** hint.
1
verugan Mar 29, 2026 +1
No but we're wrong you see. We don't really know what we want and the people in power just know better /s
1
GreenDavidA Mar 29, 2026 +1
We’ve been told the same thing in Ohio
1
HolldayReward Mar 29, 2026 +81
Kansas just pulled a political speedrun. The Governor vetoes a bill to protect crisis centers, and the supermajority overrides it before the ink is even dry. When one side has a veto-proof grip on the statehouse, the Governor's pen is basically just for show.
81
Arqlol Mar 29, 2026 +1
It's very odd to me how they can vote state wide for a Dem governor twice yet be so lopsided in the legislature. Assuming it's gerrymandered heavily.
1
emilioooooooo Mar 29, 2026 +1
So much confusion in these comments! [This is what a crisis pregnancy center is.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pregnancy_center) They are super fucked up and should absolutely NOT have more protections. The bill essentially exempts them from a requirement to provide factual information. So they can continue to lie to women about their babies having fingernails or whatever in order to scare them out of abortions. F*** the Kansas legislature.
1
TomKansasCity Mar 29, 2026 +1
Crusty old men deciding and taking control of women's lives. Women have to really appreciate this.
1
gavinashun Mar 29, 2026 +50
The title of this post is misleading.
50
Goblinguy17 Mar 29, 2026 +4
Please explain
4
PlaneAffectionate113 Mar 29, 2026 +86
She didn’t reject pregnancy center protections. She vetoed a pro-life pregnancy crisis center bill that sought to exempt pregnancy crisis centers from having to disseminate scientifically and statistically accurate information to pregnant women so that they can lie and manipulate them into not terminating their pregnancies. The state house and senate are pushing the pro-life legislation here, where as the governor vetoed it in support of the Kansas voters as the voters of Kansas have repeatedly voted for abortion protections.
86
Downtown_Panic_6086 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Kansas is a joke
1
Feisty-Ostrich-7099 Mar 29, 2026 +9
Kansas politics really be like veto speedrun followed by an instant UNO reverse car from the Legislature.
9
Pardot42 Mar 29, 2026 +1
What's in them pedo files?
1
TaterTappin Mar 29, 2026 +1
Bunch of f****** ghouls.
1
Ok-Loan1643 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Republicans heed the warnings: you can't override the will of the people once they get their hackles up. . . .
1
NotTobyFromHR Mar 29, 2026 +1
You definitely didn't read the article. It's the exact thing you stated, except it was republican legislature overriding a veto which was a good veto. This a pro life protection for fake pregnancy crisis centers.
1
Ok-Loan1643 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Thanks for your clarification. I'm from Missouri and our Republican legislature really is trying to override the will of the electorate. Ready, fire, aim is not a good look. . .
1
ikesbutt Mar 29, 2026 +1
Well that's good news. Maga being assholes again
1
inkcannerygirl Mar 29, 2026 +1
In this case the magas are the legislature, pushing through a bill that lets anti-abortion "pregnancy crisis centers" not get in trouble when they lie to people
1
[deleted] Mar 29, 2026 +1
[deleted]
1
Black_Absinthe Mar 29, 2026 +1
I think the misleading headline confused you. The legislature overriding the veto is misogyny winning. The bill seeks to protect crisis centers who disseminate anti-abortion propaganda to the women who come to them for help. The law they just forced through prevents centers from being punished for a variety of things including: telling pregnant women their fetus has a soul and aborting it will cause that soul to suffer for eternity Or to intentionally delay appointments and treatments until the deadline for legal abortion has passed Or a million other ways they manipulate these vulnerable women while now legally being able to say "we're basically a planned parenthood and a legitimate medical center even though our doctors can now legally tell you things that are not backed by medical research at all and we're funded by right-wing lobbyists" It is now legal for me, a religious activist, to open a medical clinic and call myself an alternative health professional. I can then tell pregnant women it is my medical opinion that an abortion will permanently damage her uterus and prevent her from having kids ever. If she develops health conditions as a result of my bad advice not only do I not go to jail but now she cannot even sue me because both me and my bad advice are protected by the state.
1
fermat9990 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Thanks a lot for explaining!
1
← Back to Board