Thank you for articulating something that I have thought about for some time now.
I don’t think Buckley really did much to preserve Conservatism in the sense that many of us define it, but only some version that was just enough to the Right of center to pretend that he was.

No references – just a gestalt of impressions over the years.

It affirmed Dobbs in the sense that it was the state deciding on abortion. However, in 2019 the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution includes a right to abortion, based on reasoning such as this:

The decision, in which one of the seven justices dissented, cites in its first sentence the first section of the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights: “All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

The decision continues: “We are now asked: ‘Is this declaration of rights more than an idealized aspiration? And, if so, do the substantive rights include a woman’s right to make decisions about her body, including the decision whether to continue her pregnancy? We answer these questions, ‘Yes.’ ”

The court continued that “this right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life — decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy.”

That was in the Roe days, of course.

Kansas presently allows abortions up to week 22. What was being voted on was whether that state constitutional right to abortion should remain or whether the state constitution should be interpreted as establishing no right to abortion. In that sense, at least for now as a result of both the earlier Kansas Supreme Court decision plus this week’s vote, the state can’t ban abortion entirely unless they amended the state constitution to specifically say that abortion could be banned because the language in question does not establish a right to abortion (which was what the Tuesday vote was about) – or unless the Kansas Supreme Court revisited the question and interpreted the present wording of the state constitution differently than previously. Apparently, however, even now the state could restrict abortion to a shorter gestation period.

Unless I’m misunderstanding the Kansas vote – and I suppose it’s possible that I am – a possible ban on abortion was indirectly involved, by implication. In other words, keeping the right to abortion in the constitution bans a ban on abortion, until the constitution is amended to allow otherwise.

Going by the recent history of elections with a strong third party, that would pretty much guarentee a D win.

…A rank and putrid “odor” from which the entire country—AND ITS FUTURE—is downwind.

A distinct “odor” of ethical decay…of moral corruption…of warped and twisted compromise….

Of nothing good.