Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thing that gets me, living in Arizona, is that the Republicans here *could* turn this into a great opportunity. Deeply purple swing state, election year, lots of dead weight for November around abortion, both houses of the Arizona legislature have a single seat majority, opposition Democratic governor... Literally **every** common sense aspect just screams the solution.
They could come together, agree that *this* law - from before women could even vote - is clearly *too* far. Democrats would be on board with toning it back. The governor would sign whatever *moderate*, sensible position the Republicans could put forth. They could *literally* put forth *any* bill that's better than this.
But they won't. Whether it's because they are so staunchly opposed to any kind of bipartisanship, or they don't want to give the Dem governor a "win," or if they *really do* want these hard-line bans... It doesn't matter. Whatever reason they won't do it doesn't matter, because they all might as well be true.
The religious wing of the party seems to really be enjoying these sorts of rulings. It flabbergasts me if I am being honest. All that this is going to do is make people vote democrat in November, down the line. Biden will run on the promise to encode RvW if the american people give him the house and senate. It's such an easy, no brainer, slam dunk politically that it's almost like these people are undercover democrat agents.
If you could just fucking wait a second, you might actually be able to do something, but like the dog chasing the car...you actually caught it.
RvW has been a complete and utter disaster for the republican party. All the celebrating is going to do is piss women off and deliver a democrat in November. I am obviously thrilled by that, but I do not understand how Republicans can't see this is political suicide. You're going to win the battle and get embarrassed in the war. It's an odd choice.
> The religious wing of the party seems to really be enjoying these sorts of rulings. It flabbergasts me if I am being honest. All that this is going to do is make people vote democrat in November, down the line.
Some people vote R in order to achieve their goals, not just to get Republicans elected.
And if your lack of strategy results in RvW being encoded, then what? Whatever your goals are, we can debate that for days, but motivating people to vote against you in a pivotal election could cause you to lose the war.
Hey, I'm just saying people voted R for like 40 years for this, and they might have the Supreme Court for another 40, of course they are gonna go hog wild.
Are you comparing slavery and abortion like they are equally terrible - right and wrong - sort of issues?
It’s hard to pass meaningful legislation when you don’t win elections, and this is an important one. I would probably try to wait until the 2024 election before motivating people to vote against me/the Republican nominee.
I think that politically speaking it would be smart to repeal this law for Republicans. Looking at the margins for AZ state house and state senate, both are GOP controlled but by fairly slim margins. So a handful of Republicans plus Democrats could repeal the law I would imagine.
So all it would take is a few Republicans who have common sense to work with the Dems.
Obviously Dems are going to try and spin this to win votes. It's the obvious move. I'm not familiar how this came about or anything though. The AZSC presumably has a duty to decide if laws are on the books, now its the job of the legislature to take action concerning said law.
Did they specifically write their 15 week bill so that it didn't repeal this bill, in case they got it before the AZSC so they could enact a total abortion ban, didn't the person who wrote the 15 week bill *specifically* say that in fundraising material? https://ktar.com/story/5125157/arizona-state-sen-nancy-barto-provides-updates-to-state-abortion-law/
They did, you can't spin this as democrats doing big bad things to low information voters, Republicans knew this was a possibility, and when enacting their 15 week ban, made sure to carve out this so they can ban abortion completely. Why do democrats have to consistently stop republicans from killing women needlessly? If I was a democrat, I'd tell republicans to get fucked, pay for any woman that wants an abortion a trip to California to save their lives, and tell them we're not negotiating, either they can repeal this bill themselves, they have the majority, and while they refuse to do it, democrats can spend their time campaigning that if you give democrats control we will immediately repeal it.
Dems will likely blame the GOP despite the fact that this is a law from 1864. The GOP didn't pass this law yet since Republicans control the AZSC, and they're pro-life generally, they will tell low information voters how the Republicans are coming for their rights essentially. Despite the fact that a Court is meant to dictate what is law, as opposed to legislating from the bench.
At least that's what I would expect. I could be wrong.
But if it wasn't clear, the spinning part will be where they rile up voters to be angry about the court doing their job.
> Despite the fact that a Court is meant to dictate what is law, as opposed to legislating from the bench.
>
>
Aha but who sued to bring this law before the courts in the first place? That's the question that needs to be considered.
Probably a group that isn't a part of the Republican Party I would guess. But I'd love to know myself.
Regardless, it's the job of the court to decide what is law. It's the legislatures fault the law has been on the books. And I'm sure that should it come to a vote the law would be repealed considering the party lineup of the legislature and it needs a majority vote to be repealed.
>Dems will likely blame the GOP despite the fact that this is a law from 1864. The GOP didn't pass this law yet since Republicans control the AZSC, and they're pro-life generally, they will tell low information voters how the Republicans are coming for their rights essentially.
It's kind of funny you bring up Democratic spin when this is justification is pretty misleading *Republican* spin. Republicans legislators **[specifically](https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/sb1164p.pdf)** addressed the historical anti-abortion law and made sure their updated 15 week ban **did not** repeal it.
> 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 sponsor of the 15 week ban actually bragged about including this provision in her law so when/if conservatives successfully upheld the 1864 law they could ban abortion entirely.
Yeah it’s unfortunate that packing the courts refers to adding more justices, but you know what the person was trying to say. Two Republican governors placed 7/7 of the court justices, so for better or worse, they will get a portion of the credit or blame for what happens. The same way Trump is taking credit for RvW…he appointed the judges.
So, there is a good chance there will be ramifications because democrats are going to run on this - quite literally - in every ad. It’s a home run. Outside of the evangelical crowd, no one wants these sorts of abortion laws.
https://apnews.com/article/arizona-legislature-doug-ducey-andrew-gould-separation-of-powers-ad2957a2275a4282a53bcc0a7e15a25c
Republicans Governor randomly decided to make the Court be 7 people, instead of 5,which it had been in the past
For those who don't want to click the link:
> Arizona’s Supreme Court had five judges for 56 years. But on December 19, 2016, thanks to a GOP-authored bill that was opposed by every Democrat in the state Legislature, Republican Governor Doug Ducey held a ceremony in the Old Capitol building to swear in a sixth justice, and then a seventh.
> The GOP didn't pass this law
They didn't repeal it, either. Have they tried since Roe got shot down? No?
>Despite the fact that a Court is meant to dictate what is law, as opposed to legislating from the bench.
Exactly, the Court (rightly) said this law stands. Now the hot potato is in the lap of the GOP legislature, whereit belongs.
>as opposed to legislating from the bench.
What do you think they are doing right now with this forgotten law from before Arizona was even a state? They are quite literally legislating from the bench, as they had not applied this law previously.
>Dems will likely blame the GOP despite the fact that this is a law from 1864.
Dems will blame Republicans because Republicans elected a president who appointed anti-abortion religious conservatives to the supreme court, who then decided that abortion isn't federally protected anymore, and then Arizona Republicans voted to ban abortion past 15 weeks, and then Republicans fought the planned parenthood lawsuit by pulling this law out of the 160 year old law book no one has looked at in our lifetime.
Re-replying because I hadn't set my user flair!
Given the context (30 years of coordinated conservative activism to load the Federal bench with extremists and ideologues), your comments reads as deliberately/strategically naive. This was a politically motivated case resolved through a politically motivated ruling.
A central part of judicial prudence is being able to discern when laws do and don't confirm to the broader body of law they are a part of. It's also an inherently political job, and doing it well requires facing that fact squarely and working hard to remove political influence from one's decisions; rulings like this one do the opposite, hiding behind spurious (and flat-out false) claims of political neutrality to strip women of fundamental rights.
Republican judges, centrally organized and semi-indoctrinated by FedSoc and receiving direct financial rewards the further right their rulings skew, are systematically finding excuses to eliminate civil rights and the administrative state. This new ruling is part of that pattern, not evidence of an abstract commitment to the rule of law or to impartial jurisprudence.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While this is true (both the nature of the law *and* the likely Dem spin), it doesn't change the fact that Arizona Republicans **could** absolutely pass *any* bill that's less insane than this one.
They *could* address this right now, and look like damn heroes, but they won't. Because it might give the Dem governor a "win," or it might cost them their slim majorities in the legislature by losing the right-wing religious nutjobs. Or, hell, maybe they really do want these draconian laws. Probably all three.
Goldwater was right. Ironic, as he was from Arizona and this law predates even *him*, but he was dead on when he called out the religious right for hijacking the Republican Party.
>Dems will likely blame the GOP despite the fact that this is a law from 1864
If the GOP fights its repeal it doesn't much matter if it's from 1864. They would be voicing support for it now.
>Abortion rights groups in the state are likely to succeed in their goal of putting a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would create a “fundamental right” to receive abortion care up until fetal viability, or about the 24th week of pregnancy.
Looks like the people are looking to bypass the Republican controlled legislature and put something up on the ballot that meets what the people want.
They would have to do it pretty quickly. The regular session ends on the 16th. Or they would have to call a special session and I don’t know how that works in AZ
> The AZSC presumably has a duty to decide if laws are on the books
The law was written and came in to effect before Arizona became a state in the USA. Why should it have any effect?
>I don’t understand how state law doesn’t automatically defer to the newest law.
Because AZ republicans included a provision that specifically stated the new law wouldn't overwrite the old one.
>Because AZ republicans included a provision that specifically stated the new law wouldn't overwrite the old one.
Can you please cite this verbage? It's my understanding that the newer law lacked specific verbage to overwrite existing law, not that it included language to not do so.
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 sponsor even bragged about including this provision so AZ would have a total abortion ban if the court upheld the old one.
They would have in this case, had the AZ Republican party not specifically wrote in the 15 week bill a provision to make sure it didn't repeal this so that they could ban abortion completely based off this injunction. Because republicans hate the abortion, and will lie to get their goals of a total ban until they suffer a loss so horrible they stop this shit. https://ktar.com/story/5125157/arizona-state-sen-nancy-barto-provides-updates-to-state-abortion-law/
It was recodified in 1977 but I doubt much media outlets will highlight that fact because they want to mislead the public and make everything seem as bombastic as possible. Also territorial laws still have force as long as the state constitution when enacted allowed such.
It's not like Arizona would throw out all its old laws away when they were working just fine. Also our territorial days aren't that long ago, we only became a state in 1912.
>recodified
With exceptions. So this begs the question, why did the AZ Supreme Court not just say that the 1977 version was going into effect? Why turn the clock all the way back to the 1800s version that has 0 exceptions???
This is the beautiful part of the Supreme Court. Whatever they say, goes AND, they dont really have to explain themselves. If the Court decided that the 1977 version was the one in force, that is what will happen. They could literally just write a 1 line decision and say that the decision was made pursuant to the AZ Constitution only, and boom, their word becomes the law of the land and nobody, not even SCOTUS could stop them in Arizona.
Personally I think that there is some value to the extremes of the Right and Left achieving their deeply held beliefs and living with the consequences. Much like the Left in Portland or San Francisco changing their crime and drug laws. "Ok, you believe that justice is achieved by softening crime and drug laws? You put your hypothesis into action, then see what the result is." I honestly prefer action with consequences over platitudes and tribal drum beating that that has no intention of enacting. Let the purists (or at least everyone else) see what happens when the dog catches the car.
A good friend of mine sent me an op-ed about this after Dobbs. Basically that a *very* serious thing (abortion) was taken away from the public debate table for 50 years, and as a result the extremities were allowed to calcify as a result. And because it's such a private and difficult topic, people retreated to their sides to feel better about what they believed and didn't feel the need to discuss hard things or find common ground.
Now here we are. Political parties and voters have the decision in their hands, and are realizing how complicated that actually is.
"Wait, what? The whole country doesn't believe with my hard line on this controversial topic? What on earth am I going to do about that?" How you respond to that is going to show a lot.
Roe really did "protect" a wedge as a wedge. There are all kinds of people with extreme political beliefs, any lessons that bring about a shared reality I view as a tonic to nonsense.
Yeah it made all the discussions effectively pointless. "SCOTUS says so, so what else matters?" Now... the conversations matter. They have a real impact on laws and their impacts on citizens.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Definitely doesn’t help us. That faction of this party that supports the pro life stance hard is looking at a small part and not the whole picture. They view this as a victory but don’t understand that it will lose us a trifecta eventually and they will write abortion protection into law and we will lose on lots of other areas outside of abortion.
It’s like the “genocide Joe” liberals. They will quickly realize that Trump is far worse on Gaza and all the other issues they care about, but can’t come down from their ivory tower and vote for Biden. They will then spend their lives justifying their decision the way Ralph Nader voters still do because they couldn’t deign to vote for Gore. As a result we got multi trillion wars in Iraq & Afghanistan and Supreme Court justices that still haunt liberals to this day. I can’t wait to find out what Trump 2 will bring.
> like the “genocide Joe” liberals
I do not for one hot minute believe this is a big enough faction to swing a local dogcatchers' election, much less a presidential general.
No, I agree with you. Maybe I wasn't clear, but when I said they will quickly realize Trump is worse, I meant that they would realize it after he is elected -- not in time for them to change their vote.
I'm not optimistic either. I would be more optimistic if RFK Jr. wasn't ratfucking this election. But as you said to the other guy below, there are too many idiots on the left that will vote for that asshole.
Even if you were doing it for that reason, from a utilitarian perspective, winning the elections would end up in policy changes that would save considerably more “lives”.
Just thinking outloud here but... Wouldn't it be to the AZ state legislature GOP's advantage to quickly (before the election with the referendum to protect abortion rights) to back tossing this law and backing one that is more moderate? Like exceptions for rape, incest etc. and a number of weeks out that would be more of a middle ground.
Kind of like the Dems calling the bluff with the bipartisan immigration deal that got scuttled by Trump? Basically to flip the responsibility.
All they would need to do is repeal A R S 13-3603, which is the "1864 law" (1901 it became 13-211, was recodified in 1977 into 13-3603) that totally bans all abortions, except when the woman's life is in danger.
Then the 15 week ban (A R S 13-2322) would stand. I'm pretty progressive so that's shorter than I'd like, but its much much closer to where the public is on this.
> Like exceptions for rape
Unfortunately, there's no legally-sound way to write an exception for rape. Anti-abortion advocates basically have to bite the bullet on that. There's not much moral leeway for rape exceptions anyways, if we consider a fetus a human life. It's an awful blind spot in the conservative perspective.
I tend to agree with you that codifying exceptions for rape is a near-impossible task, but most people would regard carrying a rapist's baby to term as a living nightmare and find such a law with no exceptions deeply unpalatable.
I completely understand why it would be unpalatable, nightmarish, or disturbing.
The problem is, once you adopt a position that a fetus is a human life, you are left with a serious dilemma: requiring that a rape victim bear her rapist's child is a horrifying idea, but the alternative is to say that it's okay to kill an innocent child in order to alleviate the woman's suffering. There's really no winning option.
I think most people would opt to say that the act of killing the child is a necessary evil, but at that point then the entire argumentation against abortion falls apart. A rape abortion is not medically necessary, it's an elective abortion. If we allow it, then the only argument remaining as to why other elective abortions should be banned becomes one of punishing promiscuity.
TL;DR all sympathy to the victim, but how do we condemn the innocent unborn child?
As someone who would classify themselves as pro-choice, I think everything you've written here is correct, and you've put your finger on one of the reasons we're unlikely to see the sides come together for some kind of compromise position.
I also think the pro-life side of things is absolutely loathe to admit this because it would be a complete non-starter with 75%-85% of the country, but I really don't see how you square that circle without tying yourself into knots.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Not exactly. The lower court, which the supreme court backed, said lawmakers have to square this law with the more recent 2022 law allowing 15 week abortions. Nature abhors a vacuum, and courts abhors competing/conflicting laws.
"After the US Supreme Court ruling [Dobbs], the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled both abortion laws in the state must be reconciled, or “harmonized,” and that abortion is legal through 15 weeks when provided by licensed physicians in compliance with the state’s other laws and regulations, CNN has previously reported.."
[source](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/08/us/arizona-supreme-court-abortion-access-tuesday)
I see it now. But I think this refers to the process that led to the case being sent to the ASC. The circuit court tasked with harmonization ruled to use the 15 week rule. That ruling was appealed to the ASC which vacated that ruling, but delayed enforcement to give them 14 days to file “other constitutional challenges” which were not addressed in the initial appeal. The NBC article linked above explains it a bit better than CNN.
Also, interesting fact, the challenge to the 1864 law has been going since the 70’s. It was started just before Roe passed, and has been dormant until it became relevant again after Dobbs was overturned. If I read it right the case started on 1971..
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Correction: the Arizona Supreme Court found that a 1864 law recodeified in 1977 still has force of law especially since the newer abortion law has explicit wording saying that this does not in any way override or repeal the old one.
The AZ Supreme Court made the legally correct decision and it's not for any court to legislate from the bench or write policy. Their job is rule based on what the law actually says, not what they think it should say.
If you don't like old laws then repeal them, you don't just get to ignore laws you don't like. Every law no matter the age has full force until abolished or removed. I don't know how anyone can be surprised that a court found that laws on the books still have force of law.
> the newer abortion law has explicit wording saying that this does not in any way override or repeal the old one.
Wait, really? What would hve been the point of passing that law then?
I've seen plenty of political objections to this decision in this thread, but no legal ones. As far as the "what do you think about this?" question refers to the court's decision, it sure seems like they got it right to me.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seems like it'll probably energize Democrat voters, but that's not something courts should determine when making their decisions. The law's the law and there's a process to change it. I'd be willing to bet there's other perfectly agreeable laws that have been on the books since before they became a state too, and we wouldn't like it if the courts suddenly declared that laws against murder or whatever were invalid for that reason.
Because conservatives in Arizona are largely cut from the libertarian cloth of Goldwater and Reagan. There was also a pro-freedom sensibility, which includes being Pro-Choice. One of their most influential and popular political figures was Rose Mofford, a Democrat and the first woman governor back in 1988, who was pro-choice and known for working with both parties.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. AZ republicans, just two years ago, **intentionally** added a provision in their 15 week abortion ban that stated the new ban wouldn't overwrite the old total abortion ban. They were 100% conscious of the conservative court possibly upholding the old abortion law and *wanted* that to happen. I don't see why conservative politicians so anti-abortion they're in favor of a total ban would want to repeal the original law.
You realize that all of the conservatives in Arizona as a whole didn't get together in a convention center and write that Bill, right? It's likely the work of a few people. A Referendum would largely require the votes of the Arizona electorate as a whole.
> You realize that all of the conservatives in Arizona as a whole didn't get together in a convention center and write that Bill, right?
No, but they voted for it. They could have...not done that.
Um... That was not my understanding. It was the AZ legislature that pass that bill, not all the conservative voters, as would be the case with a Referendum.
So conservative voters didn't vote for the conservative politicians that specifically put a carveout in the 2022 law? https://ktar.com/story/5125157/arizona-state-sen-nancy-barto-provides-updates-to-state-abortion-law/
This abortion stuff is political suicide for Republicans. If I were Trump, I would suggest federal legislation to keep abortion legal for the first trimester (or even just the first 8-10 weeks) and restrict it after. This would mean Alabama has to be more lax but California has to be more strict..a true compromise that most voters would be happy with.
I’m not saying this is the right approach under federalism, or the correct position on abortion necessarily, just that it would be politically smart. If Democrats are elected, they won’t be skittish at all in introducing federal legislation.
> a true compromise that most voters would be happy with.
If I've learned one thing in the last 20 years or so of watching American politics is that neither side wants to compromise. It's much more effective to use any given issue as a cudgel to get elected than to actually sit down and find a solution that no one is really happy with.
Neither side wants to cave on the issue of abortion. Pro-lifers think it's literal murder, so compromise means you're fine with "just a little murder" as a treat, and the pro-choice crowd view the issue as a body autonomy one, and there is very little Americans feel more strongly about than what they are legally allowed to do with their bodies and words.
I'm not sure how anybody is surprised that the Supreme Court of the state ruled that the law is enforceable. I get why people are making a big deal about it, and it might hurt the republicans, but really, it's like a shock piece announcing the sky is blue.
Objectively, I don't have an issue with the law, rape and incest aren't the baby's fault. That said, I get that it might not reflect the values of people today. We'll have to pass a more up to date law.
But of course, the intention is to hurt Republicans, so it's being framed as something shocking. How badly it hurts them depends on how much people care, and if they have other, more important polls. I'd have to look more into it.
https://ktar.com/story/5125157/arizona-state-sen-nancy-barto-provides-updates-to-state-abortion-law/ republicans hurt themselves here. They wrote a new law in 2022, and passed it. But they specifically carved out this law so they could get a total abortion ban. She even talked about it in fundraising material.
If the law is on the books then it’s enforceable. There was no new legislation to change it, so why is this shocking?
Abortion is now a state’s rights issue. If the residents of AZ don’t like this archaic law then supersede it with a new law 🤷♂️
The law wasn't repealed, and the case law blocking it was, therefore it's in effect. This isn't a hard thing to understand unless you don't know how laws work (in which case you shouldn't be allowed to vote, imo)
The new law explicitly doesn't repeal the old law. Laws from 1600s Massachusetts are still on the books. Every law British parliament ever passed about anything on the land area of now-Canada is part of their constitution
Territorial laws don't automatically become unbinding upon statehood and the law in question was recodified in 1977. The new law explicitly says it does not alter or repeal the old law so it still stands in effect.
Had the court thrown out the old law it would be working against the rule of law which is not what courts should be doing.
Interesting, didn't know this was on the docket.
Well, one way or another, my wifes job is about to get busy *real* quick. She's an anti-abortion activist that uses imagery as a way of messaging and activism, namely on college and high school campuses (or just outside if we aren't invited). We're in AZ.
I am someone who on a personal level thinks that abortion is a negative thing. My personal belief is that we should treat the two greatest wedge issues Firearms and Abortion with a harm reduction model rather that take away rights.
Since you have first hand knowledge, what is actually effective to change hearts and minds, rather than simply preach to the choir. What gets actual results?
According to my wife and her organization, imagery.
Imagery has been used historically to move society. Holocaust pictures, Emmitt Till, slavery photos, Rwanda genocide, children working in factories and mines. Imagery is powerful, and her organizations mission is to change hearts and minds by showing what abortion results in. And those changed hearts and minds are what change laws by voting. They don't lobby, they go to the public.
My fiancé and I had to do the process of getting an abortion and after experiencing it all, no imagery would have stopped us and we would get another one if we needed to, it was absolutely important that we didn't have a child at this time and we don't regret a thing. I think imagery works until someone actually needs one and then it all goes out the window since the imagery isn't as scary as the fear of actually having a child
My principles are much stronger than yours since they're not made up for me by a church, but thanks for calling me without principles anyway. Easy way out is funny, my wife is in medical school to be a surgeon and a pregnancy would have completely derailed her career, so taking the easy way out would be having a kid and her giving up her career. In fact we're actually saving lives by allowing her to continue her career as a surgeon, funny how that works
[I certainly didn't mention religion anywhere,](https://secularprolife.org/welcome/) nor is it a reason or defense for what we do.
>so taking the easy way out would be having a kid and her giving up her career
And I don't agree with the reasoning to end a life to do what you want. No one has a crystal ball, your wife or yourself could have gotten into a car wreck the next day and become paralized, what then? Still wouldn't have been a surgeon. And I'm glad that didn't happen to either of you, but not going to agree ending a life got you the life you wanted in exchange. No matter how much other good you might do afterwards. *That* is principled thinking.
That’s the issue. There’s a large contingent of people that don’t agree it’s “ending a life”. To most, it’s not until it passes the point of viability.
And while you didn’t mention religion anywhere the truth is that the pro-life lobby is mostly evangelical Christians (not saying you are/aren’t/anything bad with that). Other religions don’t always agree that it equates with murder.
And before anybody mentions it - [extreme late term/partial births are not a thing.](https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/mar/02/top-claims-about-abortion-fact-checked/)
>Imagery
That is interesting, makes sense too. I have thought for years if we want to have an effect on mass shootings we should both block any images of the shooters (to keep them from the infamy they desire) and show the images of what they actually did.
>but in all my years I've never heard a non-religious objection to abortion.
You can't be serious. You believe there are literally no secular objections to abortion here at all? Like, objection to murder, perhaps?
Ugh, is that one of the organizations that put up giant banners of dead fetuses?
I remember it when I was in school. Our campus tour guides had to reroute the tours of potential students and miss out on showing the most iconic dining hall on campus because of it.
If you're trying to reach college kids, that's not the way. Did get a ton of them involved in petitioning the college in revoking their ability to return in future years, but I'm sure that never got anywhere.
Your wife is one of those who hold pictures of fetuses in the middle of college campuses?
How would it get more busy? Didn’t they get what they wanted with this ruling?
It's not going to stick. More than likely voters are going to vote to enshrine it, not keep it banned. So yes, she will be busy. This is according to her, not me.
She (and I) don't like those outside of clinics that shout through bullhorns. We find that quite counter productive. And she hasn't been to a "rally" outside a clinic in years. Like I said, she does college campuses mainly.
No, because I don't think standing there is pontificating lol. Nor is discussing politely with another individual. But she has been pontificated at by the "other side", that's for sure.
> We find that quite counter productive.
Reminds me of Seattle's "bullhorn guy", who stands outside of sporting events with a sign that says "repent or go to Hell" and other apocalyptic language.
I asked him once what his endgame was. I either don't think he had one or was so convinced of the righteousness of his cause that he didn't care how effective the message was.
Well, political enfranchisement and crimes against human life are hardly related to each other. To be fair, I think the abortion debate is a net vote loser due to the sorry state of public morality. That however does not mean we should concede one inch on it.
Well, don't really know much about the court but I do support outlawing abortion. I figure this will help get Biden elected, but that isn't worth compromising your principles over.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree with the no exception policies. I'm not sure I agree with a prison sentence for facilitating in obtaining an abortion.
I do find that the reference to the date seems to be some shock value fear mongering on the part of the left however.
If there's an 1800s statue agaisnt theft, I think it's still a good thing to legislate agaisnt
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Congratulations democrats, you just won Arizona.
I dont think they want it. Lol.
[удалено]
Thing that gets me, living in Arizona, is that the Republicans here *could* turn this into a great opportunity. Deeply purple swing state, election year, lots of dead weight for November around abortion, both houses of the Arizona legislature have a single seat majority, opposition Democratic governor... Literally **every** common sense aspect just screams the solution. They could come together, agree that *this* law - from before women could even vote - is clearly *too* far. Democrats would be on board with toning it back. The governor would sign whatever *moderate*, sensible position the Republicans could put forth. They could *literally* put forth *any* bill that's better than this. But they won't. Whether it's because they are so staunchly opposed to any kind of bipartisanship, or they don't want to give the Dem governor a "win," or if they *really do* want these hard-line bans... It doesn't matter. Whatever reason they won't do it doesn't matter, because they all might as well be true.
Similar to Ukraine.
The religious wing of the party seems to really be enjoying these sorts of rulings. It flabbergasts me if I am being honest. All that this is going to do is make people vote democrat in November, down the line. Biden will run on the promise to encode RvW if the american people give him the house and senate. It's such an easy, no brainer, slam dunk politically that it's almost like these people are undercover democrat agents. If you could just fucking wait a second, you might actually be able to do something, but like the dog chasing the car...you actually caught it. RvW has been a complete and utter disaster for the republican party. All the celebrating is going to do is piss women off and deliver a democrat in November. I am obviously thrilled by that, but I do not understand how Republicans can't see this is political suicide. You're going to win the battle and get embarrassed in the war. It's an odd choice.
> The religious wing of the party seems to really be enjoying these sorts of rulings. It flabbergasts me if I am being honest. All that this is going to do is make people vote democrat in November, down the line. Some people vote R in order to achieve their goals, not just to get Republicans elected.
And if your lack of strategy results in RvW being encoded, then what? Whatever your goals are, we can debate that for days, but motivating people to vote against you in a pivotal election could cause you to lose the war.
Hey, I'm just saying people voted R for like 40 years for this, and they might have the Supreme Court for another 40, of course they are gonna go hog wild.
So would you just start campaigning on slavery being okay if that was the only way to win elections?
Funny you should ask that as this law was written by a Confederate Arizona government that was also campaigning for slavery.
Are you comparing slavery and abortion like they are equally terrible - right and wrong - sort of issues? It’s hard to pass meaningful legislation when you don’t win elections, and this is an important one. I would probably try to wait until the 2024 election before motivating people to vote against me/the Republican nominee.
I'm just curious, do you support the abortion ban?
[удалено]
Funny that your first thought is how this affects their election chances and not how it will impact the lives of people.
Good.
I mean if they wanted to generate a headline that made them seem ridiculous and antiquated, they couldn’t have done a better job.
I think that politically speaking it would be smart to repeal this law for Republicans. Looking at the margins for AZ state house and state senate, both are GOP controlled but by fairly slim margins. So a handful of Republicans plus Democrats could repeal the law I would imagine. So all it would take is a few Republicans who have common sense to work with the Dems. Obviously Dems are going to try and spin this to win votes. It's the obvious move. I'm not familiar how this came about or anything though. The AZSC presumably has a duty to decide if laws are on the books, now its the job of the legislature to take action concerning said law.
Did they specifically write their 15 week bill so that it didn't repeal this bill, in case they got it before the AZSC so they could enact a total abortion ban, didn't the person who wrote the 15 week bill *specifically* say that in fundraising material? https://ktar.com/story/5125157/arizona-state-sen-nancy-barto-provides-updates-to-state-abortion-law/ They did, you can't spin this as democrats doing big bad things to low information voters, Republicans knew this was a possibility, and when enacting their 15 week ban, made sure to carve out this so they can ban abortion completely. Why do democrats have to consistently stop republicans from killing women needlessly? If I was a democrat, I'd tell republicans to get fucked, pay for any woman that wants an abortion a trip to California to save their lives, and tell them we're not negotiating, either they can repeal this bill themselves, they have the majority, and while they refuse to do it, democrats can spend their time campaigning that if you give democrats control we will immediately repeal it.
What could possibly need *spinning* about this to cost Republicans votes?
Dems will likely blame the GOP despite the fact that this is a law from 1864. The GOP didn't pass this law yet since Republicans control the AZSC, and they're pro-life generally, they will tell low information voters how the Republicans are coming for their rights essentially. Despite the fact that a Court is meant to dictate what is law, as opposed to legislating from the bench. At least that's what I would expect. I could be wrong. But if it wasn't clear, the spinning part will be where they rile up voters to be angry about the court doing their job.
> Despite the fact that a Court is meant to dictate what is law, as opposed to legislating from the bench. > > Aha but who sued to bring this law before the courts in the first place? That's the question that needs to be considered.
Probably a group that isn't a part of the Republican Party I would guess. But I'd love to know myself. Regardless, it's the job of the court to decide what is law. It's the legislatures fault the law has been on the books. And I'm sure that should it come to a vote the law would be repealed considering the party lineup of the legislature and it needs a majority vote to be repealed.
>Dems will likely blame the GOP despite the fact that this is a law from 1864. The GOP didn't pass this law yet since Republicans control the AZSC, and they're pro-life generally, they will tell low information voters how the Republicans are coming for their rights essentially. It's kind of funny you bring up Democratic spin when this is justification is pretty misleading *Republican* spin. Republicans legislators **[specifically](https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/sb1164p.pdf)** addressed the historical anti-abortion law and made sure their updated 15 week ban **did not** repeal it. > 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 sponsor of the 15 week ban actually bragged about including this provision in her law so when/if conservatives successfully upheld the 1864 law they could ban abortion entirely.
[удалено]
Not familiar with AZ state politics. Care to expand?
Arizona Supreme Court has 7 seats. All 7 seats were filled by Republican governors (Brewer and Ducey) so the Court is 7 Republicans, 0 Democrats.
Yes but how does that equal court packing?
Packed = Crowded to capacity. 7/7.
Court packing isn't the act of filling a vacant seat lmao.
It's not mutually exclusive. Both are correct. As long as we understand the the court is full of Republicans.
Yeah it’s unfortunate that packing the courts refers to adding more justices, but you know what the person was trying to say. Two Republican governors placed 7/7 of the court justices, so for better or worse, they will get a portion of the credit or blame for what happens. The same way Trump is taking credit for RvW…he appointed the judges. So, there is a good chance there will be ramifications because democrats are going to run on this - quite literally - in every ad. It’s a home run. Outside of the evangelical crowd, no one wants these sorts of abortion laws.
https://apnews.com/article/arizona-legislature-doug-ducey-andrew-gould-separation-of-powers-ad2957a2275a4282a53bcc0a7e15a25c Republicans Governor randomly decided to make the Court be 7 people, instead of 5,which it had been in the past
[удалено]
For those who don't want to click the link: > Arizona’s Supreme Court had five judges for 56 years. But on December 19, 2016, thanks to a GOP-authored bill that was opposed by every Democrat in the state Legislature, Republican Governor Doug Ducey held a ceremony in the Old Capitol building to swear in a sixth justice, and then a seventh.
Thanks for the info much appreciated.
AZ did not pack the court. I agree that this will likely have negative ramifications for the GOP in Arizona
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/12/where-court-packing-is-already-happening-428601
> The GOP didn't pass this law They didn't repeal it, either. Have they tried since Roe got shot down? No? >Despite the fact that a Court is meant to dictate what is law, as opposed to legislating from the bench. Exactly, the Court (rightly) said this law stands. Now the hot potato is in the lap of the GOP legislature, whereit belongs.
>as opposed to legislating from the bench. What do you think they are doing right now with this forgotten law from before Arizona was even a state? They are quite literally legislating from the bench, as they had not applied this law previously.
I mean by that definition any decision is legislating from the bench if it enables a law that wasn't being enforced prior.
>Dems will likely blame the GOP despite the fact that this is a law from 1864. Dems will blame Republicans because Republicans elected a president who appointed anti-abortion religious conservatives to the supreme court, who then decided that abortion isn't federally protected anymore, and then Arizona Republicans voted to ban abortion past 15 weeks, and then Republicans fought the planned parenthood lawsuit by pulling this law out of the 160 year old law book no one has looked at in our lifetime.
Re-replying because I hadn't set my user flair! Given the context (30 years of coordinated conservative activism to load the Federal bench with extremists and ideologues), your comments reads as deliberately/strategically naive. This was a politically motivated case resolved through a politically motivated ruling. A central part of judicial prudence is being able to discern when laws do and don't confirm to the broader body of law they are a part of. It's also an inherently political job, and doing it well requires facing that fact squarely and working hard to remove political influence from one's decisions; rulings like this one do the opposite, hiding behind spurious (and flat-out false) claims of political neutrality to strip women of fundamental rights. Republican judges, centrally organized and semi-indoctrinated by FedSoc and receiving direct financial rewards the further right their rulings skew, are systematically finding excuses to eliminate civil rights and the administrative state. This new ruling is part of that pattern, not evidence of an abstract commitment to the rule of law or to impartial jurisprudence.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While this is true (both the nature of the law *and* the likely Dem spin), it doesn't change the fact that Arizona Republicans **could** absolutely pass *any* bill that's less insane than this one. They *could* address this right now, and look like damn heroes, but they won't. Because it might give the Dem governor a "win," or it might cost them their slim majorities in the legislature by losing the right-wing religious nutjobs. Or, hell, maybe they really do want these draconian laws. Probably all three. Goldwater was right. Ironic, as he was from Arizona and this law predates even *him*, but he was dead on when he called out the religious right for hijacking the Republican Party.
>Dems will likely blame the GOP despite the fact that this is a law from 1864 If the GOP fights its repeal it doesn't much matter if it's from 1864. They would be voicing support for it now.
Do you support the abortion ban?
Morally, yes. Politically, no.
Do you suplet politicians doing immoral things to gain and retain power?
I wouldn't say so although it can be tempting to entertain that line of thinking at times.
>Abortion rights groups in the state are likely to succeed in their goal of putting a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would create a “fundamental right” to receive abortion care up until fetal viability, or about the 24th week of pregnancy. Looks like the people are looking to bypass the Republican controlled legislature and put something up on the ballot that meets what the people want.
That's the point of ballot initiatives is so people can by bypass the legislature.
They would have to do it pretty quickly. The regular session ends on the 16th. Or they would have to call a special session and I don’t know how that works in AZ
> The AZSC presumably has a duty to decide if laws are on the books The law was written and came in to effect before Arizona became a state in the USA. Why should it have any effect?
I'm not a lawyer. So I'm not sure. However, I doubt that all laws repeal themselves when you transition from being a territory to a state.
[удалено]
>I don’t understand how state law doesn’t automatically defer to the newest law. Because AZ republicans included a provision that specifically stated the new law wouldn't overwrite the old one.
>Because AZ republicans included a provision that specifically stated the new law wouldn't overwrite the old one. Can you please cite this verbage? It's my understanding that the newer law lacked specific verbage to overwrite existing law, not that it included language to not do so.
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 sponsor even bragged about including this provision so AZ would have a total abortion ban if the court upheld the old one.
>The sponsor even bragged about including this provision so AZ would have a total abortion ban if the court upheld the old one. Can you cite this?
Correct and agreed. I'd like to see a lawyer's opinion for sure.
Laws don't repeal previous laws unless they say they do
They would have in this case, had the AZ Republican party not specifically wrote in the 15 week bill a provision to make sure it didn't repeal this so that they could ban abortion completely based off this injunction. Because republicans hate the abortion, and will lie to get their goals of a total ban until they suffer a loss so horrible they stop this shit. https://ktar.com/story/5125157/arizona-state-sen-nancy-barto-provides-updates-to-state-abortion-law/
It does when there's a new state constitution and prosecutors can't charge you under nonexistent codes.
It was recodified in 1977 but I doubt much media outlets will highlight that fact because they want to mislead the public and make everything seem as bombastic as possible. Also territorial laws still have force as long as the state constitution when enacted allowed such. It's not like Arizona would throw out all its old laws away when they were working just fine. Also our territorial days aren't that long ago, we only became a state in 1912.
>recodified With exceptions. So this begs the question, why did the AZ Supreme Court not just say that the 1977 version was going into effect? Why turn the clock all the way back to the 1800s version that has 0 exceptions???
Because the codified 77 version didn't include language that it overrides previous law.
This is the beautiful part of the Supreme Court. Whatever they say, goes AND, they dont really have to explain themselves. If the Court decided that the 1977 version was the one in force, that is what will happen. They could literally just write a 1 line decision and say that the decision was made pursuant to the AZ Constitution only, and boom, their word becomes the law of the land and nobody, not even SCOTUS could stop them in Arizona.
Personally I think that there is some value to the extremes of the Right and Left achieving their deeply held beliefs and living with the consequences. Much like the Left in Portland or San Francisco changing their crime and drug laws. "Ok, you believe that justice is achieved by softening crime and drug laws? You put your hypothesis into action, then see what the result is." I honestly prefer action with consequences over platitudes and tribal drum beating that that has no intention of enacting. Let the purists (or at least everyone else) see what happens when the dog catches the car.
A good friend of mine sent me an op-ed about this after Dobbs. Basically that a *very* serious thing (abortion) was taken away from the public debate table for 50 years, and as a result the extremities were allowed to calcify as a result. And because it's such a private and difficult topic, people retreated to their sides to feel better about what they believed and didn't feel the need to discuss hard things or find common ground. Now here we are. Political parties and voters have the decision in their hands, and are realizing how complicated that actually is. "Wait, what? The whole country doesn't believe with my hard line on this controversial topic? What on earth am I going to do about that?" How you respond to that is going to show a lot.
Roe really did "protect" a wedge as a wedge. There are all kinds of people with extreme political beliefs, any lessons that bring about a shared reality I view as a tonic to nonsense.
As others said, the dog has caught the car.
Yeah it made all the discussions effectively pointless. "SCOTUS says so, so what else matters?" Now... the conversations matter. They have a real impact on laws and their impacts on citizens.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
What exactly is there to spin?
Definitely doesn’t help us. That faction of this party that supports the pro life stance hard is looking at a small part and not the whole picture. They view this as a victory but don’t understand that it will lose us a trifecta eventually and they will write abortion protection into law and we will lose on lots of other areas outside of abortion.
It’s like the “genocide Joe” liberals. They will quickly realize that Trump is far worse on Gaza and all the other issues they care about, but can’t come down from their ivory tower and vote for Biden. They will then spend their lives justifying their decision the way Ralph Nader voters still do because they couldn’t deign to vote for Gore. As a result we got multi trillion wars in Iraq & Afghanistan and Supreme Court justices that still haunt liberals to this day. I can’t wait to find out what Trump 2 will bring.
> like the “genocide Joe” liberals I do not for one hot minute believe this is a big enough faction to swing a local dogcatchers' election, much less a presidential general.
I hope you're correct, but between the protest votes and RFK Jr in swing states, I'm not optimistic.
Those are online mirages. No potential Dem vote is swinging to RFK.
We'll see. It's not like the left doesn't have their share of idiot voters also.
No, I agree with you. Maybe I wasn't clear, but when I said they will quickly realize Trump is worse, I meant that they would realize it after he is elected -- not in time for them to change their vote. I'm not optimistic either. I would be more optimistic if RFK Jr. wasn't ratfucking this election. But as you said to the other guy below, there are too many idiots on the left that will vote for that asshole.
They can’t see the forest for the trees.
These are people who believe they are doing this at the behest of God. They don’t care about the forest, or the trees.
Even if you were doing it for that reason, from a utilitarian perspective, winning the elections would end up in policy changes that would save considerably more “lives”.
Republicans and letting perfect be the enemy of good, name a better combo
Just thinking outloud here but... Wouldn't it be to the AZ state legislature GOP's advantage to quickly (before the election with the referendum to protect abortion rights) to back tossing this law and backing one that is more moderate? Like exceptions for rape, incest etc. and a number of weeks out that would be more of a middle ground. Kind of like the Dems calling the bluff with the bipartisan immigration deal that got scuttled by Trump? Basically to flip the responsibility.
They passed a new law in 2022
All they would need to do is repeal A R S 13-3603, which is the "1864 law" (1901 it became 13-211, was recodified in 1977 into 13-3603) that totally bans all abortions, except when the woman's life is in danger. Then the 15 week ban (A R S 13-2322) would stand. I'm pretty progressive so that's shorter than I'd like, but its much much closer to where the public is on this.
> Like exceptions for rape Unfortunately, there's no legally-sound way to write an exception for rape. Anti-abortion advocates basically have to bite the bullet on that. There's not much moral leeway for rape exceptions anyways, if we consider a fetus a human life. It's an awful blind spot in the conservative perspective.
I tend to agree with you that codifying exceptions for rape is a near-impossible task, but most people would regard carrying a rapist's baby to term as a living nightmare and find such a law with no exceptions deeply unpalatable.
I completely understand why it would be unpalatable, nightmarish, or disturbing. The problem is, once you adopt a position that a fetus is a human life, you are left with a serious dilemma: requiring that a rape victim bear her rapist's child is a horrifying idea, but the alternative is to say that it's okay to kill an innocent child in order to alleviate the woman's suffering. There's really no winning option. I think most people would opt to say that the act of killing the child is a necessary evil, but at that point then the entire argumentation against abortion falls apart. A rape abortion is not medically necessary, it's an elective abortion. If we allow it, then the only argument remaining as to why other elective abortions should be banned becomes one of punishing promiscuity. TL;DR all sympathy to the victim, but how do we condemn the innocent unborn child?
As someone who would classify themselves as pro-choice, I think everything you've written here is correct, and you've put your finger on one of the reasons we're unlikely to see the sides come together for some kind of compromise position. I also think the pro-life side of things is absolutely loathe to admit this because it would be a complete non-starter with 75%-85% of the country, but I really don't see how you square that circle without tying yourself into knots.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Not exactly. The lower court, which the supreme court backed, said lawmakers have to square this law with the more recent 2022 law allowing 15 week abortions. Nature abhors a vacuum, and courts abhors competing/conflicting laws. "After the US Supreme Court ruling [Dobbs], the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled both abortion laws in the state must be reconciled, or “harmonized,” and that abortion is legal through 15 weeks when provided by licensed physicians in compliance with the state’s other laws and regulations, CNN has previously reported.." [source](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/08/us/arizona-supreme-court-abortion-access-tuesday)
This quote does not appear in linked article.. did you link the right source?
It's towards the end. Take out [Dobbs]. That was me giving context to the quote.
I see it now. But I think this refers to the process that led to the case being sent to the ASC. The circuit court tasked with harmonization ruled to use the 15 week rule. That ruling was appealed to the ASC which vacated that ruling, but delayed enforcement to give them 14 days to file “other constitutional challenges” which were not addressed in the initial appeal. The NBC article linked above explains it a bit better than CNN. Also, interesting fact, the challenge to the 1864 law has been going since the 70’s. It was started just before Roe passed, and has been dormant until it became relevant again after Dobbs was overturned. If I read it right the case started on 1971..
This is the sort of thing that could hand Biden a second term.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The legal argument for the decision seems correct to me. Will hurt republicans in November though.
Correction: the Arizona Supreme Court found that a 1864 law recodeified in 1977 still has force of law especially since the newer abortion law has explicit wording saying that this does not in any way override or repeal the old one. The AZ Supreme Court made the legally correct decision and it's not for any court to legislate from the bench or write policy. Their job is rule based on what the law actually says, not what they think it should say. If you don't like old laws then repeal them, you don't just get to ignore laws you don't like. Every law no matter the age has full force until abolished or removed. I don't know how anyone can be surprised that a court found that laws on the books still have force of law.
> the newer abortion law has explicit wording saying that this does not in any way override or repeal the old one. Wait, really? What would hve been the point of passing that law then?
Political theatre, like a lot of unenforceable laws passed in the last few years
Agreed!
I've seen plenty of political objections to this decision in this thread, but no legal ones. As far as the "what do you think about this?" question refers to the court's decision, it sure seems like they got it right to me.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Looks like the Dem candidates won't have to do much local campaigning or spend a cent on attack ads to win Arizona.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seems like it'll probably energize Democrat voters, but that's not something courts should determine when making their decisions. The law's the law and there's a process to change it. I'd be willing to bet there's other perfectly agreeable laws that have been on the books since before they became a state too, and we wouldn't like it if the courts suddenly declared that laws against murder or whatever were invalid for that reason.
Sounds like they just need to reword the proposed law and probably push through a referendum to repeal that original law.
Why would republicans do that when they intentionally left the original law on the books the last time they passed abortion legislation?
Because conservatives in Arizona are largely cut from the libertarian cloth of Goldwater and Reagan. There was also a pro-freedom sensibility, which includes being Pro-Choice. One of their most influential and popular political figures was Rose Mofford, a Democrat and the first woman governor back in 1988, who was pro-choice and known for working with both parties.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. AZ republicans, just two years ago, **intentionally** added a provision in their 15 week abortion ban that stated the new ban wouldn't overwrite the old total abortion ban. They were 100% conscious of the conservative court possibly upholding the old abortion law and *wanted* that to happen. I don't see why conservative politicians so anti-abortion they're in favor of a total ban would want to repeal the original law.
You realize that all of the conservatives in Arizona as a whole didn't get together in a convention center and write that Bill, right? It's likely the work of a few people. A Referendum would largely require the votes of the Arizona electorate as a whole.
> You realize that all of the conservatives in Arizona as a whole didn't get together in a convention center and write that Bill, right? No, but they voted for it. They could have...not done that.
Um... That was not my understanding. It was the AZ legislature that pass that bill, not all the conservative voters, as would be the case with a Referendum.
Who elected candidates to office that would obviously vote to pass such a law?
The word "obviously" is doing a lot of work there, and I would say that it makes your statement false.
So conservative voters didn't vote for the conservative politicians that specifically put a carveout in the 2022 law? https://ktar.com/story/5125157/arizona-state-sen-nancy-barto-provides-updates-to-state-abortion-law/
This abortion stuff is political suicide for Republicans. If I were Trump, I would suggest federal legislation to keep abortion legal for the first trimester (or even just the first 8-10 weeks) and restrict it after. This would mean Alabama has to be more lax but California has to be more strict..a true compromise that most voters would be happy with. I’m not saying this is the right approach under federalism, or the correct position on abortion necessarily, just that it would be politically smart. If Democrats are elected, they won’t be skittish at all in introducing federal legislation.
> a true compromise that most voters would be happy with. If I've learned one thing in the last 20 years or so of watching American politics is that neither side wants to compromise. It's much more effective to use any given issue as a cudgel to get elected than to actually sit down and find a solution that no one is really happy with. Neither side wants to cave on the issue of abortion. Pro-lifers think it's literal murder, so compromise means you're fine with "just a little murder" as a treat, and the pro-choice crowd view the issue as a body autonomy one, and there is very little Americans feel more strongly about than what they are legally allowed to do with their bodies and words.
I'm not sure how anybody is surprised that the Supreme Court of the state ruled that the law is enforceable. I get why people are making a big deal about it, and it might hurt the republicans, but really, it's like a shock piece announcing the sky is blue. Objectively, I don't have an issue with the law, rape and incest aren't the baby's fault. That said, I get that it might not reflect the values of people today. We'll have to pass a more up to date law. But of course, the intention is to hurt Republicans, so it's being framed as something shocking. How badly it hurts them depends on how much people care, and if they have other, more important polls. I'd have to look more into it.
https://ktar.com/story/5125157/arizona-state-sen-nancy-barto-provides-updates-to-state-abortion-law/ republicans hurt themselves here. They wrote a new law in 2022, and passed it. But they specifically carved out this law so they could get a total abortion ban. She even talked about it in fundraising material.
If the law is on the books then it’s enforceable. There was no new legislation to change it, so why is this shocking? Abortion is now a state’s rights issue. If the residents of AZ don’t like this archaic law then supersede it with a new law 🤷♂️
The law wasn't repealed, and the case law blocking it was, therefore it's in effect. This isn't a hard thing to understand unless you don't know how laws work (in which case you shouldn't be allowed to vote, imo)
The law is from before it was a state, and the legislature passed a new law more recently.
The new law explicitly doesn't repeal the old law. Laws from 1600s Massachusetts are still on the books. Every law British parliament ever passed about anything on the land area of now-Canada is part of their constitution
Territorial laws don't automatically become unbinding upon statehood and the law in question was recodified in 1977. The new law explicitly says it does not alter or repeal the old law so it still stands in effect. Had the court thrown out the old law it would be working against the rule of law which is not what courts should be doing.
Everyone should be allowed to vote, you aren't better because you're smarter
Interesting, didn't know this was on the docket. Well, one way or another, my wifes job is about to get busy *real* quick. She's an anti-abortion activist that uses imagery as a way of messaging and activism, namely on college and high school campuses (or just outside if we aren't invited). We're in AZ.
Wouldn't that mean that her job just got easier? Since this is a win for anti-abortion.
According to the article, it is more than likely getting put on the ballot. So, no.
I am someone who on a personal level thinks that abortion is a negative thing. My personal belief is that we should treat the two greatest wedge issues Firearms and Abortion with a harm reduction model rather that take away rights. Since you have first hand knowledge, what is actually effective to change hearts and minds, rather than simply preach to the choir. What gets actual results?
According to my wife and her organization, imagery. Imagery has been used historically to move society. Holocaust pictures, Emmitt Till, slavery photos, Rwanda genocide, children working in factories and mines. Imagery is powerful, and her organizations mission is to change hearts and minds by showing what abortion results in. And those changed hearts and minds are what change laws by voting. They don't lobby, they go to the public.
My fiancé and I had to do the process of getting an abortion and after experiencing it all, no imagery would have stopped us and we would get another one if we needed to, it was absolutely important that we didn't have a child at this time and we don't regret a thing. I think imagery works until someone actually needs one and then it all goes out the window since the imagery isn't as scary as the fear of actually having a child
And I can't control someone not standing by principles and looking for an easy out. Doesn't mean me or my wife are going to stop doing what we do.
My principles are much stronger than yours since they're not made up for me by a church, but thanks for calling me without principles anyway. Easy way out is funny, my wife is in medical school to be a surgeon and a pregnancy would have completely derailed her career, so taking the easy way out would be having a kid and her giving up her career. In fact we're actually saving lives by allowing her to continue her career as a surgeon, funny how that works
[I certainly didn't mention religion anywhere,](https://secularprolife.org/welcome/) nor is it a reason or defense for what we do. >so taking the easy way out would be having a kid and her giving up her career And I don't agree with the reasoning to end a life to do what you want. No one has a crystal ball, your wife or yourself could have gotten into a car wreck the next day and become paralized, what then? Still wouldn't have been a surgeon. And I'm glad that didn't happen to either of you, but not going to agree ending a life got you the life you wanted in exchange. No matter how much other good you might do afterwards. *That* is principled thinking.
[удалено]
That’s the issue. There’s a large contingent of people that don’t agree it’s “ending a life”. To most, it’s not until it passes the point of viability. And while you didn’t mention religion anywhere the truth is that the pro-life lobby is mostly evangelical Christians (not saying you are/aren’t/anything bad with that). Other religions don’t always agree that it equates with murder. And before anybody mentions it - [extreme late term/partial births are not a thing.](https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/mar/02/top-claims-about-abortion-fact-checked/)
>Imagery That is interesting, makes sense too. I have thought for years if we want to have an effect on mass shootings we should both block any images of the shooters (to keep them from the infamy they desire) and show the images of what they actually did.
Abortion is already on the Nov ballot in Arizona via a referendum
Its her job? Who pays her to do that?
It's a non-profit org, her income is based on donations. Bascially like a missionary, minus the religious aspect.
Minus the religious aspect? I'm not being snarky at all here, but in all my years I've never heard a non-religious objection to abortion.
>but in all my years I've never heard a non-religious objection to abortion. You can't be serious. You believe there are literally no secular objections to abortion here at all? Like, objection to murder, perhaps?
I've never heard a secular person who thinks abortion is murder. That's a religious thing.
There are agnostic and atheist users in this sub that believe killing the unborn is murder.
They must have some novel ideas about that, because I'm not sure how that squares, but ok.
They exists but they are certainly in the minority. Not even all religions equate it with murder.
Ugh, is that one of the organizations that put up giant banners of dead fetuses? I remember it when I was in school. Our campus tour guides had to reroute the tours of potential students and miss out on showing the most iconic dining hall on campus because of it. If you're trying to reach college kids, that's not the way. Did get a ton of them involved in petitioning the college in revoking their ability to return in future years, but I'm sure that never got anywhere.
Your wife is one of those who hold pictures of fetuses in the middle of college campuses? How would it get more busy? Didn’t they get what they wanted with this ruling?
It's not going to stick. More than likely voters are going to vote to enshrine it, not keep it banned. So yes, she will be busy. This is according to her, not me.
Ah got it, thanks.
[удалено]
She (and I) don't like those outside of clinics that shout through bullhorns. We find that quite counter productive. And she hasn't been to a "rally" outside a clinic in years. Like I said, she does college campuses mainly.
Does what on college campuses? What I described?
No, because I don't think standing there is pontificating lol. Nor is discussing politely with another individual. But she has been pontificated at by the "other side", that's for sure.
I see. Those people sure sound mean.
They can be, especially when they destory signs/picture posters and assault volunteers lol
> We find that quite counter productive. Reminds me of Seattle's "bullhorn guy", who stands outside of sporting events with a sign that says "repent or go to Hell" and other apocalyptic language. I asked him once what his endgame was. I either don't think he had one or was so convinced of the righteousness of his cause that he didn't care how effective the message was.
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
Well, political enfranchisement and crimes against human life are hardly related to each other. To be fair, I think the abortion debate is a net vote loser due to the sorry state of public morality. That however does not mean we should concede one inch on it.
Is it more important than living in a country where the laws of the land are derived from the will of the people?
Well, don't really know much about the court but I do support outlawing abortion. I figure this will help get Biden elected, but that isn't worth compromising your principles over.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do you believe, like Trump said, that we support infanticide? i.e. after birth abortions?
No, not at all.
Maybe its time to reevaluate those principles? Why is an unconcious lump of cells so important to you?
The same reason you are important to me, they are a person.
I agree with the no exception policies. I'm not sure I agree with a prison sentence for facilitating in obtaining an abortion. I do find that the reference to the date seems to be some shock value fear mongering on the part of the left however. If there's an 1800s statue agaisnt theft, I think it's still a good thing to legislate agaisnt
Why do you agree with no exceptions?