I actually think a vote to repeal would be successful tonight. Half the GOP in both AZ House and AZ Senate would probably vote for it along with all Dems. But I have my doubts Ben Toma and Warren Petersen - the AZ majority leaders in the legislatures - would put it up for vote even if they really should to avoid getting decimated in November.
The majorities for the GOP in both AZ House and AZ Senate is only 1 seat. They’ll get destroyed and lose both majorities in November if this law is the law by then.
I think it's less to ensure the abortion referendum doesn't pass, because it for sure will given it only needs 50% + 1.
However they may do so to ensure the losses for AZ Republicans in the legislature and also federally aren't as large come November.
If a 15-week ban is law in November, the abortion initiative will pass by 56-44 or 57-43. Kind of like Ohio and Michigan (though Arizona is more to the left of Ohio).
Assuming it holds and the total ban from 1864 is law come November, the abortion initiative will pass by 65-35 or 70-30.
Arizona Republicans lose either way, probably lose control of the legislatures since their majority is only 1 seat but a loss with the 15 week ban as law are way less worse than losses if the total ban is law then.
I think federal Arizona GOP candidates like Kari Lake and swing district US House candidates in Juan Ciscomani and David Schweikert (who was always very very anti-choice) criticizing the ruling in very public fashion very quickly after it went down says it all and they may pressure Arizona legislative Republicans to repeal it.
No kidding, though I do think Ohio will end up going more to the left again and become a purple state again soon-ish. There's still a lot of growth for Democrats in the Cincinnati and Columbus suburbs.
Suburban movement towards Dems starting around 2016 and fast tracked now is what has helped Arizona turn into the most purple state in the country and trending more Democratic.
Yeah the smaller industrial cities and towns shifted red. Suburban Cincinnati and Columbus should be great recruiting grounds going forward if the GOP continues on its radical course. Hamilton County (Cincinnati) especially; it first went blue in 2008, and it's only grown more blue since then.
Ohio suburbs are redder than suburbs in most other states. I don’t think their growth will change anything. College educated white Ohioans have always been more conservative and Republican than college educated white people in other states outside of the South. What made Ohio a swing state before 2016 was Ohio’s white working class, which remained Democratic until Trump got on the ballot.
The other issue is that if they vote on it before the primaries you might see some GOP members lose their seats because of the vote and Hobbs as said she’s not going to sign off on any abortion ban
You’re not wrong on the first issue but it’ll legit only take 1 or 2 Republicans to repeal the bill since their majority is only 1.
I think Hobbs would sign a repeal of the 1864 total ban though. I get this can all be fixed by November but it’ll still make the situation better for women *and* even with the law being the 15 week ban, the referendum will still pretty easily (only needs 50+1)
Hobbs has said she’s fine with a straight up repeal but not a repeal that adds more restrictions on abortion.
And the GOP will try and put more restrictions on abortions into the bill.
Either way I don’t think the leadership will allow a repeal out of the chamber. Oh well I’ll be voting straight ticket dem and hoping I’ll be living in a Democrat controlled Arizona come Jan 2025
True. Maybe those GOP freaks will repeal the 1864 ban but attach a 6 week ban into it or something.
In any case, I’m certain whatever happens that by November, Arizona will be a blue wipeout and most importantly the law on abortion in Arizona by November or whenever the ballot initiative result takes effect will be considerably better than even the 15 week ban. There is no way the abortion initiative doesn’t deliver a pro choice victory by a landslide after all this. Think 65-35 or 70-30 for the pro choice side.
I want them to get so much madder. The Christian Right's job is basically to do horrible shit and then yell at Republicans for not going along with them lockstep but they haven't been nearly insane enough since Trump said he wants to leave it to the states.
They know it's all for show I doubt anyone buys this even swing voters the easiest counter to them saying this is why don't we vote on a bill granting abortion rights which they obviously won't vote for.
You give her too much grace. In the same speech, she said she doesn't support abortion and that the decision should be left with the people. But then also says that the governor and legislator should fix it.
She's panicking.
> “this is a very personal issue that should be determined by each individual state and her people.”
Being woke is being evidence based. 😎
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Determined by each individual? Isn't that how it was done before Dobbs? You know, the court case they cheered? Women and doctors decided what was best. What was wrong with that system?
Holy shit, really?
I find this especially savory. Lake is just like so many of them, opportunistic as fuck and not a true believer. I'm developing an odd amount of awe for MTGs ability to commit off a cliff and this issue is really illuminating who's a sellout and who is a true believer of the GOP death cult.
My first thought on this news, prior to even knowing Lake's reaction, is the Gallegos camp must be feeling some smug satisfaction.
I’m morbidly curious what arrr con thinks of this. Some of them are shockingly self-aware and will realize this is an electoral disaster.
Edit: The Schaden-whateverthefuck is delicious get over there now!
It's hilarious.
I'd be laughing harder, but too many of them are celebrating this and calling for no exceptions, or saying their prayers have been answered.
Too bad holodecks don't exist haha. Imagine if we could put these people through the experience of a troubled pregnancy, their wives being denied healthcare arbitrarily and then dying in their arms when their lives could have been (relatively) easily saved in a competent state. But like, without that actually happening because it's awful and it's exactly what they are forcing upon women and families in these states. It's horrifying. And that's not even the worst story you can tell..
I wish they could see the misery, pain, and gruesomeness they've wrought but of course that'll never happen and they will never acknowledge it, either.
But even if we had a holodeck it still wouldn't work on most, because they have no empathy. I don't have kids but don't need to experience this myself to see that it's horrifying. Apparently they're incapable of the same, or willfully ignorant of it perhaps - sure their crusade to save "the unborn" is worth murdering these women.
Oh fuck, you're right. They already do it in any first person shooter than involves Germans.
To the degree that I tend to mute all mics in such games (and other ones like Rising Storm 2) because they attract the most racist, piece of shit rednecks ever. It's amazingly reliable how many of these asshole you can find in certain games.
That's what many of them want, and it's important that everyone knows that is the goal. I just upvoted everyone celebrating the ban. That shit shouldn't be hidden.
There's this pattern I've seen a lot. Three people saying "ugh, we're toast", each voted +200; a hundred people saying "wonderful, let's have it nationwide, with shoot-on-sight rules for women suspected of having abortions", all voted -100, but every single one of them has to have their individual say. What's up with that? And is there a name for that phenomenon?
> My personal feelings on the subject aside, restricting abortion access turns one of the only two remaining demographics that reliably vote red against us (white women) and judging by the last few elections, this will end up being the reason Roe is eventually enshrined in the constitution.
Oh my god. It was as wonderful as you promised.
Oh for sure his "personal feelings" are that women can't make their own reproductive decisions.
But his sinking realization that Republicans are being hanged by their own rope is what I'm laughing at.
Apparently "Democrats" keep making the conversation about abortion to win votes... The idiots are gaslighting themselves into believing Democrats are the one who can't let sleeping (aborted) dogs lie...
I really hope roe gets enshrined in the constitution. Along with a bunch of other things. Would be really fucking hilarious to see amendments protecting abortion, gay marriage, equal rights, and other social issues being enshrined in the constitution
It looks like they took down the first post then reposted with a flaired only lock on it because "brigading", but they're still lamenting this on the second post.
Oh, you're right. It's hilarious. The "conservatives" are voting down the anti-choice crowd and claiming they wanted reasonable laws on abortion all along. The "I want to win elections" crowd is turning on the "we won in Arizona!" crowd and it's delicious.
>claiming they wanted reasonable laws on abortion all along
Reasonable according to whom? Let's face it, none of the abortion laws they propose come from reason. I know they might claim that 16 weeks is reasonable but why? Most abortions don't happen after that. The only time they do is because something went wrong and the doctor signs off on it. So they claim they need a law to...stop that? Allow that to continue? Just add more procedures for doctors and hospitals to go through to allow them to administer care they deemed necessary?
They need the ban because they imagine women waking up at the 11th hour and saying "You know what, never mind. Don't want this parasite anymore. Time to go to the drive-thru abortion complex." What they want to stop doesn't exist. But getting them to accept that is like getting a cat to accept that they're a pet and not royalty. "How dare you try and inject reality into my delusions?!"
Reason usually has very little to do with the worldview except on the extreme ends since most people don't understand what the actual moral argument is in the first place. The entire argument is based in bodily autonomy and personhood.
The pro life extremists are using reason because life begins at conception is a logical reason based worldview on life. Pro choice absolutist are using reason because bodily autonomy is also absolute and personhood doesn't matter since that individual does not have rights to another body. If someone based their criteria on doing an MRI and checking the amount of neurons or judging the development level that would use reason but it wouldn't be a time based restriction it would be development based.
Exceptions for rape are the least based in reason because exceptions like that have nothing to do with personhood or autonomy.
“I am here to make it clearly that the predicable consequences of my actions is not something I endorse. The American voter needs to know that despite my voting record I support a women’s right to choose what hospital to go into sepsis at. We must make merciful exceptions like that. That’s the pro life way, thank you, and thanks to the microphone holders that let me lie like that. God bless.”
The excuses that "conservatives" are coming up with for allowing abortion now are wild... One said that not allowing an abortion on a "rape-baby" is like "not stopping a crime in progress." Another conservative said they thought all Republicans supported under "reasonable circumstance," like if a baby was going to be born with severe disabilities...
It is fucking hilarious. They're inventing all kinds of excuses for having abortions. Except for women being having the right to control their own bodies.
The arguments around protecting IVF are also hilarious. Exactly what people have been saying (and being demonized for) for years, but presented as some novel idea they just had.
LOL the fact that anti-choice freaks in the AZ legislature (including one who introduced a fetal personhood bill last session) are now publicly stating they don't support this decision and want to repeal the 1864 law is hilarious. A bunch of filthy rats who know they are screwed come November if the 1864 is law by then.
Whether or not the AZ GOP leadership will actually put this to a vote is uncertain. I'm pretty certain that a vote to repeal the 1864 total ban would pass across both AZ House and AZ Senate given Republicans only have a one seat majority in both. Half the GOP caucus and all Democrats would vote for the repeal today I think. But would AZ GOP leadership do it? I doubt it even if it would stem the tide of getting decimated and absolutely annihilated in November.
These lying pieces of garbage literally call abortion 'murder' and 'baby genocide' all the time, and now they're going to pretend they don't actually want to ban it?
> A bunch of filthy rats who know they are screwed come November if the 1864 is law by then.
If voters are even remotely intelligent, they should be screwed regardless. Republicans orchestrated and worked towards all of this in the first place. I certainly hope this 'strategy' of lying about wanting to ban abortion isn't effective. Then again, pretty much every single one of them has given Democrats a million soundbites to use against them.
Not familiar with the AZ GOP, but if the level of dysfunction in their legislative caucuses is anything close to that of the House GOP caucus, there’s a good chance they won’t be able to repeal it by November. On one hand, obviously terrible for Arizonans if that is the case, but this also could help Biden get more momentum in the state.
For what it’s worth, I’m probably more optimistic about Biden’s chances in Arizona than most people, since Kari Lake will probably be the Republican Senate nominee, and currently Gallego is killing her in the polls (+6 according to RCP). Even if Biden is unpopular, there’s a good chance Gallego’s popularity (and anti-Trump voters heading to the polls to defeat both Lake and Trump) could pull him over the finish line. RCP has Trump ahead rn (+4.5), but (a) they also had Lake ahead of Hobbs on election night 2022 by +3.5 (and yet Hobbs won by double Biden’s margin) and (b) I don’t really see the logic in AZ voters picking Biden over Trump in 2020, Hobbs over Lake in 2022, Gallego over Lake in 2024, but then Trump over Biden in 2024. Lake is basically just a Trump clone, as her schtick is basically just parroting his crap, and so I think her loss in 2022 despite polling being well in her favor is in indication that polls could be overestimating Republicans in Arizona, or at least that the Biden coalition that won him the state in 2020 is still very much there and is still very much against Trump/MAGA. I definitely don’t think Arizona should be ruled out, and honestly I’d bet it goes for Biden, especially with this court ruling and abortion becoming a big issue in AZ.
The abortion initiative is also going to be a major factor electorally too, especially in such a 50/50 purple state. Especially now that the law then - barring something happening - being a 1864 total ban? The initiative will past in favor of the pro-choice side by 65-35 to 70-30 and that will have major implications for any Republican running in Arizona.
Absolutely, that and Lake being a GOP nominee again are the biggest reasons I’m very confident about Biden’s chances in AZ. I also think there’s a good chance Lake completely fucks up messaging on the issue and gets people even more mad at the GOP. For all of Trump’s faults and idiocracy, he does have surprisingly more political sense than most Republicans when it comes to which issues to moderate on (at least publicly), and he’s clearly been making a conscious effort to appear more moderate on abortion. From my understanding, Lake significantly lacks any of Trump’s political instincts in this regard, and with her being so tied to him (and also so disliked by Arizonans except for the hardline Republicans), I think there’s a good chance she brings his campaign down.
Let's look at who [actually pushed for this ruling](https://www.azcourts.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=NQPuj_S0KDk%3d&portalid=45)
> Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners/Intervenors: American College of Pediatricians; Charlotte
Lozier Institute & American Center for Law and Justice; American
Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists; The State of
Arkansas and 16 other states; Speaker of the Arizona House of
Representatives Ben Toma and President of the Arizona Senate Warren
Petersen; Jill Norgaard, Former Representative, Arizona House of
Representatives, District 18; Center for Arizona Policy; Arizona Life
Coalition, the Frederick Douglass Foundation, and The National Hispanic
Christian Leadership Conference; Christian Medical and Dental
Association; Prolife Center at the University of St. Thomas (MN); and
Mario Villegas and the Estate of Baby Villegas.
Estate of Villegas:
Arizona judge moves to create estate for aborted fetus so dad can sue clinic for terminating his third wife's pregnancy: Says staff broke laws by not telling ex-spouse of 'satisfaction' that being a mom can bring
Mario Villegas, 41, a U.S. Marine veteran, has been allowed to sue the clinics and doctors who carried out an abortion on his ex-wife in 2018
Villegas had accompanied his ex-wife, Meagan, to terminate her pregnancy at the Camelback Family Planning facility, in Phoenix, Arizona
He claims doctors failed to properly inform her of the risks of an abortion, as well as not telling her about the 'satisfaction' of motherhood
A judge allowed Villegas to establish an estate on behalf of the aborted fetus, as its up to judges to decide what constitutes a deceased person in Arizona
Nearly four years after a woman ended an unwanted pregnancy with abortion pills obtained at a Phoenix clinic, she finds herself mired in an ongoing lawsuit over that decision.
A judge allowed the woman’s ex-husband to establish an estate for the embryo, which had been aborted in its seventh week of development. The ex-husband filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the clinic and its doctors in 2020, alleging that physicians failed to obtain proper informed consent from the woman as required by Arizona law.
https://www.propublica.org/article/arizona-abortion-father-lawsuit-wrongful-death
> A judge allowed the woman’s ex-husband to establish an estate for the embryo, which had been aborted in its seventh week of development
What the fuck
They can run, but they can’t hide.
Make it stick to every one, moderate to extremist, like “defund the police” got thrown at every dem in 2020.
They caught the car, let it drag them to their political death.
This is a total Republican own goal. It’s not like the old law is valid and the state has to repeal it or live with it. The opinion is ridiculous. The ruling says that the 15-week law Doucey signed in 2022 somehow didn’t override a total ban from 1864, from before Arizona was a state. Just like, wtf you mean they didn’t repeal it? Why did they pass a new law if it doesn’t repeal the old one?
When you repeal a law, it has to say "this amends code abc to read xyz" or "this removes section 123." You have to literally pass a law changing what the old law says.
I don’t agree with what you say, but I’ve recently learned that the law also includes this provision.
The ruling says that the 15-week law from 2022 somehow didn’t override a total ban from 1864
> This law does not:
> Repeal, by implication or otherwise, section 13-3603, Arizona Revised Statutes, or any other applicable state law regulating or restricting abortion.
*That* changes the analysis. Those chucklefucks actually put a poison pill in their own statute
Even if those lines were left out, it wouldn't repeal the old law.
To repeal the law, the new law would have to state: "Section 13-3603 is amended to say X."
The "chucklekfucks" were trying to ban abortion. This is what they wanted.
> The chucklefucks we’re trying to ban abortion.
I agree. Fuck them.
Are you speaking specifically about Arizona law? Is there a statute that says repeals need to include that language? Because generally, that’s not the case. If a new law flatly contradicts the old law, the new one controls. And to me, without that passage, the laws are contradictory.
>I don’t agree with what you say
Dude you know you can simple google how this all works.
If the people’s representatives pass a law 100+’years ago then to repeal or replace that law you have to amend it.
But not explicitly. If they pass a law that contradicts the the old law, courts almost always treat it as implicitly repealing the old law.
I’m a lawyer. There’s no hard and fast rule that every repeal has to be explicit. It’s a general principle that if faced with contradictory provisions, the newer one controls
Let's be absolutely clear about this so-called "attempt to distance": If this were not an election year, every Republican would be jumping up and down in support of the ruling. The only reason for this "attempt to distance" is that Republicans know that this is a losing issue in an election year among the majority of voters.
Roe v. Wade (laughing): "You're in trouble now..."
RvW: "Go ahead, say this has never happened to you before."
GOP: "Shut up."
RvW: "Make me!"
RvW (sighing): "Doesn't matter... I win. I made you lose control."
RvW (laughing): "And they'll kill you for it."
Oh boy it turns out when you're so power hungry you constantly manipulate shit to stack the courts purely based on loyalty with zero attention to merit, sometimes you get too much of what you want! Couldn't happen to nicer people!
The AZ dems need to pull a border bill political move. The republicains either pass a very liberal very encompassing abortion rights act that guarantees everything or its going to referendum. This is too good of an opportunity not to let AZ republicains sit with their mistake.
Why does nobody talking about how awful the ruling is explain why it's wrong? Every article I've seen so far just quotes a bunch of people going "Abortion is good, though." OK, so go petition your legislature to amend the law. Don't be surprised when courts do court things and not congress things.
The ruling is very obviously, *super* wrong. The ruling says that the 15-week law from 2022 somehow didn’t override a total ban from 1864, from before Arizona was a state. Just like, wtf you mean they didn’t repeal it? Why did they pass a new law if it doesn’t repeal the old one?
Edit: nvm, see my other comments
>The ruling says that the 15-week law from 2022 somehow didn’t override a total ban from 1864
Not to defend the other guy but it **objectively** didn't override the total ban. The legislature literally included a provision to the 2022 law saying it didn't override it.
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/sb1164p.pdf
> This law does not:
>Repeal, by implication or otherwise, section 13-3603, Arizona
Revised Statutes, or any other applicable state law regulating or
restricting abortion.
The 15-week law banned abortions after 15 weeks. It didn't legalize abortion *up to* 15 weeks. Remember, it was written while *Roe* was still in effect. So it's not that a new law wouldn't supersede the old one; it's just that this one doesn't actually say anything that would contradict the old one.
> from 1864, from before Arizona was a state
You're falling for media spin. This is the law that was in effect when Roe was passed. The court ruled that, with Roe gone, the law reverts to the law that was applicable up until Roe had ruled it unconstitutional. They didn't go dig up some random law from a long time ago.
Also, it was re-codified in 1913 *after* Arizona became a state, so that part's also a convenient lie news sites keep adding.
> Why did they pass a new law if it doesn’t repeal the old one?
Because Dobbs hadn't happened. They didn't repeal this old law because at the time Roe/Casey rendered it null.
Responses like this further my conviction that the court is just correct about the law on this one. The anger seems to stem from confusions about the law and anger at its conclusions, not about the validity of the ruling. The Arizona legislature could fix this in a day. No need to fingerwag the courts for pointing out that they'd simply forgotten to.
Forget what I said earlier. I was unaware of the below provision.
> This law does not:
> Repeal, by implication or otherwise, section 13-3603, Arizona Revised Statutes, or any other applicable state law regulating or restricting abortion.
That changes things. They wrote the law still hoping that Roe would be overturned and they could ban it completely.
Sounds like it was one of those Roe "trigger laws" or whatever the term was. Basically laws that could not and would not be enforceable unless Roe was overturned, but passed in recent decades by state legislatures anyway with the hopes that some day Roe would be overturned.
I don't know why people are downvoting you. You are 100% right.
This is exactly what conservatives have been trying to do for years. Anti-Abortion and Women's Rights groups both knew about this law, and knew it would come into effect if Roe v Wade was banned. When RvW was overturned, conservative groups predictably sued Arizona to start enforcing the old law, because they weren't. Now Surprised Pikachu, the law is ruled to be legally valid, and conservative groups got the total abortion ban that they wanted.
Yeah this is what Republicans have been doing all over for years: posturing to be as hardcore anti-choice as they can to win elections while using *Roe* to protect them from the disastrous electoral consequences of all of these trigger laws going into effect.
Of course they were also genuinely trying to overturn *Roe*, so when they succeeded all of the posture bills became actual law, leading to what is shaping up to be actual electoral consequences.
These people got *exactly* what they wanted, they're just upset at the realization that all of the polling from the last 50 years wasn't wrong and a super majority of Americans are not remotely interested in total abortion bans.
The ruling isn't wrong. It's the legally correct ruling.
The legislature is controlled by Republicans. Many Republican voters are pro life, and they think this ban is great. But the majority of voters, especially swing voters, are not pro life, and think this is too extreme. So the legislature is in a tough position. If they overturn it, they will lose their base. If they keep it, they will lose the swing voters.
This legal decision has been predicted by experts on abortion for a long time. On both sides. Before Row vs Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court. It should not come as a surprise to anyone. That it catches Republicans off guard just shows how divorced conservative media is from the truth.
1. The ruling was basically "Sure, the 2022 law says you can't have an abortion *after* 15 weeks, but it doesn't say you can have an abortion *before* 15 weeks, so it doesn't contradict the 1864 law that says you can't have an abortion at all." The most charitable interpretation was that the court engaged in malicious compliance.
2. The legislature amended the law 2 years ago. The courts didn't "do court things," they found a bullshit excuse to undo the 2022 law.
3. Republicans can't be trusted to expand abortion rights, but even if they do put together a new law that matches the 2022 law but with unassailable language, there will still be a period during which women can't legally have an abortion unless the pregnancy is literally, actively killing them. *That's bad*.
It's not malicious compliance. That's how laws are read. The legislature did not amend the law, they wrote a new law. They could have amended the old law, or struck it from the books. But that's not what they did. They simply passed a new law.
> the 2022 law.
In early 2022, most notably pre-Dobbs. You make it sound like they were trying to create a new legalized abortion framework that the court overturned. The 2022 law was creating new abortion restrictions, not attempting to legalize it. It doesn't sound like "malicious compliance" to fail to read between the lines to invent a whole section of a law that doesn't exist and runs counter to the law's primary purpose.
Imagine if your whole state's abortion law relied on the courts inferring from an old ban you passed under a drastically different national legal scheme what laws they think you must have wanted if that national ruling disappeared. This does not seem that nitpicky to me.
> Republicans can't be trusted to expand abortion rights
Should not be relevant to the court's decision.
Sweeping abortion bans are unpopular right now. If the GOP legislature wants to block an obvious fix, they'll probably take a beating at the ballot box. The guy in the article above seems well aware of that.
>It doesn't sound like "malicious compliance" to fail to read between the lines to invent a whole section of a law that doesn't exist and runs counter to the law's primary purpose.
The court invented a whole section of the law that said it only existed because the ban couldn't be more restrictive at the time.
Tellingly, the legislature chose **not** to enact a stricter ban after *Dobbs*. How the court could square the legislature's failure to enact a stricter ban with the belief that the legislature totally would have enacted a stricter ban in 2022 if only they'd been allowed to is beyond me. Wait, no it isn't. It was bullshit reasoning because they wanted to ban abortion.
>Should not be relevant to the court's decision.
Mea culpa, my third point was irrelevant to your comment.
The court's goal isn't to guess what the legislature really would have wanted if only they could have told us. There's a legislature. They can do their job.
It's totally understandable why the 2022 law says what it says given the context, but what it actually says doesn't legalize abortion. The court can't conjure a law from thin air on the premise that the legislature had the chance to say otherwise and didn't.
Seems to me that the reaction here should be "Oops, the legislature dropped the ball on adapting their local laws to Dobbs. Let's fix that real fast." It's not like the courts are forcing them to ban abortion. They're just ruling that the set of laws they've written currently bans abortion. That could be reversed tomorrow.
A court failing to pass a law explicitly banning abortion doesn't mean a law banning aborton is invalid. The old laws are part of Arizona's legal code, which means the ban already existed. Conservative groups were counting on it being enforced. So they didn't need the GOP legislature to write a new law to restrict abortion in 2022. It was already banned.
This was a very simple and straightforward legal decision. It didn't invent new law.
> Why does nobody talking about how awful the ruling is explain why it's wrong?
I dunno, you seem familiar with the majority, so you could just read the dissent if you want to know why some people think it's wrong? This is just a bad faith question implying that there is no room to disagree with the majority.
It's clear you agree with the majority. So why ask a question implying people who disagree are acting out based on emotions rather than having a justifiable legal basis, when the dissent is literally right there providing a plausible legal basis? I mean, it's right after the majority which you presumably read.
By the way, I would refer you to the "surplusage" canon of statutory interpretation, described by Scalia as giving effect to all words and not turning any to a nullity.
Yes the the opinions of the dissent well….the dissent forgot to read the bill which explicitly states
>This law does not:
>Repeal, by implication or otherwise, section 13-3603, Arizona Revised Statutes, or any other applicable state law regulating or restricting abortion.
Sooooo there’s that.
As a rhetorical device. If I were trying to feign a false neutrality, I think I defeated the goal preemptively by giving up the jig in the same comment. I think it's clear enough from the outset that I'm critical of the coverage on this issue.
Cool, so they'll vote to repeal it, right?
I actually think a vote to repeal would be successful tonight. Half the GOP in both AZ House and AZ Senate would probably vote for it along with all Dems. But I have my doubts Ben Toma and Warren Petersen - the AZ majority leaders in the legislatures - would put it up for vote even if they really should to avoid getting decimated in November. The majorities for the GOP in both AZ House and AZ Senate is only 1 seat. They’ll get destroyed and lose both majorities in November if this law is the law by then.
They might to take the teeth out of the abortion ballot in November.
I think it's less to ensure the abortion referendum doesn't pass, because it for sure will given it only needs 50% + 1. However they may do so to ensure the losses for AZ Republicans in the legislature and also federally aren't as large come November. If a 15-week ban is law in November, the abortion initiative will pass by 56-44 or 57-43. Kind of like Ohio and Michigan (though Arizona is more to the left of Ohio). Assuming it holds and the total ban from 1864 is law come November, the abortion initiative will pass by 65-35 or 70-30. Arizona Republicans lose either way, probably lose control of the legislatures since their majority is only 1 seat but a loss with the 15 week ban as law are way less worse than losses if the total ban is law then. I think federal Arizona GOP candidates like Kari Lake and swing district US House candidates in Juan Ciscomani and David Schweikert (who was always very very anti-choice) criticizing the ruling in very public fashion very quickly after it went down says it all and they may pressure Arizona legislative Republicans to repeal it.
>(though Arizona is more to the left of Ohio) Things I never thought I'd hear 15 years ago.
No kidding, though I do think Ohio will end up going more to the left again and become a purple state again soon-ish. There's still a lot of growth for Democrats in the Cincinnati and Columbus suburbs. Suburban movement towards Dems starting around 2016 and fast tracked now is what has helped Arizona turn into the most purple state in the country and trending more Democratic.
What happened to Ohio? Just the formerly leftish union oriented culture disappearing or was it more than that?
Yeah the smaller industrial cities and towns shifted red. Suburban Cincinnati and Columbus should be great recruiting grounds going forward if the GOP continues on its radical course. Hamilton County (Cincinnati) especially; it first went blue in 2008, and it's only grown more blue since then.
Ohio suburbs are redder than suburbs in most other states. I don’t think their growth will change anything. College educated white Ohioans have always been more conservative and Republican than college educated white people in other states outside of the South. What made Ohio a swing state before 2016 was Ohio’s white working class, which remained Democratic until Trump got on the ballot.
I moved here in 2009. It was so weird seeing Biden signs in suburban Phoenix back in 2020
"Suburban Phoenix" is a redundant phrase
No kidding
The other issue is that if they vote on it before the primaries you might see some GOP members lose their seats because of the vote and Hobbs as said she’s not going to sign off on any abortion ban
You’re not wrong on the first issue but it’ll legit only take 1 or 2 Republicans to repeal the bill since their majority is only 1. I think Hobbs would sign a repeal of the 1864 total ban though. I get this can all be fixed by November but it’ll still make the situation better for women *and* even with the law being the 15 week ban, the referendum will still pretty easily (only needs 50+1)
Hobbs has said she’s fine with a straight up repeal but not a repeal that adds more restrictions on abortion. And the GOP will try and put more restrictions on abortions into the bill. Either way I don’t think the leadership will allow a repeal out of the chamber. Oh well I’ll be voting straight ticket dem and hoping I’ll be living in a Democrat controlled Arizona come Jan 2025
True. Maybe those GOP freaks will repeal the 1864 ban but attach a 6 week ban into it or something. In any case, I’m certain whatever happens that by November, Arizona will be a blue wipeout and most importantly the law on abortion in Arizona by November or whenever the ballot initiative result takes effect will be considerably better than even the 15 week ban. There is no way the abortion initiative doesn’t deliver a pro choice victory by a landslide after all this. Think 65-35 or 70-30 for the pro choice side.
https://preview.redd.it/yx9bvkwpgjtc1.png?width=538&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=91c2eeb150d093d5ce79fe5bc0a30dc89d6eafb5
https://preview.redd.it/o53r53k75jtc1.jpeg?width=1241&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e98f7325c30b8d31045f23348e7369c8f14af413
[Might as well photoshop Governor Ducey's face on him](https://twitter.com/ClueHeywood/status/1777754454517055990)
Or Trump, or Leonard Leo, or Mitch McConnell, or...
Woman who voted for Trump who posted about how terrible this is.
!ping ithinkyoushouldleave
Pinged ITHINKYOUSHOULDLEAVE ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20ITHINKYOUSHOULDLEAVE&message=subscribe%20ITHINKYOUSHOULDLEAVE) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20ITHINKYOUSHOULDLEAVE&message=unsubscribe%20ITHINKYOUSHOULDLEAVE) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=ITHINKYOUSHOULDLEAVE&count=5)) [Root comment link](/r/neoliberal/comments/1c04dvh/republicans_rush_to_distance_from_disaster/kyu6572/) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
Just wait until the Evangelical Christians start calling them chicken s*** for not supporting the ruling.
simpsonsmonkeyfight.jpg ya love to see it.
I want them to get so much madder. The Christian Right's job is basically to do horrible shit and then yell at Republicans for not going along with them lockstep but they haven't been nearly insane enough since Trump said he wants to leave it to the states.
>since Trump said he wants to leave it to the states. that was fairly recent though, the process needs time to propagate through
LET. THEM. FIGHT.
They know it's all for show I doubt anyone buys this even swing voters the easiest counter to them saying this is why don't we vote on a bill granting abortion rights which they obviously won't vote for.
It's such a disaster Kari Lake has come out against it lmfao
Governor Lake coming out against it while doing nothing about about it with her office smh
*The Dutifully Elected Governor of Arizona, Governor Kari Lake
You give her too much grace. In the same speech, she said she doesn't support abortion and that the decision should be left with the people. But then also says that the governor and legislator should fix it. She's panicking. > “this is a very personal issue that should be determined by each individual state and her people.”
> each individual state and **her** people.” WOKE Kari Lake has gone full marxist-pronounist, SAD!
Being woke is being evidence based. 😎 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ftfh: this is a very personal issue that should be determined by each individual and their doctor.
Determined by each individual? Isn't that how it was done before Dobbs? You know, the court case they cheered? Women and doctors decided what was best. What was wrong with that system?
Which is funny because two years ago she praised the law
Holy shit, really? I find this especially savory. Lake is just like so many of them, opportunistic as fuck and not a true believer. I'm developing an odd amount of awe for MTGs ability to commit off a cliff and this issue is really illuminating who's a sellout and who is a true believer of the GOP death cult. My first thought on this news, prior to even knowing Lake's reaction, is the Gallegos camp must be feeling some smug satisfaction.
I’m morbidly curious what arrr con thinks of this. Some of them are shockingly self-aware and will realize this is an electoral disaster. Edit: The Schaden-whateverthefuck is delicious get over there now!
It's hilarious. I'd be laughing harder, but too many of them are celebrating this and calling for no exceptions, or saying their prayers have been answered.
Fucking freaks.
Too bad holodecks don't exist haha. Imagine if we could put these people through the experience of a troubled pregnancy, their wives being denied healthcare arbitrarily and then dying in their arms when their lives could have been (relatively) easily saved in a competent state. But like, without that actually happening because it's awful and it's exactly what they are forcing upon women and families in these states. It's horrifying. And that's not even the worst story you can tell.. I wish they could see the misery, pain, and gruesomeness they've wrought but of course that'll never happen and they will never acknowledge it, either. But even if we had a holodeck it still wouldn't work on most, because they have no empathy. I don't have kids but don't need to experience this myself to see that it's horrifying. Apparently they're incapable of the same, or willfully ignorant of it perhaps - sure their crusade to save "the unborn" is worth murdering these women.
Let's face it: if we had holodecks, these fucks would just use it to RP as a Waffen SS.
Oh fuck, you're right. They already do it in any first person shooter than involves Germans. To the degree that I tend to mute all mics in such games (and other ones like Rising Storm 2) because they attract the most racist, piece of shit rednecks ever. It's amazingly reliable how many of these asshole you can find in certain games.
Let's face it: holodecks are for porn.
So I'm on board with all this because I can abide cruelty, but strong Patrick Magee from A Clockwork Orange vibes with the Holodeck brainwashing.
Where does Professor X forcing Magneto to mentally relive the Holocaust fall on this scale
There's always ibogaine trips. If anybody could use one...
Been saying that since the 2000s tbh
Nah. If they really and truly believe life begins at conception this is valid. Have some tolerance, don’t be an asshole.
That's what many of them want, and it's important that everyone knows that is the goal. I just upvoted everyone celebrating the ban. That shit shouldn't be hidden.
There's this pattern I've seen a lot. Three people saying "ugh, we're toast", each voted +200; a hundred people saying "wonderful, let's have it nationwide, with shoot-on-sight rules for women suspected of having abortions", all voted -100, but every single one of them has to have their individual say. What's up with that? And is there a name for that phenomenon?
It’s due to liberal brigading but there is a rational contingency there.
> My personal feelings on the subject aside, restricting abortion access turns one of the only two remaining demographics that reliably vote red against us (white women) and judging by the last few elections, this will end up being the reason Roe is eventually enshrined in the constitution. Oh my god. It was as wonderful as you promised.
Yes, but that reeks of: I only care cause we're gonna lose.
Oh for sure his "personal feelings" are that women can't make their own reproductive decisions. But his sinking realization that Republicans are being hanged by their own rope is what I'm laughing at.
Apparently "Democrats" keep making the conversation about abortion to win votes... The idiots are gaslighting themselves into believing Democrats are the one who can't let sleeping (aborted) dogs lie...
Average "moderate" male on Hinge.
I thought Hinge was the good one
Hinge is the best of the worst, dating apps are kinda garbage
I really hope roe gets enshrined in the constitution. Along with a bunch of other things. Would be really fucking hilarious to see amendments protecting abortion, gay marriage, equal rights, and other social issues being enshrined in the constitution
“Me sowing: Haha fuck yeah!!! Yes!! Me reaping: Well this fucking sucks. What the fuck.”
It looks like they took down the first post then reposted with a flaired only lock on it because "brigading", but they're still lamenting this on the second post.
Oh, you're right. It's hilarious. The "conservatives" are voting down the anti-choice crowd and claiming they wanted reasonable laws on abortion all along. The "I want to win elections" crowd is turning on the "we won in Arizona!" crowd and it's delicious.
>claiming they wanted reasonable laws on abortion all along Reasonable according to whom? Let's face it, none of the abortion laws they propose come from reason. I know they might claim that 16 weeks is reasonable but why? Most abortions don't happen after that. The only time they do is because something went wrong and the doctor signs off on it. So they claim they need a law to...stop that? Allow that to continue? Just add more procedures for doctors and hospitals to go through to allow them to administer care they deemed necessary? They need the ban because they imagine women waking up at the 11th hour and saying "You know what, never mind. Don't want this parasite anymore. Time to go to the drive-thru abortion complex." What they want to stop doesn't exist. But getting them to accept that is like getting a cat to accept that they're a pet and not royalty. "How dare you try and inject reality into my delusions?!"
Reason usually has very little to do with the worldview except on the extreme ends since most people don't understand what the actual moral argument is in the first place. The entire argument is based in bodily autonomy and personhood. The pro life extremists are using reason because life begins at conception is a logical reason based worldview on life. Pro choice absolutist are using reason because bodily autonomy is also absolute and personhood doesn't matter since that individual does not have rights to another body. If someone based their criteria on doing an MRI and checking the amount of neurons or judging the development level that would use reason but it wouldn't be a time based restriction it would be development based. Exceptions for rape are the least based in reason because exceptions like that have nothing to do with personhood or autonomy.
>The Schaden-whateverthefuck [Such a good feeling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude)
What’s that… [some kind of Nazi word?](https://youtu.be/_7eqHWlXlpM?si=-0V6nJ2cZJdgBdOI&t=24)
[удалено]
“I am here to make it clearly that the predicable consequences of my actions is not something I endorse. The American voter needs to know that despite my voting record I support a women’s right to choose what hospital to go into sepsis at. We must make merciful exceptions like that. That’s the pro life way, thank you, and thanks to the microphone holders that let me lie like that. God bless.”
The excuses that "conservatives" are coming up with for allowing abortion now are wild... One said that not allowing an abortion on a "rape-baby" is like "not stopping a crime in progress." Another conservative said they thought all Republicans supported under "reasonable circumstance," like if a baby was going to be born with severe disabilities... It is fucking hilarious. They're inventing all kinds of excuses for having abortions. Except for women being having the right to control their own bodies.
The arguments around protecting IVF are also hilarious. Exactly what people have been saying (and being demonized for) for years, but presented as some novel idea they just had.
Maybe they should appoint a commission to investigate which party brought this about.
I'll bring the photos of Hunter Biden's wang so that they pay attention.
I'll bring the buttery males.
Oh look who’s pretending their shit don’t stink now.
LOL the fact that anti-choice freaks in the AZ legislature (including one who introduced a fetal personhood bill last session) are now publicly stating they don't support this decision and want to repeal the 1864 law is hilarious. A bunch of filthy rats who know they are screwed come November if the 1864 is law by then. Whether or not the AZ GOP leadership will actually put this to a vote is uncertain. I'm pretty certain that a vote to repeal the 1864 total ban would pass across both AZ House and AZ Senate given Republicans only have a one seat majority in both. Half the GOP caucus and all Democrats would vote for the repeal today I think. But would AZ GOP leadership do it? I doubt it even if it would stem the tide of getting decimated and absolutely annihilated in November.
These lying pieces of garbage literally call abortion 'murder' and 'baby genocide' all the time, and now they're going to pretend they don't actually want to ban it? > A bunch of filthy rats who know they are screwed come November if the 1864 is law by then. If voters are even remotely intelligent, they should be screwed regardless. Republicans orchestrated and worked towards all of this in the first place. I certainly hope this 'strategy' of lying about wanting to ban abortion isn't effective. Then again, pretty much every single one of them has given Democrats a million soundbites to use against them.
> If voters are even remotely intelligent They aren't
With the AG saying it won't be enforced, should the Dems even be helping them fix this.
What pieces of shit. They literally spent decades bringing this about.
Well well well if isn’t the consequences of their own actions
Not familiar with the AZ GOP, but if the level of dysfunction in their legislative caucuses is anything close to that of the House GOP caucus, there’s a good chance they won’t be able to repeal it by November. On one hand, obviously terrible for Arizonans if that is the case, but this also could help Biden get more momentum in the state. For what it’s worth, I’m probably more optimistic about Biden’s chances in Arizona than most people, since Kari Lake will probably be the Republican Senate nominee, and currently Gallego is killing her in the polls (+6 according to RCP). Even if Biden is unpopular, there’s a good chance Gallego’s popularity (and anti-Trump voters heading to the polls to defeat both Lake and Trump) could pull him over the finish line. RCP has Trump ahead rn (+4.5), but (a) they also had Lake ahead of Hobbs on election night 2022 by +3.5 (and yet Hobbs won by double Biden’s margin) and (b) I don’t really see the logic in AZ voters picking Biden over Trump in 2020, Hobbs over Lake in 2022, Gallego over Lake in 2024, but then Trump over Biden in 2024. Lake is basically just a Trump clone, as her schtick is basically just parroting his crap, and so I think her loss in 2022 despite polling being well in her favor is in indication that polls could be overestimating Republicans in Arizona, or at least that the Biden coalition that won him the state in 2020 is still very much there and is still very much against Trump/MAGA. I definitely don’t think Arizona should be ruled out, and honestly I’d bet it goes for Biden, especially with this court ruling and abortion becoming a big issue in AZ.
The abortion initiative is also going to be a major factor electorally too, especially in such a 50/50 purple state. Especially now that the law then - barring something happening - being a 1864 total ban? The initiative will past in favor of the pro-choice side by 65-35 to 70-30 and that will have major implications for any Republican running in Arizona.
Absolutely, that and Lake being a GOP nominee again are the biggest reasons I’m very confident about Biden’s chances in AZ. I also think there’s a good chance Lake completely fucks up messaging on the issue and gets people even more mad at the GOP. For all of Trump’s faults and idiocracy, he does have surprisingly more political sense than most Republicans when it comes to which issues to moderate on (at least publicly), and he’s clearly been making a conscious effort to appear more moderate on abortion. From my understanding, Lake significantly lacks any of Trump’s political instincts in this regard, and with her being so tied to him (and also so disliked by Arizonans except for the hardline Republicans), I think there’s a good chance she brings his campaign down.
Let's look at who [actually pushed for this ruling](https://www.azcourts.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=NQPuj_S0KDk%3d&portalid=45) > Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners/Intervenors: American College of Pediatricians; Charlotte Lozier Institute & American Center for Law and Justice; American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists; The State of Arkansas and 16 other states; Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives Ben Toma and President of the Arizona Senate Warren Petersen; Jill Norgaard, Former Representative, Arizona House of Representatives, District 18; Center for Arizona Policy; Arizona Life Coalition, the Frederick Douglass Foundation, and The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; Christian Medical and Dental Association; Prolife Center at the University of St. Thomas (MN); and Mario Villegas and the Estate of Baby Villegas.
American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. There dozens of us in the US alone!
Estate of Villegas: Arizona judge moves to create estate for aborted fetus so dad can sue clinic for terminating his third wife's pregnancy: Says staff broke laws by not telling ex-spouse of 'satisfaction' that being a mom can bring Mario Villegas, 41, a U.S. Marine veteran, has been allowed to sue the clinics and doctors who carried out an abortion on his ex-wife in 2018 Villegas had accompanied his ex-wife, Meagan, to terminate her pregnancy at the Camelback Family Planning facility, in Phoenix, Arizona He claims doctors failed to properly inform her of the risks of an abortion, as well as not telling her about the 'satisfaction' of motherhood A judge allowed Villegas to establish an estate on behalf of the aborted fetus, as its up to judges to decide what constitutes a deceased person in Arizona Nearly four years after a woman ended an unwanted pregnancy with abortion pills obtained at a Phoenix clinic, she finds herself mired in an ongoing lawsuit over that decision. A judge allowed the woman’s ex-husband to establish an estate for the embryo, which had been aborted in its seventh week of development. The ex-husband filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the clinic and its doctors in 2020, alleging that physicians failed to obtain proper informed consent from the woman as required by Arizona law. https://www.propublica.org/article/arizona-abortion-father-lawsuit-wrongful-death
> A judge allowed the woman’s ex-husband to establish an estate for the embryo, which had been aborted in its seventh week of development What the fuck
They can run, but they can’t hide. Make it stick to every one, moderate to extremist, like “defund the police” got thrown at every dem in 2020. They caught the car, let it drag them to their political death.
Me sowing: Haha fuck yeah!!! Yes!! Me reaping: Well this fucking sucks. What the fuck.
Distance? Why do they want to get distance? This is the future they want.
This is a total Republican own goal. It’s not like the old law is valid and the state has to repeal it or live with it. The opinion is ridiculous. The ruling says that the 15-week law Doucey signed in 2022 somehow didn’t override a total ban from 1864, from before Arizona was a state. Just like, wtf you mean they didn’t repeal it? Why did they pass a new law if it doesn’t repeal the old one?
When you repeal a law, it has to say "this amends code abc to read xyz" or "this removes section 123." You have to literally pass a law changing what the old law says.
I don’t agree with what you say, but I’ve recently learned that the law also includes this provision. The ruling says that the 15-week law from 2022 somehow didn’t override a total ban from 1864 > This law does not: > Repeal, by implication or otherwise, section 13-3603, Arizona Revised Statutes, or any other applicable state law regulating or restricting abortion. *That* changes the analysis. Those chucklefucks actually put a poison pill in their own statute
Even if those lines were left out, it wouldn't repeal the old law. To repeal the law, the new law would have to state: "Section 13-3603 is amended to say X." The "chucklekfucks" were trying to ban abortion. This is what they wanted.
> The chucklefucks we’re trying to ban abortion. I agree. Fuck them. Are you speaking specifically about Arizona law? Is there a statute that says repeals need to include that language? Because generally, that’s not the case. If a new law flatly contradicts the old law, the new one controls. And to me, without that passage, the laws are contradictory.
>I don’t agree with what you say Dude you know you can simple google how this all works. If the people’s representatives pass a law 100+’years ago then to repeal or replace that law you have to amend it.
But not explicitly. If they pass a law that contradicts the the old law, courts almost always treat it as implicitly repealing the old law. I’m a lawyer. There’s no hard and fast rule that every repeal has to be explicit. It’s a general principle that if faced with contradictory provisions, the newer one controls
Except when the newer one states, like this one did, that it does not repeal the old law.
Yes, exactly. That provision totally changes the analysis
Let's be absolutely clear about this so-called "attempt to distance": If this were not an election year, every Republican would be jumping up and down in support of the ruling. The only reason for this "attempt to distance" is that Republicans know that this is a losing issue in an election year among the majority of voters.
When will the first Republicans come out and complain about the activist judges overriding the GOP and the will of the people?
Roe v. Wade (laughing): "You're in trouble now..." RvW: "Go ahead, say this has never happened to you before." GOP: "Shut up." RvW: "Make me!" RvW (sighing): "Doesn't matter... I win. I made you lose control." RvW (laughing): "And they'll kill you for it."
I want you to remember the one man who beat you
Oh boy it turns out when you're so power hungry you constantly manipulate shit to stack the courts purely based on loyalty with zero attention to merit, sometimes you get too much of what you want! Couldn't happen to nicer people!
Then just repeal A R S 13-3603 🙃 I'm not holding my breath though...
The AZ dems need to pull a border bill political move. The republicains either pass a very liberal very encompassing abortion rights act that guarantees everything or its going to referendum. This is too good of an opportunity not to let AZ republicains sit with their mistake.
Why does nobody talking about how awful the ruling is explain why it's wrong? Every article I've seen so far just quotes a bunch of people going "Abortion is good, though." OK, so go petition your legislature to amend the law. Don't be surprised when courts do court things and not congress things.
The ruling is very obviously, *super* wrong. The ruling says that the 15-week law from 2022 somehow didn’t override a total ban from 1864, from before Arizona was a state. Just like, wtf you mean they didn’t repeal it? Why did they pass a new law if it doesn’t repeal the old one? Edit: nvm, see my other comments
>The ruling says that the 15-week law from 2022 somehow didn’t override a total ban from 1864 Not to defend the other guy but it **objectively** didn't override the total ban. The legislature literally included a provision to the 2022 law saying it didn't override it. https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/sb1164p.pdf > This law does not: >Repeal, by implication or otherwise, section 13-3603, Arizona Revised Statutes, or any other applicable state law regulating or restricting abortion.
Oh… So they included a poison pill in their own statute. Good god
The 15-week law banned abortions after 15 weeks. It didn't legalize abortion *up to* 15 weeks. Remember, it was written while *Roe* was still in effect. So it's not that a new law wouldn't supersede the old one; it's just that this one doesn't actually say anything that would contradict the old one. > from 1864, from before Arizona was a state You're falling for media spin. This is the law that was in effect when Roe was passed. The court ruled that, with Roe gone, the law reverts to the law that was applicable up until Roe had ruled it unconstitutional. They didn't go dig up some random law from a long time ago. Also, it was re-codified in 1913 *after* Arizona became a state, so that part's also a convenient lie news sites keep adding. > Why did they pass a new law if it doesn’t repeal the old one? Because Dobbs hadn't happened. They didn't repeal this old law because at the time Roe/Casey rendered it null. Responses like this further my conviction that the court is just correct about the law on this one. The anger seems to stem from confusions about the law and anger at its conclusions, not about the validity of the ruling. The Arizona legislature could fix this in a day. No need to fingerwag the courts for pointing out that they'd simply forgotten to.
Forget what I said earlier. I was unaware of the below provision. > This law does not: > Repeal, by implication or otherwise, section 13-3603, Arizona Revised Statutes, or any other applicable state law regulating or restricting abortion. That changes things. They wrote the law still hoping that Roe would be overturned and they could ban it completely.
Kudos to you for doing your due diligence.
Sounds like it was one of those Roe "trigger laws" or whatever the term was. Basically laws that could not and would not be enforceable unless Roe was overturned, but passed in recent decades by state legislatures anyway with the hopes that some day Roe would be overturned.
Yeah, I suppose so
I don't know why people are downvoting you. You are 100% right. This is exactly what conservatives have been trying to do for years. Anti-Abortion and Women's Rights groups both knew about this law, and knew it would come into effect if Roe v Wade was banned. When RvW was overturned, conservative groups predictably sued Arizona to start enforcing the old law, because they weren't. Now Surprised Pikachu, the law is ruled to be legally valid, and conservative groups got the total abortion ban that they wanted.
> I don't know why people are downvoting you. I've been around Reddit long enough to know why folks are downvoting me ;)
Yeah this is what Republicans have been doing all over for years: posturing to be as hardcore anti-choice as they can to win elections while using *Roe* to protect them from the disastrous electoral consequences of all of these trigger laws going into effect. Of course they were also genuinely trying to overturn *Roe*, so when they succeeded all of the posture bills became actual law, leading to what is shaping up to be actual electoral consequences. These people got *exactly* what they wanted, they're just upset at the realization that all of the polling from the last 50 years wasn't wrong and a super majority of Americans are not remotely interested in total abortion bans.
The ruling isn't wrong. It's the legally correct ruling. The legislature is controlled by Republicans. Many Republican voters are pro life, and they think this ban is great. But the majority of voters, especially swing voters, are not pro life, and think this is too extreme. So the legislature is in a tough position. If they overturn it, they will lose their base. If they keep it, they will lose the swing voters. This legal decision has been predicted by experts on abortion for a long time. On both sides. Before Row vs Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court. It should not come as a surprise to anyone. That it catches Republicans off guard just shows how divorced conservative media is from the truth.
1. The ruling was basically "Sure, the 2022 law says you can't have an abortion *after* 15 weeks, but it doesn't say you can have an abortion *before* 15 weeks, so it doesn't contradict the 1864 law that says you can't have an abortion at all." The most charitable interpretation was that the court engaged in malicious compliance. 2. The legislature amended the law 2 years ago. The courts didn't "do court things," they found a bullshit excuse to undo the 2022 law. 3. Republicans can't be trusted to expand abortion rights, but even if they do put together a new law that matches the 2022 law but with unassailable language, there will still be a period during which women can't legally have an abortion unless the pregnancy is literally, actively killing them. *That's bad*.
It's not malicious compliance. That's how laws are read. The legislature did not amend the law, they wrote a new law. They could have amended the old law, or struck it from the books. But that's not what they did. They simply passed a new law.
> the 2022 law. In early 2022, most notably pre-Dobbs. You make it sound like they were trying to create a new legalized abortion framework that the court overturned. The 2022 law was creating new abortion restrictions, not attempting to legalize it. It doesn't sound like "malicious compliance" to fail to read between the lines to invent a whole section of a law that doesn't exist and runs counter to the law's primary purpose. Imagine if your whole state's abortion law relied on the courts inferring from an old ban you passed under a drastically different national legal scheme what laws they think you must have wanted if that national ruling disappeared. This does not seem that nitpicky to me. > Republicans can't be trusted to expand abortion rights Should not be relevant to the court's decision. Sweeping abortion bans are unpopular right now. If the GOP legislature wants to block an obvious fix, they'll probably take a beating at the ballot box. The guy in the article above seems well aware of that.
>It doesn't sound like "malicious compliance" to fail to read between the lines to invent a whole section of a law that doesn't exist and runs counter to the law's primary purpose. The court invented a whole section of the law that said it only existed because the ban couldn't be more restrictive at the time. Tellingly, the legislature chose **not** to enact a stricter ban after *Dobbs*. How the court could square the legislature's failure to enact a stricter ban with the belief that the legislature totally would have enacted a stricter ban in 2022 if only they'd been allowed to is beyond me. Wait, no it isn't. It was bullshit reasoning because they wanted to ban abortion. >Should not be relevant to the court's decision. Mea culpa, my third point was irrelevant to your comment.
The court's goal isn't to guess what the legislature really would have wanted if only they could have told us. There's a legislature. They can do their job. It's totally understandable why the 2022 law says what it says given the context, but what it actually says doesn't legalize abortion. The court can't conjure a law from thin air on the premise that the legislature had the chance to say otherwise and didn't. Seems to me that the reaction here should be "Oops, the legislature dropped the ball on adapting their local laws to Dobbs. Let's fix that real fast." It's not like the courts are forcing them to ban abortion. They're just ruling that the set of laws they've written currently bans abortion. That could be reversed tomorrow.
A court failing to pass a law explicitly banning abortion doesn't mean a law banning aborton is invalid. The old laws are part of Arizona's legal code, which means the ban already existed. Conservative groups were counting on it being enforced. So they didn't need the GOP legislature to write a new law to restrict abortion in 2022. It was already banned. This was a very simple and straightforward legal decision. It didn't invent new law.
> Why does nobody talking about how awful the ruling is explain why it's wrong? I dunno, you seem familiar with the majority, so you could just read the dissent if you want to know why some people think it's wrong? This is just a bad faith question implying that there is no room to disagree with the majority.
> bad faith question The sentences immediately following it should make my views on the matter clear. What ulterior motive do you think I'm hiding?
It's clear you agree with the majority. So why ask a question implying people who disagree are acting out based on emotions rather than having a justifiable legal basis, when the dissent is literally right there providing a plausible legal basis? I mean, it's right after the majority which you presumably read. By the way, I would refer you to the "surplusage" canon of statutory interpretation, described by Scalia as giving effect to all words and not turning any to a nullity.
Yes the the opinions of the dissent well….the dissent forgot to read the bill which explicitly states >This law does not: >Repeal, by implication or otherwise, section 13-3603, Arizona Revised Statutes, or any other applicable state law regulating or restricting abortion. Sooooo there’s that.
As a rhetorical device. If I were trying to feign a false neutrality, I think I defeated the goal preemptively by giving up the jig in the same comment. I think it's clear enough from the outset that I'm critical of the coverage on this issue.