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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
If Republicans are trying to lose, I say "yeeee ha!"
Ta, Robyn. Get out the vote, Democrats, D-leaning Independents, and sane people everywhere. It's time for a true 50-state strategy.
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.
“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.
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.
We all joke about zombie laws, but they can also be super fucking dangerous in the hands of bad faith actors like these
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.”
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.
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
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.
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.
Who even birthed babies then? Probably the local woman whose mama also birthed babies.
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.
We may even get a few more Dems in the state legislature after this!
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.
"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.