LEGAL Arizona Supreme Court Upholds 1864 Law Limiting Nearly All Abortions

[CaryC]

Arizona Supreme Court Upholds 1864 Law Limiting Nearly All Abortions​

The Arizona Supreme Court issued a historic decision on Tuesday, ruling that the state must abide by a 123-year-old law which bars all abortions except to save the life of the mother.

The law, which goes back as far as 1864, also calls for a prison sentence of two to five years for abortionists. Justices heard arguments in the case, Planned Parenthood of Arizona v. Mayes/Hazerigg, in December, and were asked to answer whether Arizona’s 15-week abortion limit signed into law in March of 2022 overrides the older law.

While the court did not rule on the constitutionality of the 1864 law, the court issued a 4-2 decision with one recusal finding that the 1864 law is “enforceable” over the newer 15-week limit.

“We consider whether the Arizona Legislature repealed or otherwise restricted [the old law] by enacting…the statute proscribing physicians from performing elective abortions after fifteen weeks’ gestation,” Justice John Lopez wrote for the majority opinion. “This case involves statutory interpretation—it does not rest on the justices’ morals or public policy views regarding abortion; nor does it rest on [the old law’s] constitutionality, which is not before us.”

“Absent the federal constitutional abortion right, and because [the fifteen-week limit] does not independently authorize abortion, there is no provision in federal or state law prohibiting [the 1864 law’s] operation. Accordingly, [the 1864 law] is now enforceable,” Lopez continued.

The Arizona Supreme Court ultimately affirmed a lower court’s decision vacating an injunction against the near-total ban, but stayed the total enforcement of the law for 14 days to allow for parties to decide how to pursue further action. The state’s high court also remanded the case to trial court for potential consideration of remaining constitutional challenges.

“The abortion issue implicates morality and public policy concerns, and invariably inspires spirited debate and engenders passionate disagreements among citizens,” the opinion reads. “A policy matter of this gravity must ultimately be resolved by our citizens through the legislature or the initiative process. Today, we decline to make this weighty policy decision because such judgments are reserved for our citizens. Instead, we merely follow our limited constitutional role and duty to interpret the law as written.”

The state supreme court decision comes as pro-abortion activists are moving forward with a proposed amendment that would create a constitutional right to abortion in Arizona.

Arizona for Abortion Access — a coalition of groups including ACLU of Arizona, Affirm Sexual and Reproductive Health, Arizona List, Healthcare Rising Arizona, NARAL Arizona, and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona — said last week that they had amassed more than 500,000 signatures, well past the 383,923 required for the proposed amendment to qualify for the ballot in November. If the abortion measure makes it on the November ballot, it would need a simple majority to pass.

Arizona is one of nearly a dozen states where pro-abortion activists are working to codify the right to kill the unborn.

The case is Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes/Hazelrigg, No. CV-23-5-PR in the Supreme Court of Arizona

Arizona Supreme Court Upholds 1864 Law Limiting Nearly All Abortions

The court ruled that the state must abide by a 123-year-old law which bars all abortions except to save the life of the mother.

www.breitbart.com

 

[subnet]

Now really piss off the lefties and go retroactive...hehe

Whats interesting are all the laws that have been on the books that could be dug up like this supposedly...
They pass bills into law but never really remove any.

 

[Hawkgirl_70]

This is the icing on the cake for the Dems in Arizona come November. Any chance Trump had at all winning here is now gone. In fact, I believe Arizona will go from light red/purple to moderate blue as all the R’s down to the State Houses will take a beating in November.

 

[Jeff Allen]

This is the icing on the cake for the Dems in Arizona come November. Any chance Trump had at all winning here is now gone. In fact, I believe Arizona will go from light red/purple to moderate blue as all the R’s down to the State Houses will take a beating in November.

You may very well be right. I wish people would actually appreciate Liberty as opposed to despising it. Allowing leftists to kill their own progeny is a very rational thing to do. In a couple of generations problem solved.....

J

 

[bw]

Access to abortion is not stoppable.

 

[Jeff Allen]

Access to abortion is not stoppable.

It seems silly to even try if you ask me. I think all of us would agree that none of us should be forced to pay for other peoples child murder though.

J

 

[Chance]

All we hear about are abortions....Never Anything about all the birth control methods available. Like they don't even exist.

And they are free at planned parenthood.

Tells us exactly what this is all about, imo

 

[CaryC]

All we hear about are abortions....Never Anything about all the birth control methods available. Like they don't even exist.

And they are free at planned parenthood.

Tells us exactly what this is all about, imo

Exactly, thank you very much.

 

[Chance]

Someone needs to put a bunch of 'birth control methods in place of abortions' in their campaign adds.

 

[CaryC]

All we hear about are abortions....Never Anything about all the birth control methods available. Like they don't even exist.

And they are free at planned parenthood.

Tells us exactly what this is all about, imo

 

[hiwall]

This court ruling is all about the stupidity and laziness of all lawmakers.
They keep passing new laws but never rescind or nullify old existing laws.

 

[LightEcho]

If this goes to Supreme Court, it is one last chance to get it right. Is abortion murder? If so, then NO state can say it is legal.

Does a fetus inside a woman have human blood? If it does, abortion is shedding human blood. It is real simple on so many ways to view this.

So then, the question of when life begins MUST be answered. This too is very simple and science tells us clearly when life begins, if you don't want to believe the bible.

 

[ShadowMan]

Actually, the whole abortion issue IS a STATE'S issue. The Feds don't have a ball in that court, under the Constitution. Abortion is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. So is not under the purview of Federal Government....it is a States/Peoples issue.

HOWEVER -

Abortion is also murder. If a pregnant women's life (and fetus) is caused by someone.....it's TWO COUNTS OF MURDER not one. So under that interpretation of law the fetus is a PERSON. Think about that. However....comma, in certain circumstances: rape, incest, and special medical situations abortion is generally considered acceptable, if not necessary.

So the real question becomes is abortion as a means of birth control an acceptable justification for taking the life of an unborn PERSON.....i.e. murder? Remember, murder is not killing......killing, i.e. taking a life in self-defense and war (questionable, but acceptable between mutual combatants) as such is not murder. Murder is the deliberate killing of an individual(s) for whatever reason outside the two aforementioned ones.

So which is it? Who decides? Does the biological father have any say in the issue? What about the unborn PERSON's rights? And the mother's rights? Do grandparents, siblings, cousins, neighbors? Who actually decides? Who has final authority?

Talk about a sticky wicket!

 

[ShadowMan]

Does a fetus inside a woman have human blood?

Hmmmm not during the terrible twos and absolutely not during puberty and teenage-hood.

 

[LightEcho]

Actually, the whole abortion issue IS a STATE'S issue. The Feds don't have a ball in that court, under the Constitution. Abortion is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. So is not under the purview of Federal Government....it is a States/Peoples issue.

HOWEVER -

Abortion is also murder. If a pregnant women's life (and fetus) is caused by someone.....it's TWO COUNTS OF MURDER not one. So under that interpretation of law the fetus is a PERSON. Think about that. However....comma, in certain circumstances: rape, incest, and special medical situations abortion is generally considered acceptable, if not necessary.

So the real question becomes is abortion as a means of birth control an acceptable justification for taking the life of an unborn PERSON.....i.e. murder? Remember, murder is not killing......killing, i.e. taking a life in self-defense and war (questionable, but acceptable between mutual combatants) as such is not murder. Murder is the deliberate killing of an individual(s) for whatever reason outside the two aforementioned ones.

So which is it? Who decides? Does the biological father have any say in the issue? What about the unborn PERSON's rights? And the mother's rights? Do grandparents, siblings, cousins, neighbors? Who actually decides? Who has final authority?

Talk about a sticky wicket!

I strongly disagree. The 4th amendment says that a person shall be secure in his person and possessions.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The 5th amendment makes it clear the life & liberty shall not be taken without due process.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Preamble states that it is for the "common defence", cover the general welfare and secure the blessings to "ourselves" - which means the people.

 

[bw]

Actually, the whole abortion issue IS a STATE'S issue.

It's not the state's business. It's private.

 

[ShadowMan]

Aaaaah, BUT, is the fetus is a PERSON, as in the case of the killing/murder of a pregnant women, does the fetus then have protection under 4th & 5th Amendments? If so, THEN the unborn child DOES have a right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the Pursuit of Happiness! Does a "parent" have the right to kill their unborn offspring? What about retro-active abortion? (Which many parents of teenagers have considered from time to time.) Not trying to make of joke of it, having survived several teens.

Going back to one of the most ancient commandments, i.e. the Sixth: Thou Shall Not Murder.

The sixth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

Do you see the paradox? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. To whom shall you answer to? Ultimately? Who has supremacy? Governments, Man, Women, Child, God, No one?

 

[Plain Jane]

This doesn't need to go to the Supreme Court. The Arizona legislature can do this.

 

[subnet]

Actually, the whole abortion issue IS a STATE'S issue. The Feds don't have a ball in that court, under the Constitution. Abortion is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. So is not under the purview of Federal Government....it is a States/Peoples issue.

HOWEVER -

Abortion is also murder. If a pregnant women's life (and fetus) is caused by someone.....it's TWO COUNTS OF MURDER not one. So under that interpretation of law the fetus is a PERSON. Think about that. However....comma, in certain circumstances: rape, incest, and special medical situations abortion is generally considered acceptable, if not necessary.

So the real question becomes is abortion as a means of birth control an acceptable justification for taking the life of an unborn PERSON.....i.e. murder? Remember, murder is not killing......killing, i.e. taking a life in self-defense and war (questionable, but acceptable between mutual combatants) as such is not murder. Murder is the deliberate killing of an individual(s) for whatever reason outside the two aforementioned ones.

So which is it? Who decides? Does the biological father have any say in the issue? What about the unborn PERSON's rights? And the mother's rights? Do grandparents, siblings, cousins, neighbors? Who actually decides? Who has final authority?

Talk about a sticky wicket!

Those looking to rid themselves of personal responsibility are the only ones making it an issue.

 

[LightEcho]

This doesn't need to go to the Supreme Court. The Arizona legislature can do this.

Ideally, this would be appealed and the US supreme court would judge the constitutional value. It is THEN the rule of law for all states. We cannot have a country where some states permit murder of certain classes of citizens or non-citizens. The murder of humans must be outlawed in all states. Now, that does not apply to just wars, self-defense, or execution for heinous crimes. A human baby is no offense, no criminal and no war target. Those who seek to incriminate the innocent are worse than criminals.

 

[et2]

Yep … the lefts election wedge. It works for them, every time. Perfect time to bring up, they can beat that drum the next 6 months. They’ll try to trip Trump up over it. He should refer them to the states. Just say I believe in life and liberty for all … a states decision … and shut up and move on.

You can’t win on this. The left wants to kill babies up to birth … but doesn’t want you to be able to protect you or your babies with a gun.

 

[bw]

Ideally, this would be appealed and the US supreme court would judge the constitutional value. It is THEN the rule of law for all states.

One state passing Constitutional muster does not make that state's rules binding on others.

 

[WalknTrot]

IMHO the Supreme Court has probably made it's final word known on the subject, and I agree with Trump. Leave it up to the states. Period. End.

There was always bound to be a scramble and chaos while this worked itself out in the states, and we are simply experiencing that now.

 

[CaryC]

This doesn't need to go to the Supreme Court. The Arizona legislature can do this.

They are going to try:

Democrats Tee Up Abortion Until Birth After Arizona Supreme Court Follows Law as Written​

Democrats are teeing up a ballot measure in Arizona that would practically ensure abortion until the moment of birth, after the Arizona Supreme Court held that a new state law regulating abortion after 15 weeks did not repeal an 1864 law that allowed abortion only to save the life of the mother.

In March 2022, lawmakers in Arizona adopted S.B. 1164, now referred to in the state’s law books as § 36-2322. A child in the womb can feel pain by 15 weeks, and unborn children can also be seen via ultrasound sucking their thumbs and waving their hands. The new statute would allow abortions after 15 weeks only under special circumstances. It is a point where polls show most Americans support regulations, support that increases when the law includes exceptions for rape, incest, and protecting the life of the mother.

But Arizona also had a law on the books from 1864 that only allowed abortions to save the life of the mother. The Arizona Supreme Court wrestled with the issue of whether that law was now back in effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overruled its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision in its 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. As part of that analysis, the Arizona court was determining whether the 2022 law repealed and replaced the 1864 law.

By a 4-2 vote (with one justice recused), the Arizona court held that the newer statute did not repeal the old one.

The Arizona court sided with a county trial court, which held that it would be “procedurally improper” to modify a 1973 injunction blocking the old law after Roe in order to “harmonize laws not in existence when the [1970s lawsuit] was filed.” Rather than a ruling on abortion rights, this new court decision was a ruling on judicial procedure. “Because the legal grounds for the 1973 injunction were overturned by Dobbs, the trial court vacated the judgment in its entirety to allow full enforcement of [the 1864 law].”

As Arizona’s high court explained:

Here, we consider a statute that was never repealed—in fact, it was recodified even after it was enjoined—followed by the enactment of a series of statutes regulating the same subject matter in the wake of Roe, the Supreme Court decision striking down the original statute. Hence, the question presented is different from those arising in the ordinary statutory interpretation context: whether the later statutes “repeal or otherwise limit” the earlier statute. Neither party could identify precedent squarely resolving such an unusual circumstance. Thus, we examine the later-adopted Title 36 statutes to determine whether they repealed or limited [the 1864 statute, referred to as] § 13-3603, or instead merely restricted abortions to the extent possible so long as Roe prevented enforcement of § 13-3603.

Referring to a lower court’s decision, the state supreme court held that:

… the court of appeals misconstrued the legislature’s express intent embodied in S.B. 1164 by holding that the statutory scheme demonstrates that the legislature enacted S.B. 1164 with the design “to restrict—but not to eliminate—elective abortions.” Brnovich, 254 Ariz. at 406 ¶ 16. That was the statute’s effect, but the court of appeals divines a legislative purpose in a vacuum. At the time of S.B. 1164’s passage when Roe was still in effect, the legislature was devoid of authority to ban elective abortions without running afoul of the Supremacy Clause. Indeed, the legislature’s previous attempt to restrict elective abortion after twenty weeks’ gestation was enjoined. See Isaacson v. Horne, 716 F.3d 1213, 1231 (9th Cir. 2013). It is no surprise that the legislature merely intended “to restrict—but not to eliminate—elective abortions.” It could do no more. Further, at that time, abortion up to fifteen weeks’ gestation was already legal in Arizona, so there was no reason for the legislature to codify in statute a right that already existed under federal constitutional law.

The justices went on to reason that:

The legislature’s unwavering and unqualified affirmative maintenance of a statutory ban on elective abortion since 1864 (albeit enjoined since 1973), S.B. 1164’s construction provision that the legislature did not intend to repeal § 13-3603 in passing § 36-2322, and § 1-219(A)’s public policy pronouncement that the rights of the “unborn child” were limited only by the federal Constitution and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it, effectively constitute a discernible comprehensive trigger provision in the event of Roe’s demise.

The court rejected the abortion-supporters’ position, explaining:

Planned Parenthood contends that, like the court of appeals, we must harmonize §§ 13-3603 and 36-2322 to give effect to each. See, e.g., UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Craig, 200 Ariz. 327, 329 ¶ 11 (2001) (“When two statutes appear to conflict, we will attempt to harmonize their language to give effect to each.”). We disagree. Our conclusion that the legislature did not intend to create a privilege secured by law to obtain or perform an abortion obviates the need to harmonize §§ 13-3603 and 36-2322. Harmonization between these laws may be accomplished only by repealing § 13-3603 in contravention of the legislature’s express intent and engaging in untenable statutory interpretation such as excising physicians from the plain meaning of “person” in § 13-3603, defined as “a human being” in A.R.S § 13-105(30). And indeed, despite purporting to harmonize the statutes, the dissent’s treatment of § 13-3603 all but nullifies it. We decline to do so. See Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP, 198 P.3d 1109, 1120 (Cal. 2009) (“Courts ‘will infer the repeal of a statute only when . . . a subsequent act of the legislature clearly is intended to occupy the entire field covered by a prior enactment.’” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)).

However, the political aftermath of the court’s decision tees up a ballot measure in Arizona that is sharply at odds with what polls show most voters prefer. Democrats are pushing a ballot measure that would amend the Arizona Constitution to essentially make abortion legal up to the moment of birth by providing broad exceptions allowing abortions, including when an abortion provider decides it would be good for the “mental health” of the mother to have an abortion. The amendment would allow even fully grown babies to be aborted long after they acquire the sensory abilities of live infants outside the womb.

Rather than set abortion policy at the 15-week level beyond which President Trump is encouraging states to regulate abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, Arizona’s proposed amendment measure supported by President Biden’s allies would guarantee abortion with few meaningful restrictions through all stages of pregnancy.

The case is Planned Parenthood v. Mayes, No. CV-23-0005-PR in the Arizona Supreme Court.

Democrats Tee Up Abortion Until Birth After Arizona Court Decision

Democrats are teeing up a ballot measure in Arizona that would practically ensure abortion until the moment of birth, after the Arizona Supreme Court held that a new state law regulating abortion after 15 weeks did not repeal an 1864 law that allowed abortion only to save the life of the mother.

www.breitbart.com

 

[LightEcho]

Having any abortion permitted or legalized leaves an opening for corruption. Violating a principle causes complicated reasoning and justifications for anyone to murder babies.

Little steps lead to whole new problems.

 

[bw]

Having any abortion permitted or legalized leaves an opening for corruption.

Prohibiting abortions leaves the same opening.

 

[Hawkgirl_70]

In the last 4 years, our side has lost every single special election, especially in ruby red states, and also tied to some midterm races, because of abortion. We're in the minority with this issue. Plus, there are A LOT of Pro Life Keyboard Warriors out there that just DON'T go and vote when they're supposed to. See Wisconsin election for their Supreme Court Judge. See Ohio where we lost by like 13 points!!! Low turn out on our side. Pathetic.
Also, Too many women out there want their own say so and you aren't going to change those minds. I'm Pro Life but I also see both sides. I've had friends that had abortions; doesn't make it right, but I still tried to be there for one and change her mind as she had no close friends. She ended up having 3 of them in her college days.
For the next 6 months, the left will run endless abortion rights ads everywhere in these battleground states where it's up for vote in November. They'll make sure every college campus has voted. I've been living on hopium and intervention by God to get Trump and the R's across to keep the House (have to win the House or the Dems won't allow him to be seated by vote). I've now lost all my hopium. Unless God supernaturally intervenes, November will seal a permanent Democrat majority for good.

 

[anna43]

Perhaps individuals will now take more responsibility for contraception. This is not 1900 or even 1950, there are multiple ways to prevent a pregnancy so use them. With all the STDs and many of them uncurable, you'd think no responsible person would ever consider sexual relations without a condom. No responsible woman would ever consider sexual relations without birth control firmly established plus a condom. The risk of pregnancy is not generally life threatening, but some STDs are.

 

[BUBBAHOTEPT]

In the last 4 years, our side has lost every single special election, especially in ruby red states, and also tied to some midterm races, because of abortion. We're in the minority with this issue. Plus, there are A LOT of Pro Life Keyboard Warriors out there that just DON'T go and vote when they're supposed to. See Wisconsin election for their Supreme Court Judge. See Ohio where we lost by like 13 points!!! Low turn out on our side. Pathetic.
Also, Too many women out there want their own say so and you aren't going to change those minds. I'm Pro Life but I also see both sides. I've had friends that had abortions; doesn't make it right, but I still tried to be there for one and change her mind as she had no close friends. She ended up having 3 of them in her college days.
For the next 6 months, the left will run endless abortion rights ads everywhere in these battleground states where it's up for vote in November. They'll make sure every college campus has voted. I've been living on hopium and intervention by God to get Trump and the R's across to keep the House (have to win the House or the Dems won't allow him to be seated by vote). I've now lost all my hopium. Unless God supernaturally intervenes, November will seal a permanent Democrat majority for good.

Hawkgirl, I really don’t want to accept your argument, but that is what keeps me up at night. You brought the receipts and a pretty good insight into November. I pray to God for his intervention too…………

 

[aznurse]

I reside in AZ. This needs to be resolved in the AZ legislature. Court just ruled based on the law as written.

 

[hiwall]

I reside in AZ. This needs to be resolved in the legislature. Court just ruled based on the law as written.

Actually the whole issue is resolved.
But it is just another law that can be changed at any time by the lawmakers. It can be changed many times as different people get elected.

 

[LightEcho]

Prohibiting abortions leaves the same opening.

We always have choices. But corrupting the law is the worst situation as ALL of us who consented to the government will reap the consequences.

Unfortunately the constitution is not flawless and it is only good for honest & honorable people. If we all surrender to God’s law, we would all be free & experiencing the best liberty possible.

Thou shalt not kill (murder). Killing innocent babies has no upside.

 

[CaryC]

Trump Calls On Arizona Governor, Legislature To ‘Act Immediately’ On Abortion Law​

By Zach Jewell
•
Apr 12, 2024 DailyWire.com

Former President Donald Trump took his criticism of Arizona’s reinstated abortion ban a step further on Friday, calling on the state’s Democratic governor and legislature to stop the 160-year-old law from taking effect.

The 1864 law, which the state’s high court ruled could go into effect, protects unborn children from abortion in every circumstance other than when the life of the mother is in danger. Anyone who aids an abortion is punishable by two to five years in prison, according to the law. Trump said in a statement to reporters on Wednesday that he believes the Arizona abortion law goes too far, adding, “That will be straightened out.”


The former president took to his social media platform Truth Social on Friday to call on Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs and state lawmakers “to remedy what has happened” and “act as fast as possible.”

“The Supreme Court in Arizona went too far on their Abortion Ruling, enacting and approving an inappropriate Law from 1864. So now the Governor and the Arizona Legislature must use HEART, COMMON SENSE, and ACT IMMEDIATELY, to remedy what has happened,” Trump wrote. “Remember, it is now up to the States and the Good Will of those that represent THE PEOPLE. We must ideally have the three Exceptions for Rape, Incest, and Life of the Mother. This is important! Democrats are the EXTREMISTS – They support Abortion up to the moment of birth, and even execution of Babies, in some cases, after birth. This should not be. Arizona Legislature, please act as fast as possible!”

On Thursday, Republicans in the Arizona legislature shut down an effort to vote on a proposed repeal of the 1864 law. A motion to begin the process of repealing the law was introduced by Republican state Rep. Matt Gress, but his GOP colleagues put the effort to rest with a motion to recess. Some Democrats in the state legislature then began shouting “Shame!” at their Republican counterparts.


The law is set to go into effect 14 days from the Arizona Supreme Court’s Tuesday decision as plaintiffs have the opportunity to challenge the law in a lower court. Even if the law goes into effect in two weeks, whether it would be enforced remains in doubt as Governor Hobbs issued an executive order last year giving the state’s attorney general, who is currently a Democrat, all power to enforce abortion laws.

Trump, who is currently leading President Joe Biden in polling in the crucial swing state, released a statement explaining his position on abortion on Monday, the day before the Arizona Supreme Court came down with its ruling on the abortion law. In his Monday statement, Trump said he was proud of his part in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, adding that abortion laws should be left up to the states.

The Republcian has also said that he supports abortion exceptions for rape and incest, which are not included in the 1864 Arizona abortion law.

The Arizona law sparked controversy within the GOP as Republicans split on their support or opposition to the abortion ban. Pro-life leaders Lila Rose of LiveAction and Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser celebrated the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision and what it means for protecting unborn babies in the state, but Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake, along with Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ), who are both running in tight races, said they oppose the law.

Lake released her own video statement on Thursday, saying, “This total ban on abortion that the Arizona Supreme Court just ruled on is out of line with where the people of this state are. The issue is less about banning abortion and more about saving babies.”

Trump Calls On Arizona Governor, Legislature To ‘Act Immediately’ On Abortion Law | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

The Supreme Court ruled it was left up to the states to decide. Trump took credit for that ruling. What is he doing weighing in on a state ruling on abortion. It's not his decision to make.

 

[bw]

The Supreme Court ruled it was left up to the states to decide. Trump took credit for that ruling. What is he doing weighing in on a state ruling on abortion. It's not his decision to make.

The SC ruling was valid, because the decision is reserved to the states. But everyone has the right to voice what they think any given state should do. Is this a great country or what?

 

[Toosh]

Speaking as a woman, I want abortion to be legal and I want it to be safe. This is between me and my doctor and no one else.

However, I don't want it paid with tax dollars and I want limits. I also want better sex education in schools and churches - not this stupid stuff they are doing now, but practical, useful, options. I also want mothers to do a better job educating their daughters and fathers with their sons. This is a parental responsibility first and foremost. I remember that old PSA, "It's 10 o'clock, do you know where your kids are?"

Condoms? They are a joke. We have better, more effective options. Thy should also be free.

 

[bw]

Speaking as a woman, I want abortion to be legal and I want it to be safe. This is between me and my doctor and no one else.

Exactly

 

[BUBBAHOTEPT]

I think the Supreme Court will rule shortly on the abortion pill and the Arizona old law will be pointless. I don’t need to know about anyone's private medical care either; however, I do know when I see an actual human being in a womb and I think they do deserve human rights. So maybe 15 weeks is long enough to make a choice..…
And may God help us all…….

 

[Thunderdragon]

This is the icing on the cake for the Dems in Arizona come November. Any chance Trump had at all winning here is now gone. In fact, I believe Arizona will go from light red/purple to moderate blue as all the R’s down to the State Houses will take a beating in November.

I am anti abortion. But you are spot on. It is the one issue that will bring voters out to vote against trump. He is right on states rights. But does not matter. Unless the republicans say they are pro abortion. Women’s choice. We will have a blue waive and the winners will eventually force Abortion rights on all 50 states. So…by if Republicans say they are pro abortion..may salvage some states remaining Anti abortion If they can win presidency house and senate. they Need to reverse this az ruling. it Is prob already too late. They don’t care he says state Rights. That means anti abortion to them. Let it go…or we will be in a living hell on earth for conservatives. My 2 cents.

yea..it is not smart for a Bunch of people who will never get pregnant to be one issue voters on something that does not actually impact them. But..we can’t change this. Sadly. seems they would rather live in a third world corrupt hell hole than give up abortion rights.

 

[CaryC]

The SC ruling was valid, because the decision is reserved to the states. But everyone has the right to voice what they think any given state should do. Is this a great country or what?

That they do. But coming from a Presidential Candidate, not only does it carry influence, much more than I can muster for sure, it makes for that Candidate as a flip flopper for votes.

And that he wants to put a national bill or amendment to make abortion legal when the SC said it was left up to the states.

 

[CaryC]

Speaking as a woman, I want abortion to be legal and I want it to be safe. This is between me and my doctor and no one else.

However, I don't want it paid with tax dollars and I want limits. I also want better sex education in schools and churches - not this stupid stuff they are doing now, but practical, useful, options. I also want mothers to do a better job educating their daughters and fathers with their sons. This is a parental responsibility first and foremost. I remember that old PSA, "It's 10 o'clock, do you know where your kids are?"

Condoms? They are a joke. We have better, more effective options. Thy should also be free.

Hey, if you don't want to have a baby, don't. And it's pretty easy not to have a baby.

The condom meme was a joke, but the message was right on. There are all kinds of preventatives including not having sex, to pills that are free and have been since the '70's but using the abortion argument is a progressive leftist feminist POV that not only has been pushed on women as being forward thinking, and accepted by women, because important pretty women that publish mags, not doctors, push, but is also a lie. My body my choice is a narrative that is wrong. And can be proven on so many different levels, you'd think it was flat earth theory. Evolution. Men can have babies.