Speaking of a Civil War, Arizona Politicians touched the 3rd Rail
Arizona is a state which does not stand on its own for protecting the rights of its citizens. In this case, we speak of a woman’s right to determine what is right for her individual self and body. The Supreme Court revived a near-total abortion ban with its support of a 160-year-old law. The law provides no exceptions for rape or incest.
And, in its 4-2 opinion, the conservative majority wrote:
“Physicians are now on notice that all abortions, except those necessary to save a woman’s life, are illegal.”
Arizona citizens may get a chance to decide whether to keep the ban or revoke it this November. What was an anti-abortion stance (quietly and some vocally) for Republicans in AZ, has become “oh, we are neutral on this issue.” The Republican political kabuki theater to win the votes of the anti’s has now disappeared. trump just smiles and claims he is neutral. Senatorial candidate Kari Lake has changed her mind.
AZ has reaped what should not be with it’s silly and ignorant attitudes.
Just curious what the dissents were focused on. It’s not necessarily conservative to find that an enacted law is enforceable. What were the arguments that this law wasn’t enforceable? The various AZ territorial and then state legislatures have had 160 years to change the law and evidently haven’t.
“Chief Justice Robert Brutinel and Vice Chief Justice Ann Timmer both dissented.
“In a dissenting opinion, Timer wrote that the majority invented an ambiguity in the 15-week law where one didn’t exist.
“The statute says what it means and means what it says… There is no room for misunderstanding,” she wrote.
“She also accused the majority of using a legislative intent provision attached to the legislation — but that is not a part of state law — to both create ambiguity in the 15-week law and then resolve it by concluding that the 1864 ban is really what the legislature meant to be in effect.
“I decline to engage in the guesswork needed to engraft onto (the 15-week law’s) straightforward language a meaning the legislature may or may not have intended had it anticipated the Supreme Court would overrule Roe,” Timmer wrote.”
@Eric,
More here:
@Eric,
More on the 1864 law and “original intent” here:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-9-2024?publication_id=20533&post_id=143440039&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true&r=otxgo&triedRedirect=true