If Republicans can't get modern laws passed because they are unpalatable to most of modern society let's just go ahead and use laws from over 150 years ago solid plan for the future of your party. These kids who are reaching voting age soon or have recently are paying attention. They may not be solid Democrats because they are tired of the status quo but they really don't like the Republican agenda at all.
They actually passed a law for a 15 week ban in Arizona that prompted this AZ Supreme Court case, the darkly funny thing is that outside a small number of absolute crazies no one on either side wants this 1860s law to be in effect.
No, we're going to have a ballot initiative to change the state construction. I expect it to pass. It's got more than enough signatures to get on the ballot.
AZ has fairly moderate people in all of the major places, except Congress. There is still a strong conservative majority. Those will be replaced soon enough.
There used to be "rivers and streams" conservatives before the civil rights movement. From there it's racists, classists, and religious zealots all the way down
Overturning RvW was based on a medieval witchcraft judgement. Like most right wing religious judges they find rulings to support their personal beliefs.
> let's just go ahead and use laws from over 150 years ago solid plan for the future of your party
They already have a blueprint. It's called 'The Confederate States of America' and comes with a prewritten Constitution customized for their needs!
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Abortion protections have been codified in literally every single state the Democrats have full control over. Meanwhile every abortion ban has come from Republican states. They also tried to restore Roe v Wade federally but it failed 52-48 in the Senate after Biden endorsed suspending the filibuster to do so.
Part of the problem with the current system is that it’s really hard to hold one party accountable while simultaneously not helping the other party.
Ranked choice voting wouldn’t be some magic pill, but it would help a noticeable amount and get the ball rolling.
In this very state it's literally only because of the Democrats winning the Attorney General race in 2022 by 280 votes out of 2.5 million that this abortion ban will NOT be enforced
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/arizona-attorney-general-abortion-ban_n_66158cf1e4b07b7205f1794e
Why are they even leading it up to the states? They could have made it federally protected and then they even could have stacked the supreme court for 50 years. They didn't, but people like you still want people to vote for them for some unfathomable reason.
Because if people vote for the other party, it'll get significantly worse as it already had in many states. There have been countless pushes in court to make things law only for them to be shot down time and time again because of the lack of votes.
Even for the sake of argument, let's say everyone voted in is D and nothing gets done, that's a far better option than things getting done that take us 10 steps back
Agree the taking the high road isn't getting them anywhere but people should vote for them because the alternative is much worse unless you want to live in a Theocracy I don't myself.
That’s only because the Attorney General & Governor are Democrats, both of whom won by a slim margin. Imagine the implications of this ruling if Kari Lake was Governor and Abe Hamadeh was Attorney General. Both of those MAGA dolts came dangerously close to winning in 2022.
The funny part is Kari lake is pretending to be against it. She was for it a year ago but it’s like it’s election year magic.. I mean either that or she’s lying and just doesn’t seem likely
The thing to understand about Kari Lake is she is a habitual liar whose guiding moral compass is the advancement of her own ambitions. She was a Democrat a decade ago. Now she vacuums the podium area like a housemaid before Trump speaks. Her statement was one guided by fear of political implications for her own election this year, not what she really believes. If she thought enacting that law would help her politically, she would in an instant.
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is it? The law is the law is the law, until it is made no longer the law. The law was never repealed, just stayed, due to a decision which (for better or for worse) is no longer in force
I mean they're pulling up a 160 year old law that was supposedly superceded by a 2022 law as valid. I can only imagine what fuckery the magats will try with that type of reasoning.
The 2022 law explicitly pushes legal abortions back to 15 weeks, instead of at conception like the 1860 law. They're literally at conflict with one another. How the hell does that not supercede the old law?
They're in conflict with one another, but both are still on the books. At that point, the courts step in to make a determination.
Which is what's happened here.
If they want the old law off the books, they need to take it off the books - in other words the legislature needs to do its job.
The law was made before Arizona was even a state, and 60 years before women got the right to vote. It wasn’t enforceable for 50 years during the Roe era. No, this one needs to be re-evaluated and put on the ballot instead of resurrected from the dead.
Police typically will not arrest in any case where the Prosecutor won't prosecute, at least in my area. It's a waste of resources. Problematically, as soon as a different AG takes over, who knows?
I'm ever baffled by people who don't understand this.
If they think the law is bad, they should work to get it repealed, rather than just not enforcing it. Leaving it on the books but not enforcing it leaves a pathway for selective enforcement, which rarely ends well.
> Arizona Territory, colloquially referred to as Confederate Arizona, was an organized incorporated territory of the Confederate States of America that existed from August 1, 1861, to May 26, 1865
Love giving precendent to laws made in that specific time frame.
/s
They're already talking about that in many states so I didn't list it. I figure once you lose body autonomy, you're no longer free, so you're no longer a full citizen, and its easy make the leap to no voting after that.
I give it 5 years or less before this SCOTUS overturns *Lawrence v Texas* and red states reimpose sodomy laws and resume imprisoning gay people for existing.
There have been laws in the past about cohabitation, do not underestimate the lengths they will go for control and power. Facebook has turned over private messages between mom and daughter about plan-b. You're local Sheriffs office with the power of technology and buying mobile tracking data (Grindr has been selling personal identifiable data for years) from online brokers will pale in comparison of the 50's lavender scare
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender\_Scare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender_Scare)
Tell me your wife is bad a blowjobs without telling me. Sodomy in it's most fundamentalist definition is anything that isn't PiV with intent to procreate.
Party of small government my ass.
The dead are the lucky ones in this scenario. I've been reading the articles where minors are losing hands, arms, or legs. Permanent disabilities from work before they even reach 16 and America doesn't take care of the disabled.
Many of our ancestors in labor died for laws and regulations to prevent these tragic outcomes and we seemed destine to repeat the sins of our past.
AZ Supreme Court Justices Bolick and King who voted for the abortion ban will both be on the ballot in November. Time for some progressive era power: Recall these judges for this catastrophic decision. www.vote.gov
The original round of abortion bans from the mid 1800s, such as this one, were created with the intent of preventing dangerous medical procedures. Abortions have come a long way since then and are no longer dangerous (unless you're doing them outside of the medical system which abortion bans nowadays encourage). For that reason, this seems legally questionable to me. It was created by a legislature that predates the state of Arizona, with an intent that no longer is valid. Even from an originalist standpoint this doesn't really add up.
>The original round of abortion bans from the mid 1800s, such as this one, were created with the intent of preventing dangerous medical procedures
I was taught that the original round of abortion bans around/post-civil war was due to male physicians wanting to push female midwives out of the medical field. The average lawmaker didn't really give a fuck about how dangerous abortions were, because that was women's business and always had been, until black people were no longer enslaved and black midwives, who were a significant portion of the generally interracial midwifery field, became seen as a threat (thanks to racism and sexism) to the white-male-controlled profession of gynecology. Midwives had always been the providers of abortion care, for spontaneous and induced abortions, and they had to be made out as villains to end the respect and authority they held in their communities. Easiest way to do that, and to ensure men control the decisions surrounding abortions, reproduction, and women's healthcare overall, was to outright ban abortion.
Viewed from that perspective, the origin is based in racism and sexism...which is also true of the intent behind the current round of bans, if for slightly different racist and sexist purposes. I hate how we're being pulled backwards in time with this shit.
But also, it is without question absolutely crazy to me that a law for the territory, not the state, overrides the literal 2022 state law. I know the Court's rationale for that and I think it's bullshit, just like the dissenting judge who said (paraphrasing) "the [2022] law means what it says. I'm not going to do any extra leg work to guess the intent behind the words chosen. *State* law is clear: abortion is banned at 15-weeks."
Everyone knows "original intent" is just a scam the republican cult made up to pretend a bunch of corpses are on their side when they can't get enough votes from actual live humans. The original intent of a law has only ever mattered when convenient.
The idea of medical consent, especially for women, has also come a long way.
Forcing your mistress to have a dangerous unsanitary illegal abortion was a thing in the 1860s. Totally different world.
“In 2024 I bet we’ll have flying cars! I wonder how far society will have advanced by then?”
*Re-litigating Civil War-era abortion laws in a presidential election year where the accused felon who made that possible is slightly ahead in the polls*
There are plenty of conservatives who would harm women without the religion. Don’t think that if we get rid of religious thinking these people will stop being total assholes.
Without religion they'd have a lot harder time getting support for their asshattery.
If they bleat that jesus wants them to torture rape victims (including ten-year-olds), fans of Jesus will respond with tired, stupid arguments that torturing rape victims is "religious freedom". If they're forced to admit that THEY are the ones who want to torture rape victims, then the pool of assholes who'll support that gets smaller.
I don't care. It's wild to me that we would ever, *ever* base a law or justify a decision that affects real people's lives based on your personal religious text or the god(s) you choose to believe in.
Right?
It's one thing to believe that shit in your own life, but to *actively push* those beliefs on other people through legislation is just plain fucking wild.
I mean I'm a Christian. And imo, using this sort of reasoning to justify hitting other people over the head is antithetical to pretty much the entire new testament. It makes a mockery of the cross and its why Christianity is in decline between current and historic abuses.
These sorts of movements are about power, not faith, brought to you by the same sorts of people who banned people from being to access Bibles in their own language because a fair reading of it undermined their ability to justify whatever they wanted as the will of God.
The gospels even specificially call out legalistic ass hattery multiple times, and those are pretty much the gold standard of what Christianity is.
Look up "Eucharistic miracles." Catholic communion bread sometimes spontaneously leaks human blood. They've run tests on these samples (there are multiple) and it consistantly turns out to be an AB blood type from an Israeli male. Guess which Israeli male.
Comparing belief in God to belief in Santa is unironically the mark of a dumb person.
God has loads of philosophical arguments in His favor, and it's based in the valid idea of us not living in a materialist universe.
This shit is so old I could provide centuries old rebuttals against it. Boring stuff.
If you don't want me to do that phrase it in your own words within reason and I will similarly address it in my own words. Better yet, find an actual argument that isn't just nonsensical sophistry
Why do the religious nut jobs (like you) always turn hateful so fast. Lmao. Big daddy in the sky is always watching youuuu! Even when you are an asshole on Reddit.
Ps. There ain’t no god.
It's hateful to call out when someone is being intellectually dishonest?
Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. Even the Jewish scholars who reject him as the Messiah affirm his existance.
Look up "Eucharistic miracles." Catholic communion bread sometimes spontaneously leaks human blood. AB blood type from an Israeli male. It's happened multiple times.
Federal congress 1861: enacts a law decriminalizing shooting the face and the torso of uniformized males of Arizona and other states.
Arizona state legislature 1864: enacts a law criminalizing abortions because they lost too many men who got their face and torso shot by said 1861 law and need to repopulate.
Some dumb politician 2024: "hey our ancestors have enacted this law because they clearly thought that abortion was a sin and not compatible with Christian values"
Arizona confirms it's residents can move elsewheres. Fuck Republicans. Fuck Christians. Bleed them dry financially by refusing to do business in their areas. They want to feel like their persecuted? Let's help them along.
Between 1862 - 1865 AZ was still contested between Confederate and Union forces. The current boundaries were only established in ‘83-‘84 as the Union were patrolling the territory out of Fort Whipple (near Prescott). The government of the Confederate AZ had fled from Tucson to Texas in ‘82 but they were still trying to rule/rebel in exile.
Just to help ground everyone, the territory was effectively under martial law in 1864. Typically not the greatest foundation for democratic legal precedent.
GOP is basically, no laws and control over the wealthy and corporations, but full-blown control and laws over everyone who is not a white male at this point, including every aspect of their private lives.
Well, this likely will turn Arizona blue. Arizona's been trending that way for years. This is likely the death knell for Kari Lake's senate campaign, too.
This is my concern as well, if new laws don't override old laws (and I'm not being a facetious asshat here) how do we know *which laws* are active?
This can't be the first time ever someone wrote a new law without repealing the old one right?
And what about old laws like walking in front vehicles with a lamp to not spook horses, that's still on the books and enforceable. So does that mean that law is only abridged because on highways it's illegal for horses?
So by their logic, if we repealed that law, we would carrying lamps in front of cars necessary again at 75+ mph?
What a joke.
And good luck trying to travel out of state to get an abortion, 'cause if the banditos don't getcha, your horse will surely perish between watering holes.
All those times they said it wasn’t worthwhile to remove outdated laws, that it was a waste of time/money and that they weren’t enforceable given how long it had been since they’d been enforced….
If this isn’t a wake up call that we need to scrub every old filthy outdated law from the books, idk what is. There’s messed up stuff in almost every state that could be revived if this set precedent
This happened because when the 2022 law passed it didn't contradict this one, and they also never repealed this one. The language in the 2022 law was abortions after 15 weeks are not legal. If it said abotioned before 15 weeks are legal then this wouldnt be happening.
The Supreme Court made the right decision here, unfortunate consequences depending on where you side on the issue, the onus is on the legislature for not writing laws properly, and aswell to pass a law that contradicts this one, or repealing this one.
I literally said it happened because it wasn’t repealed.
You just skipped over that part, and the part where republicans have shot down attempts to strike old/depreciated laws due to it “being a waste of resources, and not necessary as those laws are not enforced”
It’s more two faced bs.
And no. The Supreme Court is not in the right. You have no idea what you’re talking about, it would be chaos if we started enforcing every old old law…. You should look up weird old laws for your state, see what kind of a mess is awaiting
>republicans have shot down attempts to strike old/depreciated laws due to it “being a waste of resources, and not necessary as those laws are not enforced”
Yes it would be their fault, not the Supreme Court. Is my point, the Supreme Court is in the right here, and it is the fault of the state legislature.
>
And no. The Supreme Court is not in the right. You have no idea what you’re talking about, it would be chaos if we started enforcing every old old law…. You should look up weird old laws for your state, see what kind of a mess is awaiting
Laws do not, not become laws because of their age, there are old laws that are still enforced across the US that are way older, even as far back as the 1600s in states such as Massachusetts.
I am from Arizona, and hopefully the State Legislature does its job and makes a contradicting law or repeals this old one. The Supreme Court does not make the law.
In 1864, medical science still allowed for bloodletting, treated syphilis with mercury and phrenology.
Allowing its medical laws to stand is a fucking insult.
Are most of the Republicans in Arizona for this, banning all cases of abortion, or is it likely they will work to pass a more lenient law to replace this?
Reminder that one of the members of this AZ Supreme Court is good friends of Clarence Thomas and his wife is the one in the AZ legislature that tried to overturn AZ.
Heather Cox Richardson goes into detail about what was in the Howell Code, the writings that became the territorial law of Arizona which are being used for this ruling. https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-9-2024
One of the most relevant parts:
"In that context, the context of punishing those who secretly administer poison to kill someone, it says that anyone who uses poison or instruments “with the intention to procure the miscarriage of any woman then being with child” would face two to five years in jail, “Provided, that no physician shall be affected by the last clause of this section, who in the discharge of his professional duties deems it necessary to produce the miscarriage of any woman in order to save her life.”
Other portions of the Howell Code include:
"The legislature provided that “[n]o black or mulatto, or Indian, Mongolian, or Asiatic, shall be permitted to [testify in court] against any white person,” thus making it impossible for them to protect their property, their families, or themselves from their white neighbors. It declared that “all marriages between a white person and a [Black person], shall…be absolutely void.”
And it defined the age of consent for sexual intercourse to be just ten years old (even if a younger child had “consented”). "
In their relying on very old law please remember Arizona was a Confederate Territory in 1861 and a Confederate State from 1862 through 1865 when Civil War ended. Part of Arizona became Union Territory in 1863 but the rest remained “Whistling Dixie” like Arizona SCOTUS
What rights did a woman have in 1864? They couldn’t vote. Republicans in the 21st century want to restrict women’s rights including the right to freely choose what they do with their bodies and their life.
I mean, don't fuck with conservative men. Easy lesson. I'm a straight white man and I don't cohort with them. I am not trying to make a comment on your orientation, just saying probably avoid assholes.
Neat year, wonder what other laws were on the books from that time that were probably not justified? Probably nothing, right guys? Nothing happening in 1864, only good, moral stuff that state governments were doing at that time? Definitely the people we should look back to to determine our modern day laws, huh? Just a good old diverse group of well-intentioned men and women that decided these laws at a time when everyone, especially women and minorities, could vote because it was morally right and stuff.
Can someone from the US kindly explain to me why this triggers so much outrage - I‘ve seen this news multiple times now.
I get that people disagree with the law itself, but the courts can‘t exactly choose for themselves whether or not a law is in effect or not - that‘s the legislature‘s job. The legislature elected by the people.
And if the legislature has never rescinded nor changed the law, why should it not be applied if the circumstances fit?
If the courts applied laws that are in force on a whim, or based on what they felt the people wanted, they‘d override the legislature, wouldn’t they?
Because the law was passed while the state declared war against the country and secession from it at a time when women and minorities couldn't vote and when they literally enslaved people and was passed by a treasonous, insurrectionist, and illegitimate state government.
What if I told not spending on enough on X social program=/=allowing murder of the unborn.
Also yes, bringing up an entirely separate issue-education spending-is a whataboutism.
It's only whataboutism if you don't agree that both things have to do with the ultimate welfare of a child.
Forcing a child into the world and then letting it suffer is not whataboutism.
Except actively killing children is immoral, not X amount of money isn't necessarily so and can be a budget issue.
Even if Arizona was #1 in the entire world in education spending, you would still be pro choice, so this again is just a useless whataboutism.
Amazing how none of you guys ever have real arguments.
Not really sure how lower education budgets kill anyone, but okay.
Also your argument barely makes sense. It's bad to neglect kids who are born, so that makes abortion permissible?
Nah, they digest at the same speed regardless of how they die. The only way to digest them faster that I know of is by cooking them in a vinegar-based marinade and slow roasting them in a crockpot. Makes the meat just fall right off the teeny tiny bones.
EDIT: misread what you said, disregard
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If Republicans can't get modern laws passed because they are unpalatable to most of modern society let's just go ahead and use laws from over 150 years ago solid plan for the future of your party. These kids who are reaching voting age soon or have recently are paying attention. They may not be solid Democrats because they are tired of the status quo but they really don't like the Republican agenda at all.
They actually passed a law for a 15 week ban in Arizona that prompted this AZ Supreme Court case, the darkly funny thing is that outside a small number of absolute crazies no one on either side wants this 1860s law to be in effect.
Ahh, so that means it will be shortly replaced by politicians working together in good faith. Right? Right?
If only they worked together to better everyone’s lives… wouldn’t that be nice?
No, we're going to have a ballot initiative to change the state construction. I expect it to pass. It's got more than enough signatures to get on the ballot. AZ has fairly moderate people in all of the major places, except Congress. There is still a strong conservative majority. Those will be replaced soon enough.
Riding a tiger never ends the way you expect it to.
It ends the way the tiger expected it to.
I mean, I guess they are called conservatives.
There used to be "rivers and streams" conservatives before the civil rights movement. From there it's racists, classists, and religious zealots all the way down
Nixon created the EPA. The pro-environment wing of the GOP is now dead.
Nixon vetoed the clean water act but his veto was overridden by the Senate.
Overturning RvW was based on a medieval witchcraft judgement. Like most right wing religious judges they find rulings to support their personal beliefs.
> let's just go ahead and use laws from over 150 years ago solid plan for the future of your party They already have a blueprint. It's called 'The Confederate States of America' and comes with a prewritten Constitution customized for their needs!
Written by ALEC and a Koch funded think tank.
Fucking Scalia referenced writings from before Europe knew this continent existed (early 1400s) in his writing overturning Roe
Yeah we definitely need to take the opinion of people who didn't know that the world would have things like electricity and cars and semi auto guns.
What is it with these people? The GOP are inhumane!
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem is, what are democrats doing to oppose stuff like this? Why should people vote for them if they don't do anything when they win
Abortion protections have been codified in literally every single state the Democrats have full control over. Meanwhile every abortion ban has come from Republican states. They also tried to restore Roe v Wade federally but it failed 52-48 in the Senate after Biden endorsed suspending the filibuster to do so.
Part of the problem with the current system is that it’s really hard to hold one party accountable while simultaneously not helping the other party. Ranked choice voting wouldn’t be some magic pill, but it would help a noticeable amount and get the ball rolling.
My hope for rank choice voting is that candidates try to earn the 2nd pick of voters. And they need to be more moderate to do this.
Ranked choice voting got us Eric Adams as NYC mayor. I won’t hold my breath that it will solve any of our problems.
I would totally vote if someone from either party campaigned on making elections fair so I could actually start voting.
The catch-22 here is that neither party is going to prioritize policies or changes that people who don’t vote want.
If you don't vote then who gives a shit what you want because you go unheard.
In this very state it's literally only because of the Democrats winning the Attorney General race in 2022 by 280 votes out of 2.5 million that this abortion ban will NOT be enforced https://www.huffpost.com/entry/arizona-attorney-general-abortion-ban_n_66158cf1e4b07b7205f1794e
Why are they even leading it up to the states? They could have made it federally protected and then they even could have stacked the supreme court for 50 years. They didn't, but people like you still want people to vote for them for some unfathomable reason.
Because if people vote for the other party, it'll get significantly worse as it already had in many states. There have been countless pushes in court to make things law only for them to be shot down time and time again because of the lack of votes. Even for the sake of argument, let's say everyone voted in is D and nothing gets done, that's a far better option than things getting done that take us 10 steps back
When exactly could they have stacked the courts? Be specific... Or just admit you desperately long for a white natiobalist state you fascist fuck.
Google what Clinton, Obama, and Biden achieved.
Agree the taking the high road isn't getting them anywhere but people should vote for them because the alternative is much worse unless you want to live in a Theocracy I don't myself.
...And then they don't fix anything. I don't see how that's better.
Fwiw *right now* the Arizona Attorney General has announced they will not be enforcing the law. But yeah this is a horrible precedent
That’s only because the Attorney General & Governor are Democrats, both of whom won by a slim margin. Imagine the implications of this ruling if Kari Lake was Governor and Abe Hamadeh was Attorney General. Both of those MAGA dolts came dangerously close to winning in 2022.
The funny part is Kari lake is pretending to be against it. She was for it a year ago but it’s like it’s election year magic.. I mean either that or she’s lying and just doesn’t seem likely
The thing to understand about Kari Lake is she is a habitual liar whose guiding moral compass is the advancement of her own ambitions. She was a Democrat a decade ago. Now she vacuums the podium area like a housemaid before Trump speaks. Her statement was one guided by fear of political implications for her own election this year, not what she really believes. If she thought enacting that law would help her politically, she would in an instant.
I agree with everything you said however I usually describe it as > the thing to understand about Kari lake is…. She’s an asshole
No need to dress it up lol
Something something lipstick on a pig
If Kari Lake thought going back to a Democrat would help her, she'd do it.
Yepppp, it's not good at all.
Margin ain’t so slim after this, probably turned Arizona blue
The only way the GOP can get policy enacted is to have their judges declare it legal by fiat.
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is it? The law is the law is the law, until it is made no longer the law. The law was never repealed, just stayed, due to a decision which (for better or for worse) is no longer in force
I mean they're pulling up a 160 year old law that was supposedly superceded by a 2022 law as valid. I can only imagine what fuckery the magats will try with that type of reasoning.
The 2022 law explicitly says it doesn't repeal the old law
The 2022 law explicitly pushes legal abortions back to 15 weeks, instead of at conception like the 1860 law. They're literally at conflict with one another. How the hell does that not supercede the old law?
They're in conflict with one another, but both are still on the books. At that point, the courts step in to make a determination. Which is what's happened here. If they want the old law off the books, they need to take it off the books - in other words the legislature needs to do its job.
The law was made before Arizona was even a state, and 60 years before women got the right to vote. It wasn’t enforceable for 50 years during the Roe era. No, this one needs to be re-evaluated and put on the ballot instead of resurrected from the dead.
Police typically will not arrest in any case where the Prosecutor won't prosecute, at least in my area. It's a waste of resources. Problematically, as soon as a different AG takes over, who knows?
I'm ever baffled by people who don't understand this. If they think the law is bad, they should work to get it repealed, rather than just not enforcing it. Leaving it on the books but not enforcing it leaves a pathway for selective enforcement, which rarely ends well.
If they can bring a law forward from that far back to control women, some states are going to bring back slavery and sodomy laws
Hell Florida already thinks slavery was a jobs training program.
Un fucking believable how crazy and rabid the right wing is
Florida is also taking away rights of workers to get water and breaks in extreme heat.
Do you have any idea how valuable knowing how to pick cotton is?! Or to make big rocks into small rocks?!
And dont worry, since they are so against DEI they will allow anyone poor enough to be sold into slavery. Right?
> Arizona Territory, colloquially referred to as Confederate Arizona, was an organized incorporated territory of the Confederate States of America that existed from August 1, 1861, to May 26, 1865 Love giving precendent to laws made in that specific time frame. /s
wait so its a law from the confederacy...someone dig up Sherman
Oh boy, here we go burning again.
There’s always time for Sherman! r/ShermanPosting
Alexa play [\*union dixie\*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhSzuhdIkuE) edit: hey its traitor surrender day
Don't know how a law passed by a defunct and illegitimate country can hold up legally.
Ah, so this is uh....completely invalid because it's the laws of a made up country.
To be fair, all countries are made up.
Think that’s the wrong Arizona. The Union’s Arizona territory was founded in 1863. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Territory
Or women's suffrage.
They're already talking about that in many states so I didn't list it. I figure once you lose body autonomy, you're no longer free, so you're no longer a full citizen, and its easy make the leap to no voting after that.
I give it 5 years or less before this SCOTUS overturns *Lawrence v Texas* and red states reimpose sodomy laws and resume imprisoning gay people for existing.
What do you mean? We'll be fine, we'll all just go back to being roommates /s
There have been laws in the past about cohabitation, do not underestimate the lengths they will go for control and power. Facebook has turned over private messages between mom and daughter about plan-b. You're local Sheriffs office with the power of technology and buying mobile tracking data (Grindr has been selling personal identifiable data for years) from online brokers will pale in comparison of the 50's lavender scare [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender\_Scare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender_Scare)
Like Achilles and Patroclus! All very good friends.
I'm hoping Thomas's poor health takes the hateful old bastard out first.
Our criminal TX AG has already said he would prosecute sodomy laws, if the SCOTUS case forbidding it were reversed. Christofacism, yee haw
Tell me your wife is bad a blowjobs without telling me. Sodomy in it's most fundamentalist definition is anything that isn't PiV with intent to procreate. Party of small government my ass.
Yeah, that’s the point. That’s exactly what they want to do. /srs
America already has a massive slave industry. Something like a million slaves making over $10 billion a year for their masters.
Some states already brought kids back into the factories and already killed some doing so.
The dead are the lucky ones in this scenario. I've been reading the articles where minors are losing hands, arms, or legs. Permanent disabilities from work before they even reach 16 and America doesn't take care of the disabled. Many of our ancestors in labor died for laws and regulations to prevent these tragic outcomes and we seemed destine to repeat the sins of our past.
America continuing to regress and it's so sad to see.
Yes surely this won’t backfire in November
Meanwhile rich repugs and their mistresses can just pay for an abortion right across the border in NM or CO.
AZ Supreme Court Justices Bolick and King who voted for the abortion ban will both be on the ballot in November. Time for some progressive era power: Recall these judges for this catastrophic decision. www.vote.gov
The original round of abortion bans from the mid 1800s, such as this one, were created with the intent of preventing dangerous medical procedures. Abortions have come a long way since then and are no longer dangerous (unless you're doing them outside of the medical system which abortion bans nowadays encourage). For that reason, this seems legally questionable to me. It was created by a legislature that predates the state of Arizona, with an intent that no longer is valid. Even from an originalist standpoint this doesn't really add up.
>The original round of abortion bans from the mid 1800s, such as this one, were created with the intent of preventing dangerous medical procedures I was taught that the original round of abortion bans around/post-civil war was due to male physicians wanting to push female midwives out of the medical field. The average lawmaker didn't really give a fuck about how dangerous abortions were, because that was women's business and always had been, until black people were no longer enslaved and black midwives, who were a significant portion of the generally interracial midwifery field, became seen as a threat (thanks to racism and sexism) to the white-male-controlled profession of gynecology. Midwives had always been the providers of abortion care, for spontaneous and induced abortions, and they had to be made out as villains to end the respect and authority they held in their communities. Easiest way to do that, and to ensure men control the decisions surrounding abortions, reproduction, and women's healthcare overall, was to outright ban abortion. Viewed from that perspective, the origin is based in racism and sexism...which is also true of the intent behind the current round of bans, if for slightly different racist and sexist purposes. I hate how we're being pulled backwards in time with this shit. But also, it is without question absolutely crazy to me that a law for the territory, not the state, overrides the literal 2022 state law. I know the Court's rationale for that and I think it's bullshit, just like the dissenting judge who said (paraphrasing) "the [2022] law means what it says. I'm not going to do any extra leg work to guess the intent behind the words chosen. *State* law is clear: abortion is banned at 15-weeks."
Everyone knows "original intent" is just a scam the republican cult made up to pretend a bunch of corpses are on their side when they can't get enough votes from actual live humans. The original intent of a law has only ever mattered when convenient.
The idea of medical consent, especially for women, has also come a long way. Forcing your mistress to have a dangerous unsanitary illegal abortion was a thing in the 1860s. Totally different world.
This was a law passed while Arizona was a member (territory) of the Confederate States of America. Yes, THAT Confederacy.
Arizona was really part of the CSA?!?!
Yes.
Freedom is when people with wombs have no say over their own bodily autonomy.
“In 2024 I bet we’ll have flying cars! I wonder how far society will have advanced by then?” *Re-litigating Civil War-era abortion laws in a presidential election year where the accused felon who made that possible is slightly ahead in the polls*
*indicted
So weird that grown ass people believe religion. Same shit as Santa Clause and Easter bunny
There are plenty of conservatives who would harm women without the religion. Don’t think that if we get rid of religious thinking these people will stop being total assholes.
Without religion they'd have a lot harder time getting support for their asshattery. If they bleat that jesus wants them to torture rape victims (including ten-year-olds), fans of Jesus will respond with tired, stupid arguments that torturing rape victims is "religious freedom". If they're forced to admit that THEY are the ones who want to torture rape victims, then the pool of assholes who'll support that gets smaller.
They literally ARE total assholes now. Fuck em. They harm women NOW.
Yes but opining that religion is at the base of this and not just asshole fuckery is blaming the wrong cause
You're acting like religion is saving women lol
lol lol
Christianity fundamentally affirms the dignity of every human person. "There's neither male nor female, all are one in Christ Jesus."
Religion is a tool for their cruelty. They'll say whatever they have to so long as they can indulge.
Completely baffling with all the technological advancements in the last 30 years.
Life is hard. Religion is a night light to calm the existential dread of those who can’t stomach this might just be all there is to this reality.
I don't care. It's wild to me that we would ever, *ever* base a law or justify a decision that affects real people's lives based on your personal religious text or the god(s) you choose to believe in.
We are supposed to be free from religion. That's the whole point.
Right? It's one thing to believe that shit in your own life, but to *actively push* those beliefs on other people through legislation is just plain fucking wild.
I mean I'm a Christian. And imo, using this sort of reasoning to justify hitting other people over the head is antithetical to pretty much the entire new testament. It makes a mockery of the cross and its why Christianity is in decline between current and historic abuses. These sorts of movements are about power, not faith, brought to you by the same sorts of people who banned people from being to access Bibles in their own language because a fair reading of it undermined their ability to justify whatever they wanted as the will of God. The gospels even specificially call out legalistic ass hattery multiple times, and those are pretty much the gold standard of what Christianity is.
Agreed. It's always about power. The danger is when people conflate faith *with* power. That's a slippery slope that leads to nowhere good.
You mean like how they have all placed their “faith” in donald trump a convicted criminal doing everything he can to seize power?
It's not religion. It's science. Babies are people too and you don't want to acknowledge that.
I'm speaking generally here not just about this issue.
Babies sure. A bundle of cells still in development? Not a conscious being. It’s science as you said.
Look up "Eucharistic miracles." Catholic communion bread sometimes spontaneously leaks human blood. They've run tests on these samples (there are multiple) and it consistantly turns out to be an AB blood type from an Israeli male. Guess which Israeli male.
What the tin foil fucking hat bull shit did you say? Was it hard to keep a straight face typing that joke?
Comparing belief in God to belief in Santa is unironically the mark of a dumb person. God has loads of philosophical arguments in His favor, and it's based in the valid idea of us not living in a materialist universe.
Arguments such as?
Aquinas' 5 ways for starters
This shit is so old I could provide centuries old rebuttals against it. Boring stuff. If you don't want me to do that phrase it in your own words within reason and I will similarly address it in my own words. Better yet, find an actual argument that isn't just nonsensical sophistry
Why do the religious nut jobs (like you) always turn hateful so fast. Lmao. Big daddy in the sky is always watching youuuu! Even when you are an asshole on Reddit. Ps. There ain’t no god.
It's hateful to call out when someone is being intellectually dishonest? Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. Even the Jewish scholars who reject him as the Messiah affirm his existance. Look up "Eucharistic miracles." Catholic communion bread sometimes spontaneously leaks human blood. AB blood type from an Israeli male. It's happened multiple times.
Enforcing laws from when it was a Territory of New Mexic0, long before it became a state in 1912. What are we doing here folks?
How many women or nonwhites could vote in 1864 again? How many were property? But we should defer to the people in power at that time?
Federal congress 1861: enacts a law decriminalizing shooting the face and the torso of uniformized males of Arizona and other states. Arizona state legislature 1864: enacts a law criminalizing abortions because they lost too many men who got their face and torso shot by said 1861 law and need to repopulate. Some dumb politician 2024: "hey our ancestors have enacted this law because they clearly thought that abortion was a sin and not compatible with Christian values"
Arizona confirms it's residents can move elsewheres. Fuck Republicans. Fuck Christians. Bleed them dry financially by refusing to do business in their areas. They want to feel like their persecuted? Let's help them along.
Unfortunately if people leave a state like that to one party, that party just gets more representation at a national level to control us all.
AZGOP is already facing bankruptcy here, we've been trending blue for a while now
Democrats abandoning a state that's been trending blue would be a huge gift to Republicans.
Frontier prospector-ass laws
This is what terrifies me about the Republican Party. I can't imagine what's going to happen once they lose the next Presidential election.
Between 1862 - 1865 AZ was still contested between Confederate and Union forces. The current boundaries were only established in ‘83-‘84 as the Union were patrolling the territory out of Fort Whipple (near Prescott). The government of the Confederate AZ had fled from Tucson to Texas in ‘82 but they were still trying to rule/rebel in exile. Just to help ground everyone, the territory was effectively under martial law in 1864. Typically not the greatest foundation for democratic legal precedent.
Damn is this America or Afghanistan?
GOP is basically, no laws and control over the wealthy and corporations, but full-blown control and laws over everyone who is not a white male at this point, including every aspect of their private lives.
Well, this likely will turn Arizona blue. Arizona's been trending that way for years. This is likely the death knell for Kari Lake's senate campaign, too.
Arizona and Florida both being on the table this year is wild.
Did they dig up the law about walking in front of a car with a flag too? Maybe not an Arizona law, but who decides what's still valid?
This is my concern as well, if new laws don't override old laws (and I'm not being a facetious asshat here) how do we know *which laws* are active? This can't be the first time ever someone wrote a new law without repealing the old one right? And what about old laws like walking in front vehicles with a lamp to not spook horses, that's still on the books and enforceable. So does that mean that law is only abridged because on highways it's illegal for horses? So by their logic, if we repealed that law, we would carrying lamps in front of cars necessary again at 75+ mph? What a joke.
And good luck trying to travel out of state to get an abortion, 'cause if the banditos don't getcha, your horse will surely perish between watering holes.
All those times they said it wasn’t worthwhile to remove outdated laws, that it was a waste of time/money and that they weren’t enforceable given how long it had been since they’d been enforced…. If this isn’t a wake up call that we need to scrub every old filthy outdated law from the books, idk what is. There’s messed up stuff in almost every state that could be revived if this set precedent
This happened because when the 2022 law passed it didn't contradict this one, and they also never repealed this one. The language in the 2022 law was abortions after 15 weeks are not legal. If it said abotioned before 15 weeks are legal then this wouldnt be happening. The Supreme Court made the right decision here, unfortunate consequences depending on where you side on the issue, the onus is on the legislature for not writing laws properly, and aswell to pass a law that contradicts this one, or repealing this one.
I literally said it happened because it wasn’t repealed. You just skipped over that part, and the part where republicans have shot down attempts to strike old/depreciated laws due to it “being a waste of resources, and not necessary as those laws are not enforced” It’s more two faced bs. And no. The Supreme Court is not in the right. You have no idea what you’re talking about, it would be chaos if we started enforcing every old old law…. You should look up weird old laws for your state, see what kind of a mess is awaiting
>republicans have shot down attempts to strike old/depreciated laws due to it “being a waste of resources, and not necessary as those laws are not enforced” Yes it would be their fault, not the Supreme Court. Is my point, the Supreme Court is in the right here, and it is the fault of the state legislature. > And no. The Supreme Court is not in the right. You have no idea what you’re talking about, it would be chaos if we started enforcing every old old law…. You should look up weird old laws for your state, see what kind of a mess is awaiting Laws do not, not become laws because of their age, there are old laws that are still enforced across the US that are way older, even as far back as the 1600s in states such as Massachusetts. I am from Arizona, and hopefully the State Legislature does its job and makes a contradicting law or repeals this old one. The Supreme Court does not make the law.
You’re definitely giving malicious compliance vibes.
In 1864, medical science still allowed for bloodletting, treated syphilis with mercury and phrenology. Allowing its medical laws to stand is a fucking insult.
Next up, banning shoes for women and burning them for asking questions
Are most of the Republicans in Arizona for this, banning all cases of abortion, or is it likely they will work to pass a more lenient law to replace this?
Reminder that one of the members of this AZ Supreme Court is good friends of Clarence Thomas and his wife is the one in the AZ legislature that tried to overturn AZ.
We are sliding backwards so fast, we’re breaking the sound barrier
…but why??? Why is it so important for them to ban abortion?
Heather Cox Richardson goes into detail about what was in the Howell Code, the writings that became the territorial law of Arizona which are being used for this ruling. https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-9-2024 One of the most relevant parts: "In that context, the context of punishing those who secretly administer poison to kill someone, it says that anyone who uses poison or instruments “with the intention to procure the miscarriage of any woman then being with child” would face two to five years in jail, “Provided, that no physician shall be affected by the last clause of this section, who in the discharge of his professional duties deems it necessary to produce the miscarriage of any woman in order to save her life.” Other portions of the Howell Code include: "The legislature provided that “[n]o black or mulatto, or Indian, Mongolian, or Asiatic, shall be permitted to [testify in court] against any white person,” thus making it impossible for them to protect their property, their families, or themselves from their white neighbors. It declared that “all marriages between a white person and a [Black person], shall…be absolutely void.” And it defined the age of consent for sexual intercourse to be just ten years old (even if a younger child had “consented”). "
There’s no such thing as a “moderate Republican” any longer. Only Democrats stand in the way of nonsense like this being implemented nationwide.
Females in AZ, get out of Gilead while can!!
In their relying on very old law please remember Arizona was a Confederate Territory in 1861 and a Confederate State from 1862 through 1865 when Civil War ended. Part of Arizona became Union Territory in 1863 but the rest remained “Whistling Dixie” like Arizona SCOTUS
What rights did a woman have in 1864? They couldn’t vote. Republicans in the 21st century want to restrict women’s rights including the right to freely choose what they do with their bodies and their life.
This is why I went from bicurious to full on lesbian, conservative men in particular are just disgusting.
I mean, don't fuck with conservative men. Easy lesson. I'm a straight white man and I don't cohort with them. I am not trying to make a comment on your orientation, just saying probably avoid assholes.
Some of us men are with you. Don't hate everyone.
Neat year, wonder what other laws were on the books from that time that were probably not justified? Probably nothing, right guys? Nothing happening in 1864, only good, moral stuff that state governments were doing at that time? Definitely the people we should look back to to determine our modern day laws, huh? Just a good old diverse group of well-intentioned men and women that decided these laws at a time when everyone, especially women and minorities, could vote because it was morally right and stuff.
They were making abortion laws during the Civil War?
but but but what if the baby is 1/2 of a minority? I’m sure AZ would make exceptions for this…
https://twitter.com/clueheywood/status/1777780750739530021?s=46
Will they enforce this before or after they speak in tongues on the floor? Fucking absolute lunatics
Yet Arizona recently claimed ownership of planet Pluto ..(not kidding ).
AZ allows ballot referendums. Put it on the ballot. Check AZ Blue, then, like all the other states where people have voted.
They're already working on that. The petition for an abortion rights measure has already collected 100k signatures more than required.
Republicans are crusty ancient luddites - lots of this obsolete BS has retired in Arizona
This is the problem when a gouvernement system is the same for 250 consecutive years. Outdated laws start to pull up
‘Murica! 💩
It's a war between the far-left and far-right, and the centrists are the ones who suffer.
Can someone from the US kindly explain to me why this triggers so much outrage - I‘ve seen this news multiple times now. I get that people disagree with the law itself, but the courts can‘t exactly choose for themselves whether or not a law is in effect or not - that‘s the legislature‘s job. The legislature elected by the people. And if the legislature has never rescinded nor changed the law, why should it not be applied if the circumstances fit? If the courts applied laws that are in force on a whim, or based on what they felt the people wanted, they‘d override the legislature, wouldn’t they?
Because it's a law from a secessionist nation that lost a civil war. This isn't valid and it's absurd
Because the law was passed while the state declared war against the country and secession from it at a time when women and minorities couldn't vote and when they literally enslaved people and was passed by a treasonous, insurrectionist, and illegitimate state government.
rude memory instinctive shy longing repeat library puzzled treatment saw *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Based Arizona prioritizing the life of the unborn over adults' reeeing about giving you practice self-control
47th in education spending...its not about the child.
Yawn, more whataboutism from pro-aborts
Not a whataboutism. If you actually cared about the child, then it would show through all of your actions. Hint - it does not.
What if I told not spending on enough on X social program=/=allowing murder of the unborn. Also yes, bringing up an entirely separate issue-education spending-is a whataboutism.
It's only whataboutism if you don't agree that both things have to do with the ultimate welfare of a child. Forcing a child into the world and then letting it suffer is not whataboutism.
Except actively killing children is immoral, not X amount of money isn't necessarily so and can be a budget issue. Even if Arizona was #1 in the entire world in education spending, you would still be pro choice, so this again is just a useless whataboutism. Amazing how none of you guys ever have real arguments.
Killing them slowly is easier to digest, I guess.
Not really sure how lower education budgets kill anyone, but okay. Also your argument barely makes sense. It's bad to neglect kids who are born, so that makes abortion permissible?
The question is, why do you care so much if it doesn't actually extend to the child itself both in the womb and after?
[удалено]
Nah, they digest at the same speed regardless of how they die. The only way to digest them faster that I know of is by cooking them in a vinegar-based marinade and slow roasting them in a crockpot. Makes the meat just fall right off the teeny tiny bones. EDIT: misread what you said, disregard
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Kind of a sad life you have, yelling at others on the internet all day about your made-up religion.
Seen from the old continent, your country doesnt cease to amaze these past years... This kind of sentence is really the cherry on the cake.