“Expand Medicaid in Kansas to cover roughly 150,000 low-income Kansans (the Healthcare Access for Working Kansans / HAWK Act).”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Both cited sources are reachable and support the ATTEMPTED outcome for this specific promise (expand Kansas Medicaid to cover ~150,000 via the HAWK Act). Source 1 (KSAT/AP) documents the 2024 session in which the expansion bill was killed in the House Health and Human Services Committee — the exact phrase "The only yes votes on the 17-member committee came from its five Democrats" appears verbatim, and the article's actual sentence ("But Republicans, skeptical of the governor's projections and medical providers' ability to take on thousands of new Medicaid patients, wouldn't move the bill out of the health committee to the full House") faithfully supports the cited, ellipsis-condensed clause. It also references ~150,000 Kansans. Source 2 (WIBW) confirms both cited Kelly quotes verbatim, names the HAWK Act (Healthcare Access for Working Kansans), the ~150,000 figure, and the February 2025 reintroduction in both chambers. Together the sources establish a genuine, sustained gubernatorial effort that failed because the Republican-controlled legislature blocked it — a failure within the ordinary legislative process, with Kansas remaining one of the non-expansion states. ATTEMPTED is a failure rating and does not overstate the evidence: the promised outcome (expansion) was never achieved, and Kelly cannot enact it unilaterally. Quotes are accurate (one is a faithful ellipsis condensation) and no fabrication was found. Rating upheld.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.