Arizona Supreme Court rules to uphold 1864 near total abortion ban

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

At least the voters are allowed to vote on the issue in November. Almost certain it will be overturned.

[wbrocks67]

You can't say you support states rights on this issue and then say you're not happy with the ruling. They are not compatible. This is a direct result of states getting to do whatever they want after Roe fell.

[7,052,770]

Bad news for the women of Arizona. Excellent news for Biden.

Yeah l don't want to celebrate too hard because this ruling is a disaster, but it also should help Biden's chances and D trifecta chances, which raises the chances of codifying Roe and abolishing these laws nationwide, which will be good in every state.

[Old Man Willow]

This definitely stacks the deck against Trump in AZ.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

I can't believe I'm saying this but f-ck it I'm voting yes on the referendum. Religious right weirdos need to be taught a lesson.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You mean to tell me that the state of Arizona hasn't updated their laws on abortion since before Abraham Lincoln was assassinated?

and I thought AZ wasn't a state until the late 1800s or early 1900s?

Territories still had laws

ok I see, so the laws when it was a territory were all brought over into the new states law books after statehood occurred.  I'm just very surprised by this decision, that the court would look to a law from 1864 in the year 2024.

Wisconsin's abortion ban was even older, from 1849.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

You mean to tell me that the state of Arizona hasn't updated their laws on abortion since before Abraham Lincoln was assassinated?

and I thought AZ wasn't a state until the late 1800s or early 1900s?

Territories still had laws

The total population of Arizona was about 7,000 people in 1864.  The idea that a law somehow "passed" by that territorial population would bind a state today of over 7 million is pretty laughable.

What? Laws don't just go away when the population increases. If an old law is no longer reflective of current attitudes, it can be repealed. If it isn't, then it's still the law. This particular law has been reaffirmed by the Arizona legislature in the early 1900s when it revised its criminal code and again in the 70s. This case was a dispute over whether or not the law was repealed - I haven't read the case yet and don't really know anything about Arizona law so I have no idea who's right as a matter of statutory construction. Obviously my preference would be for the dissents interpretation to win out, but if a law is on the books, it's still the law until somebody changes it, it's not going to magically go away because it was too old

Of course laws don't go away because population increases.  But I think it's reasonable to say there's a de facto minimum population that must be present in an area before they can claim some sort of permanent sovereignty over the area.

A territory was supposed to have a population of at least 60,000 men before it could become a state (though there were exceptions in the American West).  So I don't really think a population much less than that prior to statehood should be able to legitimately bind a population after statehood.

Now if the law were re-ratified after statehood as you describe, that's a totally different story, and the headlines here aren't presenting an accurate picture.

[President Johnson]

At least the voters are allowed to vote on the issue in November. Almost certain it will be overturned.

I wonder whether that helps Biden to win the state.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Let's discuss what else existed in medicine during the 1860's, shall we?

- It was still believed that the body was made up of four humors: phlegm, black bile, yellow bile, and blood.  The balance of these humors was believed to contribute to a person's health and mental stability. 

- The idea of germs and bacteria causing illness was radical and widely controversial. 

- We administered mercury and lead to treat illness. 

- We used "water therapy", where people suffering from mental illness were forcibly held underwater until they lost consciousness.  If they could be revived, it was believed they would be cured. 

Let's bring these things back while we're at it. 

Please do not give Republican legislatures any further ideas.

[GAinDC]

Funny how so many Republicans, despite touting their prolife record for years, have suddenly "moderated" their stance over the past couple years.

They got us into this mess, and now they claim they can get us out of it?? Please...

At some point, does the triangulation from Republicans like Kari Lake and Trump hurt their support and enthusiasm from the pro-life crowd?

[PSOL]

Well, to many on the fence about Biden there’s no reason to vote for him as he’s going to win harder than in 2020 across the ballot.

We are primed for another round of democratic dominance not seen since FDR.

[GAinDC]

Well, to many on the fence about Biden there’s no reason to vote for him as he’s going to win harder than in 2020 across the ballot.

We are primed for another round of democratic dominance not seen since FDR.

I wish...

There are many Republicans who will vote Republican up and down the ballot while also supporting pro choice policies. Make it make sense

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Horrifying for the women particularly of AZ even if this is minimally enforced and if a referendum or D trifecta overturns.

Have to think this will have a temporary negative impact on investment and (domestic) immigration into the state. I can't tell you the number of young professional women I've spoken to who say they wouldn't consider moving to a state with strict abortion restrictions. Arizona is going to be off the table for a lot of people interested in moving there and starting a family; these have been a part of what turned AZ into a state and above-average economy in the last decade-plus. Even if the state removes these restrictions in early 2025, that's still (ironically) nine months of damage done to the state economy.

[emailking]

Yeah I think I have to agree, assuming there's a referendum on the ballot I think it's likely Biden and Gallego. I believe the only exception here is life of the mother. It's going to turn out a lot of young women who otherwise wouldn't vote and they will be left leaning.

[Person Man]

These judges suck.

[Skill and Chance]

Let's discuss what else existed in medicine during the 1860's, shall we?

- It was still believed that the body was made up of four humors: phlegm, black bile, yellow bile, and blood.  The balance of these humors was believed to contribute to a person's health and mental stability. 

- The idea of germs and bacteria causing illness was radical and widely controversial. 

- We administered mercury and lead to treat illness. 

- We used "water therapy", where people suffering from mental illness were forcibly held underwater until they lost consciousness.  If they could be revived, it was believed they would be cured. 

Let's bring these things back while we're at it. 

Law kind of works the opposite way, though.  As in the further back you can go, the stronger your argument becomes.  My understanding is that there's a legal tradition that if 2 laws on the books conflict with each other, you defer to the older law as much as possible.  The argument appears to be that if the legislature wanted to explicitly repeal the older law, they could have, but they chose not to.  I'm guessing that's essentially what happened here? 

[Skill and Chance]

You can't say you support states rights on this issue and then say you're not happy with the ruling. They are not compatible. This is a direct result of states getting to do whatever they want after Roe fell.

While this is probably way out of line with majority opinion in Arizona, voters will be free to express that view in the upcoming referendum, which, let us remember, is something that's only available at the state level.  You can't overrule an act of Congress or the SCOTUS by referendum.

[Skill and Chance]

Funny how so many Republicans, despite touting their prolife record for years, have suddenly "moderated" their stance over the past couple years.

They got us into this mess, and now they claim they can get us out of it?? Please...

At some point, does the triangulation from Republicans like Kari Lake and Trump hurt their support and enthusiasm from the pro-life crowd?

The Trumpiest part of the party has always been more pro-choice than the median R.  This isn't new.  See also: Ron Johnson calling for abortion to be decided by referendum in Wisconsin, while Lindsey Graham supported a federal ban. 

[wnwnwn]

Time to bet on House democrat gains in Arizona?

Hopefully AZ supports a clear and detailed pro choice proposal in November.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

At least the voters are allowed to vote on the issue in November. Almost certain it will be overturned.

I wonder whether that helps Biden to win the state.

It definitely will, the type of people who get driven to the polls by this sh*t are most likely Democrat voters.  All things remaining the same, I’d definitely be surprised if Republicans win AZ in any way (including senate). This probably sinks Schweikert and Ciscomani, maybe even Crane seeing that Flagstaff is in his seat.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Are they actively trying to deliver the state to Biden?

[Landslide Lyndon]

When Kari Lake opposes the decision...

https://twitter.com/KariLake/status/1777763769890071022

Absolute sh**t ruling.  

I don't get why she pleads with Hobbs instead of using her own power as rightful governor to fix the situation.

[mjba257]

This law is getting overturned. Probably soon. Like this week soon. It isn't slated to take effect for 14 days so that's enough time for a special session to be declared, pass it through the legislature, and for the governor to sign.

GOP knows this is terrible politically and are acting fast. Multiple prominent AZ Republicans have denounced the ruling. Question is will Dems go along? This ruling could be a godsend for them, but blocking an attempt to repeal could backfire because it show it's all about politics and any negative effects from the law can be blamed on them.

Downside for GOP is repealing the law could cause backlash from pro-life hardliners. But there is a golden opportunity to gain moderate bonafides. Whenever a Republican says they are 'moderate' on the abortion issue, they now have a record to point to backing it up.

[Crumpets]

It was surprisingly difficult to find this information, but the vote was 4-2 in favor with one recusal. The four in favor were three men and one woman. The two against were one man and one woman. All were appointed by Republican governors.

[xavier110]

This law is getting overturned. Probably soon. Like this week soon. It isn't slated to take effect for 14 days so that's enough time for a special session to be declared, pass it through the legislature, and for the governor to sign.

GOP knows this is terrible politically and are acting fast. Multiple prominent AZ Republicans have denounced the ruling. Question is will Dems go along? This ruling could be a godsend for them, but blocking an attempt to repeal could backfire because it show it's all about politics and any negative effects from the law can be blamed on them.

Downside for GOP is repealing the law could cause backlash from pro-life hardliners. But there is a golden opportunity to gain moderate bonafides. Whenever a Republican says they are 'moderate' on the abortion issue, they now have a record to point to backing it up.

I don’t think this is the winning triangulation you think it is. The genie is out of the bottle now, regardless of whether the legislature tries to dial it back.

It’s like making a royal f***-up at work and then a week later semi-fixing your royal screw-up that shook your management’s confidence in you. There’s no real going back.