The article is really lazy and uses abortion rights (what use to be called choice) as a way to show disdain for Republicans and the virtuous nature of Democrats. Just take a look at some of the lines below and the overall tone of the article that is so clearly a service announcement for the Democratic party. 1. “Everybody in America thinks Kansas is so conservative, but Kansas is pretty staunchly anti-government,” Alie Scholes, an emergency medicine doctor, tells me. (Interpretation: Kansas isn't really conservative we're open minded because we believe in abortion. Do you think Alie is a registered Democrat? Hmmmm) 2. “My entire street is all registered Republicans, except for us, and they all had ‘Vote No’ signs out in their yards.” (Interpretation: See how virtuous I am, the lone oppressed Democrat standing up against tyranny.) 3. Back then, he was a “loyal Republican...I will not vote for any Republican that backs Trump or MAGA,” Mike says. (Interpretation: This is Nancy's real point, avoid Trump (and Republicans in general) no matter the cost. You too can switch your registration.) 4. She says she was an independent until the abortion vote, when she switched her registration to Democratic. “I’ve never had a sign in my front yard ever—we’re not the type to do that,” she says. “We did have a sign up for this.” They both voted no. (Interpretation: You too can become a Democrat and be part of the virtuous party.)

It could have been such a good piece but it didn't address the real questions, what was it about the bill that didn't sit right with those who voted no? What was it about the bill that sat right with people who voted yes?

The article doesn't cut the mustard for Common Sense; it's a veiled PSA.