214 Comments
Apr 11·edited Apr 11

If Republicans are trying to lose, I say "yeeee ha!"

Expand full comment

Ta, Robyn. Get out the vote, Democrats, D-leaning Independents, and sane people everywhere. It's time for a true 50-state strategy.

Expand full comment

The governor has vowed to get an abortion measure on the ballot for November.

And republicans have just lost Arizona. Even Kari Lake knows it, which is why she is disavowing a law she had previously praised.

Expand full comment

“physicians are now on notice that all abortions, except those necessary to save a woman’s life, are illegal”

At least there is a reasonable exception.

Now let’s perform some frontier surgery! Take a swig of whiskey and bite this stick.

Expand full comment

Eh, I wouldn't mind a bottle of laudanum. I'll pass on biting your stick tho.

Expand full comment
Apr 10·edited Apr 10

Read the Ariz. ruling. IANAL, but I can see right there, where the dissenting chief justice and vice chief justice are pointing -- the majority has seized upon a legislative drafting statement. The drafting statement, the majority says, is as a good as a law The dissenters prove six ways from the Sunday, including in a case these jokers decided like two years ago, that the Supreme Court of Arizona has *never* considered a drafting statement to be the law. In fact, the court has ruled a bunch a time that drafting statements are cute, but they have no force *at all*.

You read the drafting statement for post-Roe, pre-Dobbs abortion law in Ariz., and you see a "sense of the legislature"-type numbered list that includes saying that this abortion law does not create a right to an abortion of Arizona.

No duh, say the dissenters. Roe didn't create a right to an abortion as much as it did recognize a constitutional right *to be free from undue government influence* in the regulation of that medical procedure -- an important distinction. Regardless, says the dissenters, with full knowledge of the facts and context, the Ariz. legislature created a law that allowed abortions in the state, if performed by a medical doctor who had determined the gestational age was less than the law's limit, *unless* it was to save the pregnant person's life (that last part comes from the "Luck of Roaring Camp" 1864 territorial code. So, there's no ambiguity that needs court analyzin'.

And, if we're looking for words, there are *no words* that says that the law was written in comformity with Roe, that the legislature would have acted differently if there had been no Roe, or what the legislature intended for those sections of law should Roe be abrogated.

But, not to worry -- the court majority filled in those blanks with what it wanted -- making a mockery of its "just look at what the words say" arguments in the first half of its opinion.

As the dissenters point in what is, let's say an unexciting but not inapt analogy, creating a law that says that driving faster than 35 mph in a marked zone does not alternatively create a right to drive moderately slower in the same zone. The rule is the rule, and the rule in Ariz. is that if you want an abortion and a licensed medical doctor calculates the gestational age within the limit, you get one -- AND you get one, too, no matter the gestational age, if the procedure is intended to save the person's life, which is defined as irreversible hard to an organ or major bodily system.

So the majority, for what it's worth (and that's not much) made it up. Big surprise. Drafting statements are not the same as the law, and the Ariz. supremes have said as much consistently and recently. Yet in this one, citing the legislature's own manual (as if that determines what a law is -- that's normally a job for, duh, judges), the majority says a drafting statement is as good as a law itself, even though the words of the drafting statement aren't in the law.

I like how the dissenters end their dissent -- with pledging deep respect for the majority, and then saying we saw what you did there -- you chose your end and word backwards. But, respect, bros.

Expand full comment

In a similar way, headnotes are not the same as law. However, it was a headnote written by the court reporter in Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad that brought corporate personhood to pass because the supremes wanted it to happen.

https://ballotpedia.org/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Company

Expand full comment

There's a dissertation in there on the disproportionate impact of marginalia.

Expand full comment

We all joke about zombie laws, but they can also be super fucking dangerous in the hands of bad faith actors like these

Expand full comment
Apr 10·edited Apr 10

This is no un-dead zombie law. It was a totally dead law. It only has the appearance of life because, puppet-like, the court majority is just playing Weekend at Bernie's with the corpse.

There's no stopping that, even outright repeal. When judges just make stuff up -- as the court's own chief justice says (respectfully) in the dissent -- there's little anyone can do in the short term.

Expand full comment

I'm semi-curious on how Kyrsten Sinema of the Sinema Party reacted to this news and perhaps surprisingly, she reacted properly:

https://www.sinema.senate.gov/sinema-statement-on-arizona-supreme-court-decision-banning-abortion-in-nearly-all-circumstances/

“A woman’s health care choices should be between her, her family, and her doctor. Today’s decision by the Arizona Supreme Court endangers women’s health, safety, and well-being.

“Arizonans should not be forced to travel out of state just to receive basic, sometimes even life-saving, health care. Doctors and hospitals should not be punished for providing health care to their patients. Throughout my over 20 years of public service I’ve always supported women’s access to reproductive care, and I will work with anyone to protect Arizona women’s ability to make their own decisions about their futures.”

Expand full comment

This abominable ruling is another forced birth/pro-gun massacre Republinazi terrorist attack against all women and healthcare workers.

Biden and the Democrats are still being too kind--take the focking gloves off, already.

Expand full comment

Kari Lake Called Arizona’s Abortion Ban a ‘Great Law,’ but Now She Denounces It

In her 2022 race for governor, Ms. Lake delivered a strict anti-abortion message. Now running for Senate, she is retreating from that position.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/10/us/politics/kari-lake-abortion-arizona.html

Expand full comment

Read the decision--it is not from 1864 it is from 1973, and passed after Roe but held unconstitutional because of Roe. That's what the decision actually says.

Expand full comment

So, this law is from 1864, which if -if my sums are correct- is ... 48 years before Arizona became a State. I'm surprised (except really I'm not) that it can't be overturned based upon that fact.

Expand full comment

Who even birthed babies then? Probably the local woman whose mama also birthed babies.

Expand full comment

I am an archaeologist in southern Arizona. We do a fair amount of work on historical properties, which has taught me a lot about the various legal systems in place since Hugo O'Conor pointed to a patch of desert east of the river in 1776 and told the Spaniards to build their fort there, no, a bit to the left, yeah perfect right there. I am too blinded by rage atm to weigh in with much more than do you KNOW how many goddamn pessaries we pull out of 19th-century outhouse shafts? Picture a thick wire hoop bent into the approximation of a cheap portable bleacher seatback. Ladies shoved those things up their hoozits to keep their uteri from falling out after birth after birth after birth left their pelvic floors roughly as strong as warm jello. Unless the bazillion births just finally killed them. Fuck.

Expand full comment

Damn.

Expand full comment

We may even get a few more Dems in the state legislature after this!

Expand full comment

If we're going to consider laws from before Arizona was even a state, then we need to go back further, and look at the laws on the books when Arizona wasn't even inhabited.

Expand full comment

GILA LAW BETTER THAN HUMAN LAW, STUPID HUMANS!

Expand full comment

WHAT IS THE LAW? BITE!

Expand full comment

"I AM THE FASHION LAW!"...Judge Dress

Expand full comment

"Doctors thought their uterus just might be floating around their bodies, making them crazy, and that bad smells would send them back to their rightful place. This was a normal belief that people had at the time that they came up with this law."

Before training dogs, police used to use "scenting wombs" to seek out clues. These were eventually replaced with bloodhounds.

Expand full comment