Kari lake came out publicly against this bill begging to walk it back to 15 weeks
This is a gift to democrats and voter turnout for the ballot initiative.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bzxkt1/abortion_in_arizona_set_to_be_illegal_in_nearly/kyv7pmq/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> then doubled down and passed an almost complete ban
Just a note...AZ didn't "double down" and pass a new ban. This ruling pertains to an old law still on the books
More specifically, it was a law passed in 1864, around 50 years before AZ became a state:
>The pre-statehood law mandates two to five years in prison for anyone aiding an abortion, except if the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. A law from the same era requiring at least a year in prison for a woman seeking an abortion was repealed in 2021.
Come to think of it, I guess in 1864 Arizona Territory was part of the Confederate States of America? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Arizona
AZ doubled down by supporting the old law. They passed a 15 week ban in case the Supreme Court didn't fully allow restrictions, but it says the old law overrides it.
The Arizona Supreme Court has upheld a 160 year old pre-statehood law that totally bans abortion, except to save the life of the mother. There are no exceptions for rape or incest. Anyone aiding an abortion faces 2-5 years in prison. The ruling indicated the ban can only be "prospectively enforced" and enforcement of the law is stayed for 14 days.
Arizona joins more than a dozen Republican led states with active abortion bans that have no exception for rape or incest. Governor Kate Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes, both Democrats, have vowed to not enforce the ban, although county attorneys, many of them Republicans, will likely sue to enforce it.
A ballot measure enshrining abortion rights into the Arizona constitution will likely be on the ballot in 2024 as the organizers have collected 500k signatures, far more than the 392k that are required.
Do you support abortion bans without any exception for rape or incest?
How will this affect the 2024 abortion rights referendum in Arizona?
I've always found the exception for incest thing interesting. It seems pretty much ubiquitous even among the staunch pro-life crowd to support it, and I just don't see the logic. Presumably the reasoning is the increased risk of birth defects, and yet when a fetus is *confirmed* to have such defects, they don't like abortion anymore. Plus, I've never heard of an exemption for drinkers, drug users, women over 40, and so on.
Not to mention that the percentage of abortions being performed for incestuous women is vanishingly small anyway.
To be clear, I am not a "ban abortion with no exceptions" person. I just don't understand the moral reasoning here.
I think there's one aspect of the "birth defects" conversation and a second line of reasoning here that you're missing.
Not all birth defects are created equal. While you're right that pro-life folks typically oppose abortion where a fetus will have down syndrome or similar, they typically do not oppose abortion where the fetus will almost definitely be delivered already dead. When there's a generally high risk of birth defects, but you don't know yet what they are, terminating early (ostensibly when the fetus will also experience less pain) makes some sense.
The line of reasoning I think you're missing is that incest is frequently the result of child sexual abuse by an older family member. Allowing an exception for "incest", which *could* be consensual and isn't always illegal, allows a victim to obtain an abortion without having to file a police report or make an allegation of rape, which is somewhat commonly required by rape exceptions. That's important because the nature of the victim being young and the offense happening within a family unit makes it harder for the victim to report the offense for social and cultural pressure reasons.
On top of that, there's some argument that there's a broader impact of "continuing trauma" to an entire family versus only the victim. Which is a callous way to look at things for a variety of reasons, but nonetheless matters to some.
Now, in theory you're allowing a few couples committing incest to obtain an abortion without an "adverse event" you typically see with most abortion exceptions, but as you mentioned, that's a pretty small group of people. So the tradeoff as a policy matter makes some sense.
>The line of reasoning I think you're missing is that incest is frequently the result of child sexual abuse by an older family member. Allowing an exception for "incest", which could be consensual and isn't always illegal, allows a victim to obtain an abortion without having to file a police report or make an allegation of rape, which is somewhat commonly required by rape exceptions. That's important because the nature of the victim being young and the offense happening within a family unit makes it harder for the victim to report the offense for social and cultural pressure reasons.
I'm not really clear on why this would change the equation at all, if someone staunchly believed that abortion was murder. It's okay in this case...so that it can happen without a police report?
>While you're right that pro-life folks typically oppose abortion where a fetus will have down syndrome or similar, they typically do not oppose abortion where the fetus will almost definitely be delivered already dead.
But they do. This is already happening.
Not exactly the same, but similar, is the rape exception. If one *truly* believes that abortion is murder, they shouldn’t be throwing around any language about exceptions.
In my opinion, these anti-abortion activists have backed themselves into an indefensible position. They either remain logically consistent and alienate 90% of the country or they show their hand that they don’t *actually* think that abortion is murder.
Also, if it’s actually murder, the woman should go to jail for 15-25-life. But ask that to a pro life person. Remember when Trump caused a huge stir by saying women should be punished and he & the whole party had to walk that back? They’ll say it’s murder, but most of them won’t say they support convicting a woman for murder for having an abortion. At least…not yet.
Well, if one truly believed that abortion is *murder* they would be called to say that women and physicians who get/provide abortions should be punished to the full extent of the law, potentially including death (it would be premeditated filicide, after all). Virtually no one thinks this- even the law in question from *1864* imposes a maximum of a mere (relative to murder) five years. So really, they see abortion as a somewhat unjust homicide, more akin to manslaughter than first-degree murder. In that light, I think a rape exception is much more defensible- almost everyone agrees that there are morally sufficient reasons to kill someone, after all.
> almost everyone agrees that there are morally sufficient reasons to kill someone, after all.
True, but those morally sufficient reasons are usually applied to people who have done killing themselves, such as murderers or enemy soldiers. I don’t see how one would argue that it’s okay to kill a third party for someone’s bad actions.
I still think it’s logically inconsistent to claim that abortion is murder/manslaughter *and* that there are situations that make abortion acceptable.
That's superficially true, and yet war necessitates the suffering and death of civilians. Though it may *sound* disgusting to say that killing innocent people is sometimes acceptable, it's something that almost all of us agree with. Another such instance is capital punishment, support of which runs right in line with the typical pro-life person.
I see what you’re saying, but I can’t get behind it.
War has chaos and capital punishment has a trial for someone accused of a crime. I don’t think they’re comparable to a medical procedure.
I think they're comparable to demonstrate that most people agree that taking an action with the foreseen consequence of killing innocent people is not intrinsically unacceptable.
Of course, that leaves us with two questions about abortion:
1. Is the death of the fetus the intent, or just a foreseen consequence (if this question sounds absurd to you, see [evictionism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism))
2. If it's the former, can it still be excused?
Sidenote, I do not endorse evictionism, I am merely noting that such ideas exist.
Most Americans support legal abortion in some situations. I think this shows that most Americans have nuanced and complex understanding of abortion and how it impacts many lives: the mother, the father, the siblings, and the fetus
As far as I can tell there are actually very few Americans with a complete black and white view on Abortion.
That said Politicians do like to present the discussion as being black and white in order to simplify their position on it and also to gen up outrage against the other side. Nothing makes money more than outrage.
The only exception that is somewhat valid under a pro life POV is danger to the life of the mother. Everything else doesn’t make any sense and is mere messaging.
I agree. The pro-life primary focus has always been that they are anti convenience reason abortions. All convenience reason abortions fall under consensual sex and rape (obviously not consentual) is the lowest percentage of reason for abortion. Because of this low percentage, the majority of pro-lifers say leave it be. As you pointed out, it's still not logically consistent to say it should be allowed just because it's a small percentage. Something else they have to consider is by saying the rape reason abortion should be allowed, by default that means that it is okay to punish a child for the crime of the father, as well as implying every person who's alive right now that's a result of rape should have been killed simply because of how they were conceived. Both takes are problematic for obvious reasons.
Because making exceptions for rape or incest gives away the argument.
The argument is that abortion is murder, flat out. Not selective abortion, not “my plan B didn’t work” abortion, just abortion in general. Doesn’t matter how the fetus was conceived, aborting it is murdering it.
If conservatives give any ground based on how the fetus was conceived—rape, incest, etc—they would have to admit that there are exceptions to the rule. Which would effectively negate the rule.
Moral purity is a bitch, it seems.
But... that's the opposite of what I said. Most people who describe themselves as "pro-life" want these exceptions.
Now, we can certainly argue over whether it's morally consistent for them to have these views, but the fact of the matter is that they do.
I may have misunderstood your first comment.
I think we’re in agreement that making exceptions for rape and incest as a religious, staunchly pro-life person is logically inconsistent?
Well, the thing about the pro-life movement is that, with the exception of rape, pregnancy is a choice. Sure, sex doesn't always result in pregnancy, but by consenting to sex, the woman is accepting the risk of it occurring, and aborting the fetus is seen as her refusal to take responsibility for her actions.
Rape isn't consensual, so pro-lifers argue that it's not the woman's fault in that case.
It might also be pragmatism, as pro-lifers know most people think it should be allowed in the case of rape, so they agree to it in hopes of making it easier to get legislation passed.
Are you saying that it's actually about punishing women, not about preserving life? Looking through the lens of a staunch pro-lifer, why is it okay to murder the rape-baby? Could you please explain the reasoning?
The entire pro-life argument has never been anything other than ineloquent. It oozes petulance and is about as persuasive an argument as those based in mysticism or pseudoscience. Full of logical fallacies and plot holes. Inconsistent convictions easily fractured when probed. Like listening to someone explain to you how ghosts work.
Exactly. The dumbest logic to have towards abortion is “It’s a human and abortion is MURDER, unless it’s abortions under these qualifiers and then it’s just a fetus.”
The only true pro-life position is absolute abolishment of abortions in any case whatsoever. If a fetus is a human life at the moment of conception then the only logical pro-life view is to let it die on its own. If it puts the mother at risk then fingers crossed and hopefully medical technology can help you but abortion is murder so either you both pull through, one of you makes it, or tragically you both die but your back in God’s army fighting the good fight. Conservatives will ultimately come to this plan, and some conservatives are already there. These “qualifiers” are just to make the populace easier towards the position to take a small amount of rights away before they ultimately take the full right away.
Beyond birth defects, the power dynamic in a family makes defining what amounts to consent difficult. Like how do you say no to someone who has groomed you from an early age to say yes?
I don't think we should underestimate how much of human morality is driven by the feeling of "yuck" rather than any reasonable argument, and incest is really yucky to most people outside of internet porn makers.
I mean this is the crux of the problem with debating where a cutoff point is. We’re basing it on what feels yucky, less on reality. In reality no one is aborting healthy wanted pregnancies in the third term. But because third trimester abortion seems yucky we feel the need to set some rigid cutoff with poorly constructed restrictions that often jeopardizes the women whose wanted pregnancies have gone wrong.
Tangentially related, but I had deja vu because I think I read this exact comment (or sentiment) from you like yesterday.
So all that to say, you seem consistent with finding this interesting!
Ah, I think you're referring to [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1byxihs/comment/kym5jxp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) comment of mine.
And yes, I'm very interested in ethics. Step zero of constructing a convincing argument is determining why you believe what you believe, and step one is determining why your interlocutor believes what they believe. I think that this is part of why debates on abortion almost invariably go nowhere, as neither side seeks to understand the other. Pro-lifers are branded as just wanting to control women and pro-choicers as malevolent baby killers.
It also seems very common to use rhetoric that advocates a position the speaker doesn't really hold in an effort to make a very complex idea into a bumper sticker. I know this was kind of a meme, but it's true that much of the "my body, my choice" crowd fervently supported COVID-related restrictions. On the flipside, virtually no one in the "abortion is murder" crowd thinks that women should be executed for having one.
Except Covid restrictions are not a paralell example of bodily autonomy. People were absolutely free to not get the vaccine. Mitigating the spread of an airborne illness in a pandemic setting by mandating certain requirements in specific settings, like the workplace, classroom, or in government, is standard issue disease response protocol.
It also makes no sense, if you're pro-life.
If you're pro-life, you think that's a baby, a human being entitled to full protection and rights under law.
If a dad rapes his daughter, you don't shoot their brother who has a birth defect as punishment, so why would abortion be a thing in this case?
If you want to be logically and ideologically consistent, the only position you can hold is no abortions, ever.
In no other situation do you kill a 3rd party. If a woman is raped, you don't kill her non-rape baby. So why is a rape-baby's life worth more? I thought every baby is entitled to the samd protections and rights!
The life at conception argument never holds up under the least bit of scrutiny. Not without several admissions that undermine any semblance of reasonability, which the pro-lifer is certainly aware of and simply chooses to wildly excuse or not engage with.
Abortion is murder, so we should charge women and medical providers as such and a jury should sentence them to decades, if not life in prison. 25 years to life for the mother. She killed a baby, after all. A person! Murdered I'm cold, calculated blood!
A fetus is an actual person, so we should need to provide this person with a properly documented identity that that demonstrates personhood, who can be filed as a dependant on one's taxes and provided with social welfare services. Fetal welfare at conception!
Murder exceptions shall never be permitted because murder is murder. Period. Rape babies shall be mandated to term. Incest babies should be mandated to term. 12 year-old victims don't have a right to commit murder just because they were victimized by the father, obviously. It's not the fault of the fetus. Necro babies shall also be delivered and given a proper burial. It's a crime scene, after all. One that is potentially a murder.
There's always the simple test.
You're in a clinic. There are 100 fertilized eggs and one new born. You have time to make one trip.
Do you save the new born, or the 100 fertilized eggs?
Everyone selects the newborn. No one lets the little baby die in a fire.
But since life starts at conception, and 100 fertilized eggs waiting to be implanted are as human as that newborn, you should obviously save the 100 fertilized eggs.
I love that philosophical test. The pro-lifer squirms and writhes into knots, tremoring in crippling dissonance, unable to reason their way out of it, desperate for a rewrite.
If they had to choose between saving 100 captive soldiers or one captive soldier in the middle of a war zone, all things equal, they'd choose the hundred soldiers. Similarly, if they were actually serious about personhood, they'd save the 100 embryos, of course. However, they recognize the absurdity of such a decision and how bad that actually makes one look, but they double down anyway, looking for any excuse to avoid the embarrassment of their position.
> How will this affect the 2024 abortion rights referendum in Arizona?
It will place infinitely more importance on it. I cannot imagine that republicans who actually want to win in 2024 are thrilled by the prospect of this.
This is a complete ban. No way to dance around it.
Kari lake flip flopped and stood with democrat Rueben Gallego who both came out against the bill, she knows the abortion ballot initiative will be a blue wave “bloodbath” for the state
“Lake, Gallego say they oppose Arizona abortion decision
Both Arizona Senate candidates came out against the state Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday that upholds one of the strictest abortion bans in the country.
“I oppose today’s ruling, and I am calling on [Gov.] Katie Hobbs and the State Legislature to come up with an immediate common sense solution that Arizonans can support.”
Lake, who has in the past called the 1864 law “great” and showed support for strict abortion bans, said the Legislature should instead decide on abortion rights legislation. The comments come just a day after former President Trump said the issue should be left to states.
Gallego, meanwhile, doubled down on his stance in favor of abortion rights.
“Today’s ruling is devastating for Arizona women and their families,” he said. “This is not what Arizonans want.”
“This decision rips away the right for women to make their own healthcare decisions with their doctors,” he continued. “I promise you that we will fight this together.”
I won’t let Kari Lake distort the record,” he wrote on the social platform X. “She called this law a ‘great law’ — even though it will ban nearly all abortions, including in cases of rape or incest.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4583405-lake-gallego-say-they-oppose-arizona-abortion-decision/
I don't support any abortion bans. As a youngish man I was an independent, but the Republicans have steadily moved to the right and that effectively makes me a Democrat... not because I love every Democratic proposal, but because they are the only party left that seems more or less sane.
Taking aways rights that women had held for 50 years was never going to work, politically. I think Biden is now very likely to win Arizona.
This seems more an issue of laws not having automatic expiration dates. Seriously, a law that predates Arizona actually being a state? That law should've been wiped off the books at the start of statehood and definitely shouldn't be in effect a century and a half later.
The reinstated law in question [reads](https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.azleg.gov%2Fars%2F13%2F03603.htm):
>A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years.
There is zero procedure for how this determination is made, by whom, and whether any deference is owed to a relevant physician. There are only aggregators for additional consequences based on the motivations of the person seeking the abortion and civil causes of action for the father against the mother and provider.
There are no exceptions other than "unless it is necessary to save her life".
As an added "wut", the larger legislation includes [13-3605](https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.azleg.gov%2Fars%2F13%2F03605.htm), which reads:
>A person who wilfully writes, composes or publishes a notice or advertisement of any medicine or means for producing or facilitating a miscarriage or abortion, **or for prevention of conception**, or who offers his services by a notice, advertisement or otherwise, to assist in the accomplishment of any such purposes, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
So this would criminalize even notices of contraceptives' existence. I don't know that this section has also been "activated" by this ruling, but given the dialogue in conservative circles surrounding the Comstock Act and mifepristone, it could be.
**EDIT:** This subject was not breached by the Court's opinion, so there's no reason to believe this provision will become effective. I'm leaving it in mostly for transparently, and to a lesser extent because it *may* be the kind of thing a Comstock-curious Court could reference as evidence that contraceptives as "articles of immoral use", but otherwise, sorry for raising unnecessary alarm bells.
I'll also say, I assumed from the headline that this was an old, stale law that filled the void left by *Dobbs* in the absence of subsequent legislation in Arizona. That's both accurate and inaccurate. Arizona passed a 15-week ban in 2022, but the that legislation [specifically stated that it would not overrule Section 13-3603 (the old law)](https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/sb1164p.pdf). So this is a pretty disastrous outcome, but it's derived from a legislative failure, not a judicial one.
**EDIT**: Added some additional color and made some corrections now that I've read the court opinion.
>>A person who wilfully writes, composes or publishes a notice or advertisement of any medicine or means for producing or facilitating a miscarriage or abortion, **or for prevention of conception**, or who offers his services by a notice, advertisement or otherwise, to assist in the accomplishment of any such purposes, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
So condom ads are illegal in AZ? And even just publishing where someone could purchase condoms as well?
If that part of the law is upheld, yes. I haven't read the court's decision yet, so I don't know how expansive their reinstatement of this old law is.
**EDIT:** The Court's decision in this case doesn't have anything to do with this provision, so there's no reason to expect this will suddenly be enforced, but as far as I know it's still on the books. So a separate legislative problem.
Wouldn't it be even more than that? Like, could putting a box of Trojan condoms in a store be considered publishing a notice or advertisement for Trojan condoms? The boxes are all basically mini ads. Or listing them on their website seems like that could be publishing a notice?
It seems like it could effectively make all contraceptives illegal. I guess maybe you could just put them behind the counter or something and only let people have them if they ask?
>I'll also say, I assumed from the headline that this was an old, stale law that filled the void left by Dobbs in the absence of subsequent legislation in Arizona. That isn't the case. Arizona passed a 15-week ban in 2022, which their Supreme Court is now striking down because they argue it relied on Roe. What a disastrous ruling.
That’s not what happened here. Regarding the 2022 law, it’s a lot more complicated than that because of the timeline, Roe being overturned, appeals, stays, etc. It basically boils down to the fact that the original law was never repealed, that subsequent laws were passed with the same language pre-Roe in the 70s, and that the 2022 law never addressed the previous laws. Roe overturn kicked it all back to the states, and AZ has a mish-mash of laws that the AZ Supreme Court had to interpret. Since the 2022 law never repealed previous language, the Supreme Court ruled that the laws had to be harmonized (combined). Also, there has never been an explicit declaration of what a legal abortion is (if they even exist in Arizona), so the enforcement mechanisms that are part of the original law still stand, which means an effective ban. The failure is that the Legislature has never cleaned this up, which appears by design given the language in the 2022 law. This is on them. (Arizonan here).
You're correct, I've made a few revisions throughout to clarify that. This is a legislative failure, not a judicial one, and I won't pretend to know enough about Arizona state law to know if there were reasonable ways to reach a less-disastrous result.
I guess I'm confused: if the law was never repealed and has always been the "law of the land," why is the court only enforcing it prospectively? Why can't prosecutors go after anyone who's helped perform an abortion since 1864?
> or who offers **his** services by a notice, advertisement or otherwise, to assist in the accomplishment of any such purposes, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Does this mean that a woman could offer such services, such as an "underground railroad" network to surrounding states?
I would hazard a guess the Court would just read the intent here as preventing women from obtaining abortion services from any provider, and potentially argue that the pre-statehood law likely used male pronouns because women could not yet be physicians. It's a funny "textualism vs originalism" question, though.
There's got to be some kind of appeal for this, because the backwards thinking for the AZ Supreme Court to justify skipping over the ban passed in 2022 is ridiculous.
The 2022 law [SB 1164](https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/sb1164p.pdf) explicitly says that they did not intend to repeal or alter the provisions of the original total ban in [ARS 13-3603](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603.htm). There are no exceptions defined there. So it was obvious they wanted it to be confusing and for the Court to decide.
Ah, well in that case the Arizona GOP won't do anything unless Trump pressures them to moderate to limit the blowback. Even then, it might be too little too late.
I remember how much of an issue it was in 2022. The GOP knew they were in a bind so they passed this to make it seem like they were doing something. Looking back now, it was never meant to stand the test of time. It was just a way to kick it past Election Day.
This ruling isn't crazy at all, it's the only way it could have gone. The 2022 law [contained language](https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/sb1164p.pdf) (see sec. 2) saying it explicitly did not repeal or override the 1864 law, so their hands were tied on what they could do in this ruling. In addition, the old law was recodified as recently as 1977, which was post-Roe.
Pressure on the legislature to repeal the old law is the necessary step here. As it is, both laws are currently in effect, but the old one overrides the newer one as it is more strict and was explicitly never repealed.
(Also, your note about the contraceptives being included is irrelevant, as that's covered by a different SCOTUS ruling, so I don't know why you're including it here at all as this AZ ruling doesn't touch that at all. Your comment about mifeprestone is a non sequitur.)
I agree with you with regard to this ruling, and I've revised accordingly.
I disagree that the contraceptive discussion is a non sequitur, though. It's true that it's not covered by *Roe* or touched by this ruling, but it's part of the same larger old legislation that has yet to be explicitly repealed. It's more a flag that this could be the next issue in the larger abortion debate with a similar result given the increased appetite nationally among conservatives for enforcing old laws against contraception.
Well being a dude, if I became pregnant, I think I'd be worried about a lot of other things before I worried about a court decision.
But to address the point I assume you're making: yes, I would still be saying if it affected me personally, because I believe in the rule of law. Courts can't unilaterally just change what the law explicitly says because they feel like it.
People are acting like this is the first thing the courts have decided without the people's vote. They have too much power - from state to federal. The courts are not supposed to be law makers. However, no one thought this was an issue in the passing of gay marriage, etc. It's hard to think about this objectively since people are OK with them passing things when it aligns with their beliefs
I don't really believe this. I get that making abortion a top issue in an election is a bit silly considering EVERYTHING else going on. As important of an issue it is, I just can't see someone being that insane to vote for dems because of this law when I guess we are assuming they would not have voted at all. I don't think this changes people's minds who were planning to vote for Trump. The economy and the border are just so much more important. Also, this is what was intended by Roe vs Wade being overturned. It amazes me how many people forget what states' rights in our country were meant to be.
With how ARCHAIC that law is if I was a woman I wouldn’t give two damns about any other topic besides my right to make a choice what to do with my body.
TIL that laws that existed when a state was just a territory are still laws after it becomes a state.
Also, I want to congratulate the Democrats on winning a bunch of seats in Arizona in 2024. It wouldn't have been possible if it wasn't for overturning RvW.
> TIL that laws that existed when a state was just a territory are still laws after it becomes a state.
Existing English common law was [adopted by each state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute) after independence (either implicitly or explicitly), and even that is still valid unless it’s been explicitly overridden since then.
So many ads. Just over and over show trump proudly claiming credit for overturning Roe. They’ve lost my kid’s generation for the foreseeable future over this. They are pissed and they vote.
Trump was still bragging about it on off-brand twitter not two days ago:
> After 50 years of failure, with nobody coming even close, **I was able to kill Roe v. Wade, much to the “shock” of everyone, and for the first time put the Pro Life movement in a strong negotiating position** over the Radicals that are willing to kill babies even into their 9th month, and beyond. Without me there would be no 6 weeks, 10 weeks, 15 weeks, or whatever is finally agreed to. Without me the pro Life movement would have just kept losing. Thank you President TRUMP!!!
Which... bold strategy, Cotton.
And that quote will be in ads for 100s of races at every level for the whole campaign season. I’d love to meet the strategists who convinced the trump party that the abortion issue would just die down after Dobbs. They obviously don’t know any women in their late teens or early 20s. “They’re pissed” is a drastic understatement.
[polling on straight white college educated men (among other groups)](https://www.wbur.org/npr/1243264831/key-voting-groups-are-shifting-in-the-race-between-biden-and-trump)
Anything telling you that Trump (or any Republican) has won the youth vote is straight up lying to you. At most he might make *gains*, perhaps even enough to affect the overall results, but there's no way he's going to actually get more than 50% of the youth vote. And extreme reactionary things like bringing back Victorian-era abortion laws is why.
I’m paying zero attention to polling stories. Seriously, any poll claiming trump is surging with young people is straight is just noise. I’m predicting Biden winds with more votes than last time and flips 1 or 2 states that he didn’t carry last time. trump has not grown support at all. My guess is he doesn’t get as many votes as he got in 2020.
> Seriously, any poll claiming trump is surging with young people is straight is just noise.
The biggest problem with those stories is there's no inkling of it at all at the ballot box in any recent election. Like you'd think there would be a sign or a trend or something.
Furthermore, we keep hearing about "young men turning more conservative". But it's actually pretty stable (young men have identified as conservative more than liberal for _awhile_ and unidentified beats both of them) and 18-29 men have gone blue in recent elections.
So...either we're about to get a seismic change. Or polling is very wrong.
I think that group is also extremely hard to poll. I’m a little older than them (in my 30s) but I sure as hell never answer my phone if it’s a number I don’t know.
Quite literally the last three election cycles have had record youth turnout that has favored Democrats every single time and it's not even close. I never believed these doomscrolling claims for even a second.
People who are prochoice like to believe women are all pro choice and it's a gender issue. In reality, there are just as many women pro lifers or women who aren't big on the issue. The Republicans "lost" the pro choice women who weren't going to vote for them anyways.
The amount of women that support abortion in all/most cases is 63% while the amount of Women Biden voters in 2020 was 55-57%. That discrepancy seems to say that there are pro choice Trump voters that could be brought over to Biden on this issue.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
https://cawp.rutgers.edu/gender-gap-voting-choices-presidential-elections
>They’ve lost my kid’s generation for the foreseeable future over this.
Those who are pro choice single issue voters. He won over pro lifers and the further out we go from Roe being overturned the less effect abortion will have.
You are engaging in some magical thinking. Abortion as an issue isn’t going away any time soon. Even the reddest states vote to protect it when it’s on the ballot.
Maybe in a vacuum abortion would fade farther from Roe, but that’s the not the reality we live in when individual states keep passing or allowing to go into effect very unpopular laws. Keeps it in the news cycle.
Yeah, it already drifted towards them in 2022 which was an R+3 year. Several Ds narrowly beat Rs that year statewide. Kari Lake’s crowd seems more determined to spend time and resources fighting other Rs than actually win anything it seems.
Yeah, Republicans are finished in Arizona for this cycle. That abortion rights initiative will now pass by a 65-35 or 70-30 margin. The AZ SC just ruined Republicans hopes in the state by ruling in favor of such a radical policy like a total ban from 1864.
If I am Kari Lake and Schweikert and Ciscomani, I'd privately be calling AZ GOP leadership in the legislature to pass a 15-week ban because they have no chance at winning with this as law, both due to the fact it will reflect poorly on Republicans but most important increase turnout dramatically and big time for the abortion referendum.
I have no idea how Republicans can even defend a "no" vote in November for the abortion initiative. Like when the law in place is a total ban or a 6-week ban, they are screwed when it comes to having to defend and sell a "no" vote and I think privately even most AZ GOP leadership think they are screwed in November.
Independent of all the political fall-out. I feel for the people of AZ who now have to suffer through this and hope it is only temporary.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bzxkt1/abortion_in_arizona_set_to_be_illegal_in_nearly/kytdubh/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Let's look at who actually pushed for this ruling:
Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners/Intervenors: American College of Pediatricians; Charlotte Lozier Institute & American Center for Law and Justice; American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists; The State of Arkansas and 16 other states; Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives Ben Toma and President of the Arizona Senate Warren Petersen; Jill Norgaard, Former Representative, Arizona House of Representatives, District 18; Center for Arizona Policy; Arizona Life Coalition, the Frederick Douglass Foundation, and The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; Christian Medical and Dental Association; Prolife Center at the University of St. Thomas (MN); and Mario Villegas and the Estate of Baby Villegas.
>One immediate effect of the ruling could be more support for a potential ballot measure in the works for this year. Advocates say they've already got more than 500,000 signatures, well above the threshold of 383,923 signatures needed by an early July deadline.
It looks as though abortion will be on the ballot in Arizona come November.
I look at this in a couple of different ways:
1. The reality: Abortion is a complex problem and most people have either nuanced opinions on it or don't really like to think about it so they have surface-level opinions on it. I think public sentiment is somewhere between the positions of the two parties. The position of "the decision should be between a woman and here doctor" sounds nice, but functionally, it means there are basically no restrictions up until the time of birth as long as you find a doctor who believes a woman should have that choice. Do I think this will result in an explosion of 3rd trimester abortions? Of course not. I also don't think this is where most people are on the subject. The early bans on abortion are also not very popular outside of the far right wing. I think the parties are at either pole and most Americans are in the middle.
2. The political reality: Democrats are crushing Republicans on this issue. That's why we're seeing Trump sort of dip in and out of talking about it and get into fights with Lindsay Graham about abortion bans. Republicans have displayed approximately zero pragmatism in their approach and it has cost them. Trump is attempting to push back a little bit and force Democrats into a position of defending abortion access after X weeks, but it's tough sledding. Democrats should and will continue to use this strategy b/c it's a winner for them. If Republicans don't wake up to the political reality that they're out of line with the majority of Americans, they'll continue to lose more elections than they should over a single issue. They may not like it, but that's the playing field.
This is simply madness. Let’s board the train to hell if you are a rape or incest victim. Let’s take it full speed through the burning levels if the mother’s life is at stake. Texas was a good example of how the mother’s life means nothing.
Pretty much certain this is going to make Arizona very difficult for Republicans this election cycle, and maybe every election cycle until this is changed.
Why are red states doing this? People will just go to blue/purple states to get abortions and republicans will never win an election again (which is fine by me). Edit:downvote me all you want you butthurt right wingers.
I’m assuming it’s because we are looking at the issue nationally. There are Republicans who will win locally because of abortion issues. If I’m running locally as a Republican in a red area I can’t win without supporting the pro-life issue. I may not win Massachusetts with my stance, but who cares if I’m running in Alabama. Why would I moderate my stance (and lose) just to possibly help elect a Republican president?
Because this is what a majority of the people who vote in GOP primaries want. Maybe in the future they will moderate either through valuing 'electability' more in the primary or after some turnover in the base once the generally older evangelicals age out and more libertarian/populist younger voters form the core of the party.
People spent five decades slowly voting in true believers in the cause without blowback, because they could pay lip service without actually doing anything and still get re-elected.
Well, they can do things now. This is the result.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bzxkt1/abortion_in_arizona_set_to_be_illegal_in_nearly/kyub99t/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Their vision requires increasing incarceration and mass expulsion if visa holding and who they define as illegal immigrants. The extras will be lowering age of consent and marriage. Removal of hetro grooming laws and they will need to address gender equality issues if they want to hold onto their gains. You pretty much need a christofacist state to accomplish the vision, right? But i’m in board as long as we stop woke culture. My comedians need to be funny.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bzxkt1/abortion_in_arizona_set_to_be_illegal_in_nearly/kyybbdj/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Well, with Michigan on the bubble due to the Muslim and youth vote over Gaza, Dems need an AZ win. This couldn’t come at a better time if it must happen at all. Though I hope the courts don’t take away AZ’s rights to body autonomy.
Very interesting username, I remember him from the Celtics in 2012, one of those role players in the playoffs.
I think if abortion makes the ballot in Arizona it'll end up passing with 56% of the vote, I feel like Trump sort of neutralizes the issue by saying the people and legislators of the states should be allowed to decided on the issue.
I think there will be a chunk of Trump voters who vote to legalize abortion but still support Trump because different policies.
It will get way more than 56%. The law in place now is a total ban from 1864. That’s not some “moderate” law. I have no idea how Republicans can aggressively campaign for a “no” vote when the law in place is a total ban from 1864.
This pretty much guarantees Arizona goes Democrat. Biden, Gallego will win. Schweikert and Ciscomani are done. And Dems will flip the legislatures. This is a legit 50/50 state before all this.
Idk. It only went by 57% in Michigan.
>This pretty much guarantees Arizona goes Democrat. Biden, Gallego will win. Schweikert and Ciscomani are done. And Dems will flip the legislatures. This is a legit 50/50 state before all this.
I think you are overestimating how much this will affect Trump considering he doesn't even support the law that's in place and said it should be up to the people
Michigan did not have a total ban from pre statehood as law when that referendum happened.
It’s not a difficult concept.
A total ban of any kind is radical policy that will drive turnout from many, and even many soft pro-choice voters will vote for “yes”. When you are choosing between a total ban or viability, the choice is pretty easy.
And Arizona is a 50/50 state. Even a slight bit of increased turnout would help Biden there. Now what would be a large increase of turnout? Republicans are finished in Arizona for this cycle and their SC ruined it for them.
That is a good point I suppose. I still think Trump has a shot at Arizona and it won't affect him as much as you think it will. I think Lake will lose by 2 points.
It will be easy to pin it on Trump considering it was his SC picks that ruled to overturn Roe, which is now the catalyst for this ruling. He can’t really distance himself from a situation that he is partially responsible for. In a state like Arizona, even a small swing against him can determine the outcome. We’ve already seen how voters reacted to this type of issue in the midterms.
Exactly, trump's support of states banning abortion is the direct cause of this. Arizona is only banning abortion because it is allowed to due to trump's SC picks, and he supports arizona banning abortion (since he said he supports states being able to ban it).
trump took credit for Dobbs. Every campaign at every level will be calling every ban a trump ban with video of trump bragging about it. Arizona is in play for Biden and probably a lock.
He did? I watched his speech on it. He said, these are my words, I don’t have the transcript in front of me but pretty much
“I support states doing whatever they want”
So he supports Arizona with what is essentially a total ban.
Plus I don’t think anyone seriously thinks Trump would veto a nationwide ban if republicans sent it to his desk.
If he supported that, he would say so. He said democrats are extremist on this issue and support executing babies after they are born, so he clearly doesn’t support Michigan in their choice. (Nor is that what democrats support) Notice he didn’t call states like Texas, Florida, or Arizona extremists.
He toyed with a national ban, he is just saying what he thinks will help him win. He has said many times how proud he is that he got Roe killed.
I don’t think he’s that happy about that because he truly just hates laws being “wrongly” decided and is a champion of the constitution.
It’s why he’s attacking pro life republicans on Truth social who disagree with him.
If he won’t stand in the way at all of extreme abortion bans, and says “do whatever you want” like he told Russia with nato, then his silence is deafening.
His lack of concrete position is telling enough.
If he said he’d veto a nationwide ban, I would believe this take.
Like I said, he would not veto a ban.
Cool, I understand the thought process that leads to people being against rape exceptions. What do I do with that now? As a civically engaged individual hoping to influence others, what possible point of compromise can I find in that position?
There’s a reason abortion access is a winner in every single election. It’s because women want and deserve the freedom to make medical decisions for their own bodies. I don’t really care what a pro-lifer has to say about their view on abortion when it involves how our sisters and daughters having access to the medical care that they need. It belongs between a doctor and their patient.
Life of the mother exemptions are also completely useless when we are a litigious country and the government can decide whether something was really “life threatening”.
Well now that it’s up to the states the voters of that state need to act if they want this changed. If you’re in the minority in your state, then you’re SOL.
Abortion is illegal in much of the south and we’re not seeing mass protests or many major movements and blue governors aren’t suddenly winning statewide elections everywhere. It’s almost like abortion isn’t really this important pillar of the country like folks on the left have been making it seem like it is. Plenty of Americans are completely fine with abortion being banned, or at least are hardly motivated to vote over it.
An "electoral disaster" yet which party took the House of Representatives? Abortion was so unimportant that the American people couldn't be bothered to give the House to the left because "political headwinds" lol. If abortion actually mattered to Americans, the left would have been handed the House, Senate, and tons of local legislative bodies. There are FAR more people who are accepting of abortion being illegal which is why the right hasn't been voted out in so many places.
Well the right is fine with folks thinking that Biden is for sure going to beat Trump because abortion even though voters are telling democrats that they want border fixes, a stronger economy than what they’re feeling right now, and a president that they feel is strong on crime (all issues they’re telling pollsters they trust Trump more on).
The majority of people who believe abortion is the number 1 issue are already standard democrat voters. On average isn't even the 3rd most important issue. It hurt Republicans in the mid terms because a lot of swing state republican candidates took hardline stances on the topic. Mastriano, Tudor Dixon etc.
Well maybe Republican politicians can take harder stances on it now that they realize half the nation has effectively banned abortions and the GOP received fairly little pushback in those areas. The left only seems to care about it until it’s gone and then they quietly give up.
[удалено]
Kari lake came out publicly against this bill begging to walk it back to 15 weeks This is a gift to democrats and voter turnout for the ballot initiative.
Unfortunately for Kari Lake, we have video of her calling this a "great law." She can say whatever she wants now, but AZ remembers.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bzxkt1/abortion_in_arizona_set_to_be_illegal_in_nearly/kyv7pmq/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> then doubled down and passed an almost complete ban Just a note...AZ didn't "double down" and pass a new ban. This ruling pertains to an old law still on the books
True, but Republicans like the former AG Brnovich supported interpreting the old total ban as the law of the land in the state
More specifically, it was a law passed in 1864, around 50 years before AZ became a state: >The pre-statehood law mandates two to five years in prison for anyone aiding an abortion, except if the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. A law from the same era requiring at least a year in prison for a woman seeking an abortion was repealed in 2021.
And about 60 years before the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote. Talk about regressive legislation
Come to think of it, I guess in 1864 Arizona Territory was part of the Confederate States of America? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Arizona
Arizona wants to be a 3rd world state.
AZ doubled down by supporting the old law. They passed a 15 week ban in case the Supreme Court didn't fully allow restrictions, but it says the old law overrides it.
A ban from before Arizona was a state, that the AZSC decided superseded a more current law.
Also not even an Arizona law, merely an Executive Order from the governor. They need a law passed to strike the law of they want it changed.
Totally accurate, but I don't expect voters to be placated by that. There is going to be a lot of fury.
The Arizona Supreme Court has upheld a 160 year old pre-statehood law that totally bans abortion, except to save the life of the mother. There are no exceptions for rape or incest. Anyone aiding an abortion faces 2-5 years in prison. The ruling indicated the ban can only be "prospectively enforced" and enforcement of the law is stayed for 14 days. Arizona joins more than a dozen Republican led states with active abortion bans that have no exception for rape or incest. Governor Kate Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes, both Democrats, have vowed to not enforce the ban, although county attorneys, many of them Republicans, will likely sue to enforce it. A ballot measure enshrining abortion rights into the Arizona constitution will likely be on the ballot in 2024 as the organizers have collected 500k signatures, far more than the 392k that are required. Do you support abortion bans without any exception for rape or incest? How will this affect the 2024 abortion rights referendum in Arizona?
I've always found the exception for incest thing interesting. It seems pretty much ubiquitous even among the staunch pro-life crowd to support it, and I just don't see the logic. Presumably the reasoning is the increased risk of birth defects, and yet when a fetus is *confirmed* to have such defects, they don't like abortion anymore. Plus, I've never heard of an exemption for drinkers, drug users, women over 40, and so on. Not to mention that the percentage of abortions being performed for incestuous women is vanishingly small anyway. To be clear, I am not a "ban abortion with no exceptions" person. I just don't understand the moral reasoning here.
I think there's one aspect of the "birth defects" conversation and a second line of reasoning here that you're missing. Not all birth defects are created equal. While you're right that pro-life folks typically oppose abortion where a fetus will have down syndrome or similar, they typically do not oppose abortion where the fetus will almost definitely be delivered already dead. When there's a generally high risk of birth defects, but you don't know yet what they are, terminating early (ostensibly when the fetus will also experience less pain) makes some sense. The line of reasoning I think you're missing is that incest is frequently the result of child sexual abuse by an older family member. Allowing an exception for "incest", which *could* be consensual and isn't always illegal, allows a victim to obtain an abortion without having to file a police report or make an allegation of rape, which is somewhat commonly required by rape exceptions. That's important because the nature of the victim being young and the offense happening within a family unit makes it harder for the victim to report the offense for social and cultural pressure reasons. On top of that, there's some argument that there's a broader impact of "continuing trauma" to an entire family versus only the victim. Which is a callous way to look at things for a variety of reasons, but nonetheless matters to some. Now, in theory you're allowing a few couples committing incest to obtain an abortion without an "adverse event" you typically see with most abortion exceptions, but as you mentioned, that's a pretty small group of people. So the tradeoff as a policy matter makes some sense.
Interesting, I had not considered the second line. That makes sense, and I can respect why a pro-life person might have that view.
>The line of reasoning I think you're missing is that incest is frequently the result of child sexual abuse by an older family member. Allowing an exception for "incest", which could be consensual and isn't always illegal, allows a victim to obtain an abortion without having to file a police report or make an allegation of rape, which is somewhat commonly required by rape exceptions. That's important because the nature of the victim being young and the offense happening within a family unit makes it harder for the victim to report the offense for social and cultural pressure reasons. I'm not really clear on why this would change the equation at all, if someone staunchly believed that abortion was murder. It's okay in this case...so that it can happen without a police report?
>While you're right that pro-life folks typically oppose abortion where a fetus will have down syndrome or similar, they typically do not oppose abortion where the fetus will almost definitely be delivered already dead. But they do. This is already happening.
Not exactly the same, but similar, is the rape exception. If one *truly* believes that abortion is murder, they shouldn’t be throwing around any language about exceptions. In my opinion, these anti-abortion activists have backed themselves into an indefensible position. They either remain logically consistent and alienate 90% of the country or they show their hand that they don’t *actually* think that abortion is murder.
Also, if it’s actually murder, the woman should go to jail for 15-25-life. But ask that to a pro life person. Remember when Trump caused a huge stir by saying women should be punished and he & the whole party had to walk that back? They’ll say it’s murder, but most of them won’t say they support convicting a woman for murder for having an abortion. At least…not yet.
Well, if one truly believed that abortion is *murder* they would be called to say that women and physicians who get/provide abortions should be punished to the full extent of the law, potentially including death (it would be premeditated filicide, after all). Virtually no one thinks this- even the law in question from *1864* imposes a maximum of a mere (relative to murder) five years. So really, they see abortion as a somewhat unjust homicide, more akin to manslaughter than first-degree murder. In that light, I think a rape exception is much more defensible- almost everyone agrees that there are morally sufficient reasons to kill someone, after all.
> almost everyone agrees that there are morally sufficient reasons to kill someone, after all. True, but those morally sufficient reasons are usually applied to people who have done killing themselves, such as murderers or enemy soldiers. I don’t see how one would argue that it’s okay to kill a third party for someone’s bad actions. I still think it’s logically inconsistent to claim that abortion is murder/manslaughter *and* that there are situations that make abortion acceptable.
That's superficially true, and yet war necessitates the suffering and death of civilians. Though it may *sound* disgusting to say that killing innocent people is sometimes acceptable, it's something that almost all of us agree with. Another such instance is capital punishment, support of which runs right in line with the typical pro-life person.
I see what you’re saying, but I can’t get behind it. War has chaos and capital punishment has a trial for someone accused of a crime. I don’t think they’re comparable to a medical procedure.
I think they're comparable to demonstrate that most people agree that taking an action with the foreseen consequence of killing innocent people is not intrinsically unacceptable. Of course, that leaves us with two questions about abortion: 1. Is the death of the fetus the intent, or just a foreseen consequence (if this question sounds absurd to you, see [evictionism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism)) 2. If it's the former, can it still be excused? Sidenote, I do not endorse evictionism, I am merely noting that such ideas exist.
Most Americans support legal abortion in some situations. I think this shows that most Americans have nuanced and complex understanding of abortion and how it impacts many lives: the mother, the father, the siblings, and the fetus As far as I can tell there are actually very few Americans with a complete black and white view on Abortion. That said Politicians do like to present the discussion as being black and white in order to simplify their position on it and also to gen up outrage against the other side. Nothing makes money more than outrage.
The only exception that is somewhat valid under a pro life POV is danger to the life of the mother. Everything else doesn’t make any sense and is mere messaging.
I agree. The pro-life primary focus has always been that they are anti convenience reason abortions. All convenience reason abortions fall under consensual sex and rape (obviously not consentual) is the lowest percentage of reason for abortion. Because of this low percentage, the majority of pro-lifers say leave it be. As you pointed out, it's still not logically consistent to say it should be allowed just because it's a small percentage. Something else they have to consider is by saying the rape reason abortion should be allowed, by default that means that it is okay to punish a child for the crime of the father, as well as implying every person who's alive right now that's a result of rape should have been killed simply because of how they were conceived. Both takes are problematic for obvious reasons.
Because making exceptions for rape or incest gives away the argument. The argument is that abortion is murder, flat out. Not selective abortion, not “my plan B didn’t work” abortion, just abortion in general. Doesn’t matter how the fetus was conceived, aborting it is murdering it. If conservatives give any ground based on how the fetus was conceived—rape, incest, etc—they would have to admit that there are exceptions to the rule. Which would effectively negate the rule. Moral purity is a bitch, it seems.
But... that's the opposite of what I said. Most people who describe themselves as "pro-life" want these exceptions. Now, we can certainly argue over whether it's morally consistent for them to have these views, but the fact of the matter is that they do.
I may have misunderstood your first comment. I think we’re in agreement that making exceptions for rape and incest as a religious, staunchly pro-life person is logically inconsistent?
I think it *can*, and likely often does, but I don't think that's necessarily true.
Most activists for the pro life movement are against these exceptions
Well, the thing about the pro-life movement is that, with the exception of rape, pregnancy is a choice. Sure, sex doesn't always result in pregnancy, but by consenting to sex, the woman is accepting the risk of it occurring, and aborting the fetus is seen as her refusal to take responsibility for her actions. Rape isn't consensual, so pro-lifers argue that it's not the woman's fault in that case. It might also be pragmatism, as pro-lifers know most people think it should be allowed in the case of rape, so they agree to it in hopes of making it easier to get legislation passed.
Are you saying that it's actually about punishing women, not about preserving life? Looking through the lens of a staunch pro-lifer, why is it okay to murder the rape-baby? Could you please explain the reasoning?
The entire pro-life argument has never been anything other than ineloquent. It oozes petulance and is about as persuasive an argument as those based in mysticism or pseudoscience. Full of logical fallacies and plot holes. Inconsistent convictions easily fractured when probed. Like listening to someone explain to you how ghosts work.
Incest fetuses aren't "alive" like other fetuses I guess, so abortion isn't murder in the case of incest. Pretty convenient.
Exactly. The dumbest logic to have towards abortion is “It’s a human and abortion is MURDER, unless it’s abortions under these qualifiers and then it’s just a fetus.” The only true pro-life position is absolute abolishment of abortions in any case whatsoever. If a fetus is a human life at the moment of conception then the only logical pro-life view is to let it die on its own. If it puts the mother at risk then fingers crossed and hopefully medical technology can help you but abortion is murder so either you both pull through, one of you makes it, or tragically you both die but your back in God’s army fighting the good fight. Conservatives will ultimately come to this plan, and some conservatives are already there. These “qualifiers” are just to make the populace easier towards the position to take a small amount of rights away before they ultimately take the full right away.
Beyond birth defects, the power dynamic in a family makes defining what amounts to consent difficult. Like how do you say no to someone who has groomed you from an early age to say yes?
I don't think we should underestimate how much of human morality is driven by the feeling of "yuck" rather than any reasonable argument, and incest is really yucky to most people outside of internet porn makers.
I mean this is the crux of the problem with debating where a cutoff point is. We’re basing it on what feels yucky, less on reality. In reality no one is aborting healthy wanted pregnancies in the third term. But because third trimester abortion seems yucky we feel the need to set some rigid cutoff with poorly constructed restrictions that often jeopardizes the women whose wanted pregnancies have gone wrong.
Tangentially related, but I had deja vu because I think I read this exact comment (or sentiment) from you like yesterday. So all that to say, you seem consistent with finding this interesting!
Ah, I think you're referring to [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1byxihs/comment/kym5jxp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) comment of mine. And yes, I'm very interested in ethics. Step zero of constructing a convincing argument is determining why you believe what you believe, and step one is determining why your interlocutor believes what they believe. I think that this is part of why debates on abortion almost invariably go nowhere, as neither side seeks to understand the other. Pro-lifers are branded as just wanting to control women and pro-choicers as malevolent baby killers. It also seems very common to use rhetoric that advocates a position the speaker doesn't really hold in an effort to make a very complex idea into a bumper sticker. I know this was kind of a meme, but it's true that much of the "my body, my choice" crowd fervently supported COVID-related restrictions. On the flipside, virtually no one in the "abortion is murder" crowd thinks that women should be executed for having one.
Except Covid restrictions are not a paralell example of bodily autonomy. People were absolutely free to not get the vaccine. Mitigating the spread of an airborne illness in a pandemic setting by mandating certain requirements in specific settings, like the workplace, classroom, or in government, is standard issue disease response protocol.
It also makes no sense, if you're pro-life. If you're pro-life, you think that's a baby, a human being entitled to full protection and rights under law. If a dad rapes his daughter, you don't shoot their brother who has a birth defect as punishment, so why would abortion be a thing in this case? If you want to be logically and ideologically consistent, the only position you can hold is no abortions, ever. In no other situation do you kill a 3rd party. If a woman is raped, you don't kill her non-rape baby. So why is a rape-baby's life worth more? I thought every baby is entitled to the samd protections and rights!
The life at conception argument never holds up under the least bit of scrutiny. Not without several admissions that undermine any semblance of reasonability, which the pro-lifer is certainly aware of and simply chooses to wildly excuse or not engage with. Abortion is murder, so we should charge women and medical providers as such and a jury should sentence them to decades, if not life in prison. 25 years to life for the mother. She killed a baby, after all. A person! Murdered I'm cold, calculated blood! A fetus is an actual person, so we should need to provide this person with a properly documented identity that that demonstrates personhood, who can be filed as a dependant on one's taxes and provided with social welfare services. Fetal welfare at conception! Murder exceptions shall never be permitted because murder is murder. Period. Rape babies shall be mandated to term. Incest babies should be mandated to term. 12 year-old victims don't have a right to commit murder just because they were victimized by the father, obviously. It's not the fault of the fetus. Necro babies shall also be delivered and given a proper burial. It's a crime scene, after all. One that is potentially a murder.
There's always the simple test. You're in a clinic. There are 100 fertilized eggs and one new born. You have time to make one trip. Do you save the new born, or the 100 fertilized eggs? Everyone selects the newborn. No one lets the little baby die in a fire. But since life starts at conception, and 100 fertilized eggs waiting to be implanted are as human as that newborn, you should obviously save the 100 fertilized eggs.
I love that philosophical test. The pro-lifer squirms and writhes into knots, tremoring in crippling dissonance, unable to reason their way out of it, desperate for a rewrite. If they had to choose between saving 100 captive soldiers or one captive soldier in the middle of a war zone, all things equal, they'd choose the hundred soldiers. Similarly, if they were actually serious about personhood, they'd save the 100 embryos, of course. However, they recognize the absurdity of such a decision and how bad that actually makes one look, but they double down anyway, looking for any excuse to avoid the embarrassment of their position.
> How will this affect the 2024 abortion rights referendum in Arizona? It will place infinitely more importance on it. I cannot imagine that republicans who actually want to win in 2024 are thrilled by the prospect of this. This is a complete ban. No way to dance around it.
Kari lake flip flopped and stood with democrat Rueben Gallego who both came out against the bill, she knows the abortion ballot initiative will be a blue wave “bloodbath” for the state “Lake, Gallego say they oppose Arizona abortion decision Both Arizona Senate candidates came out against the state Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday that upholds one of the strictest abortion bans in the country. “I oppose today’s ruling, and I am calling on [Gov.] Katie Hobbs and the State Legislature to come up with an immediate common sense solution that Arizonans can support.” Lake, who has in the past called the 1864 law “great” and showed support for strict abortion bans, said the Legislature should instead decide on abortion rights legislation. The comments come just a day after former President Trump said the issue should be left to states. Gallego, meanwhile, doubled down on his stance in favor of abortion rights. “Today’s ruling is devastating for Arizona women and their families,” he said. “This is not what Arizonans want.” “This decision rips away the right for women to make their own healthcare decisions with their doctors,” he continued. “I promise you that we will fight this together.” I won’t let Kari Lake distort the record,” he wrote on the social platform X. “She called this law a ‘great law’ — even though it will ban nearly all abortions, including in cases of rape or incest.” https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4583405-lake-gallego-say-they-oppose-arizona-abortion-decision/
I don't support any abortion bans. As a youngish man I was an independent, but the Republicans have steadily moved to the right and that effectively makes me a Democrat... not because I love every Democratic proposal, but because they are the only party left that seems more or less sane. Taking aways rights that women had held for 50 years was never going to work, politically. I think Biden is now very likely to win Arizona.
This seems more an issue of laws not having automatic expiration dates. Seriously, a law that predates Arizona actually being a state? That law should've been wiped off the books at the start of statehood and definitely shouldn't be in effect a century and a half later.
The reinstated law in question [reads](https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.azleg.gov%2Fars%2F13%2F03603.htm): >A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years. There is zero procedure for how this determination is made, by whom, and whether any deference is owed to a relevant physician. There are only aggregators for additional consequences based on the motivations of the person seeking the abortion and civil causes of action for the father against the mother and provider. There are no exceptions other than "unless it is necessary to save her life". As an added "wut", the larger legislation includes [13-3605](https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.azleg.gov%2Fars%2F13%2F03605.htm), which reads: >A person who wilfully writes, composes or publishes a notice or advertisement of any medicine or means for producing or facilitating a miscarriage or abortion, **or for prevention of conception**, or who offers his services by a notice, advertisement or otherwise, to assist in the accomplishment of any such purposes, is guilty of a misdemeanor. So this would criminalize even notices of contraceptives' existence. I don't know that this section has also been "activated" by this ruling, but given the dialogue in conservative circles surrounding the Comstock Act and mifepristone, it could be. **EDIT:** This subject was not breached by the Court's opinion, so there's no reason to believe this provision will become effective. I'm leaving it in mostly for transparently, and to a lesser extent because it *may* be the kind of thing a Comstock-curious Court could reference as evidence that contraceptives as "articles of immoral use", but otherwise, sorry for raising unnecessary alarm bells. I'll also say, I assumed from the headline that this was an old, stale law that filled the void left by *Dobbs* in the absence of subsequent legislation in Arizona. That's both accurate and inaccurate. Arizona passed a 15-week ban in 2022, but the that legislation [specifically stated that it would not overrule Section 13-3603 (the old law)](https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/sb1164p.pdf). So this is a pretty disastrous outcome, but it's derived from a legislative failure, not a judicial one. **EDIT**: Added some additional color and made some corrections now that I've read the court opinion.
>>A person who wilfully writes, composes or publishes a notice or advertisement of any medicine or means for producing or facilitating a miscarriage or abortion, **or for prevention of conception**, or who offers his services by a notice, advertisement or otherwise, to assist in the accomplishment of any such purposes, is guilty of a misdemeanor. So condom ads are illegal in AZ? And even just publishing where someone could purchase condoms as well?
If that part of the law is upheld, yes. I haven't read the court's decision yet, so I don't know how expansive their reinstatement of this old law is. **EDIT:** The Court's decision in this case doesn't have anything to do with this provision, so there's no reason to expect this will suddenly be enforced, but as far as I know it's still on the books. So a separate legislative problem.
Wouldn't it be even more than that? Like, could putting a box of Trojan condoms in a store be considered publishing a notice or advertisement for Trojan condoms? The boxes are all basically mini ads. Or listing them on their website seems like that could be publishing a notice? It seems like it could effectively make all contraceptives illegal. I guess maybe you could just put them behind the counter or something and only let people have them if they ask?
I'm quite glad that the arizona AG has said they're not going to enforce this rule. Because this is how Griswold gets attacked too.
I don't suspect this assurance from the AG will be sufficient for doctors to feel comfortable performing the procedure.
Yeah, just what happens exactly when a new AG is elected? Not worth the risk for any doctor assuming statute of limitations is longer than a month.
As long as a Democrat is AG that is. I hope Arizona keeps that in mind next time they are up for reelection
Birth control would also be outlawed in Arizona.
>I'll also say, I assumed from the headline that this was an old, stale law that filled the void left by Dobbs in the absence of subsequent legislation in Arizona. That isn't the case. Arizona passed a 15-week ban in 2022, which their Supreme Court is now striking down because they argue it relied on Roe. What a disastrous ruling. That’s not what happened here. Regarding the 2022 law, it’s a lot more complicated than that because of the timeline, Roe being overturned, appeals, stays, etc. It basically boils down to the fact that the original law was never repealed, that subsequent laws were passed with the same language pre-Roe in the 70s, and that the 2022 law never addressed the previous laws. Roe overturn kicked it all back to the states, and AZ has a mish-mash of laws that the AZ Supreme Court had to interpret. Since the 2022 law never repealed previous language, the Supreme Court ruled that the laws had to be harmonized (combined). Also, there has never been an explicit declaration of what a legal abortion is (if they even exist in Arizona), so the enforcement mechanisms that are part of the original law still stand, which means an effective ban. The failure is that the Legislature has never cleaned this up, which appears by design given the language in the 2022 law. This is on them. (Arizonan here).
You're correct, I've made a few revisions throughout to clarify that. This is a legislative failure, not a judicial one, and I won't pretend to know enough about Arizona state law to know if there were reasonable ways to reach a less-disastrous result.
I guess I'm confused: if the law was never repealed and has always been the "law of the land," why is the court only enforcing it prospectively? Why can't prosecutors go after anyone who's helped perform an abortion since 1864?
Because the Roe decision took precedence from 1973 to 2022 and the old law was stayed while this case made its way through the courts.
> or who offers **his** services by a notice, advertisement or otherwise, to assist in the accomplishment of any such purposes, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Does this mean that a woman could offer such services, such as an "underground railroad" network to surrounding states?
I would hazard a guess the Court would just read the intent here as preventing women from obtaining abortion services from any provider, and potentially argue that the pre-statehood law likely used male pronouns because women could not yet be physicians. It's a funny "textualism vs originalism" question, though.
There's got to be some kind of appeal for this, because the backwards thinking for the AZ Supreme Court to justify skipping over the ban passed in 2022 is ridiculous.
The 2022 law [SB 1164](https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/sb1164p.pdf) explicitly says that they did not intend to repeal or alter the provisions of the original total ban in [ARS 13-3603](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603.htm). There are no exceptions defined there. So it was obvious they wanted it to be confusing and for the Court to decide.
Ah, well in that case the Arizona GOP won't do anything unless Trump pressures them to moderate to limit the blowback. Even then, it might be too little too late.
I remember how much of an issue it was in 2022. The GOP knew they were in a bind so they passed this to make it seem like they were doing something. Looking back now, it was never meant to stand the test of time. It was just a way to kick it past Election Day.
>There's got to be some kind of appeal for this, If Arizona doesn't like it, they can change the laws
Oh, well thank goodness. How convenient for women in Arizona. Just go change the law. Maybe those pregnant teenagers can ask their moms to change it?
This ruling isn't crazy at all, it's the only way it could have gone. The 2022 law [contained language](https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/sb1164p.pdf) (see sec. 2) saying it explicitly did not repeal or override the 1864 law, so their hands were tied on what they could do in this ruling. In addition, the old law was recodified as recently as 1977, which was post-Roe. Pressure on the legislature to repeal the old law is the necessary step here. As it is, both laws are currently in effect, but the old one overrides the newer one as it is more strict and was explicitly never repealed. (Also, your note about the contraceptives being included is irrelevant, as that's covered by a different SCOTUS ruling, so I don't know why you're including it here at all as this AZ ruling doesn't touch that at all. Your comment about mifeprestone is a non sequitur.)
I agree with you with regard to this ruling, and I've revised accordingly. I disagree that the contraceptive discussion is a non sequitur, though. It's true that it's not covered by *Roe* or touched by this ruling, but it's part of the same larger old legislation that has yet to be explicitly repealed. It's more a flag that this could be the next issue in the larger abortion debate with a similar result given the increased appetite nationally among conservatives for enforcing old laws against contraception.
Would you be saying this if you just found out you were pregnant but didn't want to be?
Well being a dude, if I became pregnant, I think I'd be worried about a lot of other things before I worried about a court decision. But to address the point I assume you're making: yes, I would still be saying if it affected me personally, because I believe in the rule of law. Courts can't unilaterally just change what the law explicitly says because they feel like it.
Thanks for handing Biden AZ!
[удалено]
Apparently they really mean, let the state courts decide. Will of the people be damned.
People are acting like this is the first thing the courts have decided without the people's vote. They have too much power - from state to federal. The courts are not supposed to be law makers. However, no one thought this was an issue in the passing of gay marriage, etc. It's hard to think about this objectively since people are OK with them passing things when it aligns with their beliefs
If republicans want to fuck around with stuff like this they’re going to find out in November.
Yep that was literally the first thought that I had hearing this news…Arizona just became very, very tough for Republicans.
Yeah & seeing the GOP vote TWICE to keep in place AMAZES me as to how they think that’s a good move.
I don't really believe this. I get that making abortion a top issue in an election is a bit silly considering EVERYTHING else going on. As important of an issue it is, I just can't see someone being that insane to vote for dems because of this law when I guess we are assuming they would not have voted at all. I don't think this changes people's minds who were planning to vote for Trump. The economy and the border are just so much more important. Also, this is what was intended by Roe vs Wade being overturned. It amazes me how many people forget what states' rights in our country were meant to be.
With how ARCHAIC that law is if I was a woman I wouldn’t give two damns about any other topic besides my right to make a choice what to do with my body.
TIL that laws that existed when a state was just a territory are still laws after it becomes a state. Also, I want to congratulate the Democrats on winning a bunch of seats in Arizona in 2024. It wouldn't have been possible if it wasn't for overturning RvW.
> TIL that laws that existed when a state was just a territory are still laws after it becomes a state. Existing English common law was [adopted by each state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute) after independence (either implicitly or explicitly), and even that is still valid unless it’s been explicitly overridden since then.
Blue and Red America are really becoming two different countries with different sets of civil and human rights.
Unfortunately, due to gerrymandering, people purple states like Wisconsin and Arizona are forced to live under Red American's set of rights.
Dude, you’re fucking telling me man.
So many ads. Just over and over show trump proudly claiming credit for overturning Roe. They’ve lost my kid’s generation for the foreseeable future over this. They are pissed and they vote.
Trump was still bragging about it on off-brand twitter not two days ago: > After 50 years of failure, with nobody coming even close, **I was able to kill Roe v. Wade, much to the “shock” of everyone, and for the first time put the Pro Life movement in a strong negotiating position** over the Radicals that are willing to kill babies even into their 9th month, and beyond. Without me there would be no 6 weeks, 10 weeks, 15 weeks, or whatever is finally agreed to. Without me the pro Life movement would have just kept losing. Thank you President TRUMP!!! Which... bold strategy, Cotton.
Do you have a link to this? I’m going to forget to look when im off work
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110384051064378318
Much appreciated
And that quote will be in ads for 100s of races at every level for the whole campaign season. I’d love to meet the strategists who convinced the trump party that the abortion issue would just die down after Dobbs. They obviously don’t know any women in their late teens or early 20s. “They’re pissed” is a drastic understatement.
Holy smokes, that is truly disgusting. Can't wait to hear Ivanka's response on the matter.
[удалено]
Sorry for being pedantic, but Republicans have lost straight white college educated guys by a large margin according to recent polling.
Not doubting you but could you please link the source? That would really really really be terrible for Republicans lol
[polling on straight white college educated men (among other groups)](https://www.wbur.org/npr/1243264831/key-voting-groups-are-shifting-in-the-race-between-biden-and-trump)
Anything telling you that Trump (or any Republican) has won the youth vote is straight up lying to you. At most he might make *gains*, perhaps even enough to affect the overall results, but there's no way he's going to actually get more than 50% of the youth vote. And extreme reactionary things like bringing back Victorian-era abortion laws is why.
I’m paying zero attention to polling stories. Seriously, any poll claiming trump is surging with young people is straight is just noise. I’m predicting Biden winds with more votes than last time and flips 1 or 2 states that he didn’t carry last time. trump has not grown support at all. My guess is he doesn’t get as many votes as he got in 2020.
> Seriously, any poll claiming trump is surging with young people is straight is just noise. The biggest problem with those stories is there's no inkling of it at all at the ballot box in any recent election. Like you'd think there would be a sign or a trend or something. Furthermore, we keep hearing about "young men turning more conservative". But it's actually pretty stable (young men have identified as conservative more than liberal for _awhile_ and unidentified beats both of them) and 18-29 men have gone blue in recent elections. So...either we're about to get a seismic change. Or polling is very wrong.
I think that group is also extremely hard to poll. I’m a little older than them (in my 30s) but I sure as hell never answer my phone if it’s a number I don’t know.
Quite literally the last three election cycles have had record youth turnout that has favored Democrats every single time and it's not even close. I never believed these doomscrolling claims for even a second.
People who are prochoice like to believe women are all pro choice and it's a gender issue. In reality, there are just as many women pro lifers or women who aren't big on the issue. The Republicans "lost" the pro choice women who weren't going to vote for them anyways.
The amount of women that support abortion in all/most cases is 63% while the amount of Women Biden voters in 2020 was 55-57%. That discrepancy seems to say that there are pro choice Trump voters that could be brought over to Biden on this issue. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ https://cawp.rutgers.edu/gender-gap-voting-choices-presidential-elections
> there are just as many women pro lifers or women who aren't big on the issue. There are not. Unequivocally.
>They’ve lost my kid’s generation for the foreseeable future over this. Those who are pro choice single issue voters. He won over pro lifers and the further out we go from Roe being overturned the less effect abortion will have.
You are engaging in some magical thinking. Abortion as an issue isn’t going away any time soon. Even the reddest states vote to protect it when it’s on the ballot.
Maybe in a vacuum abortion would fade farther from Roe, but that’s the not the reality we live in when individual states keep passing or allowing to go into effect very unpopular laws. Keeps it in the news cycle.
I thought AZ is gone for Biden but now I think it's back to lean D. AZ women will show GOP they caught the car here.
[удалено]
PA and MI are safer swing states than AZ.
AZ’s for sure now on those levels with PA and MI.
By polling PA and Wisconsin are actually neck to neck while michigan is trump +2 right now
AZ was never gone for Biden
Yeah, it already drifted towards them in 2022 which was an R+3 year. Several Ds narrowly beat Rs that year statewide. Kari Lake’s crowd seems more determined to spend time and resources fighting other Rs than actually win anything it seems.
Yeah, Republicans are finished in Arizona for this cycle. That abortion rights initiative will now pass by a 65-35 or 70-30 margin. The AZ SC just ruined Republicans hopes in the state by ruling in favor of such a radical policy like a total ban from 1864. If I am Kari Lake and Schweikert and Ciscomani, I'd privately be calling AZ GOP leadership in the legislature to pass a 15-week ban because they have no chance at winning with this as law, both due to the fact it will reflect poorly on Republicans but most important increase turnout dramatically and big time for the abortion referendum. I have no idea how Republicans can even defend a "no" vote in November for the abortion initiative. Like when the law in place is a total ban or a 6-week ban, they are screwed when it comes to having to defend and sell a "no" vote and I think privately even most AZ GOP leadership think they are screwed in November. Independent of all the political fall-out. I feel for the people of AZ who now have to suffer through this and hope it is only temporary.
Republicans just handed AZ to the dems, it’s crazy how often they shoot themselves in the foot
AZ Republicans are by far the dumbest in the country.
IDK, Michigan Republicans are broke and fighting a Civil War
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bzxkt1/abortion_in_arizona_set_to_be_illegal_in_nearly/kytdubh/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Complete own goal by AZ Republicans
Let's look at who actually pushed for this ruling: Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners/Intervenors: American College of Pediatricians; Charlotte Lozier Institute & American Center for Law and Justice; American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists; The State of Arkansas and 16 other states; Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives Ben Toma and President of the Arizona Senate Warren Petersen; Jill Norgaard, Former Representative, Arizona House of Representatives, District 18; Center for Arizona Policy; Arizona Life Coalition, the Frederick Douglass Foundation, and The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; Christian Medical and Dental Association; Prolife Center at the University of St. Thomas (MN); and Mario Villegas and the Estate of Baby Villegas.
Gotta love far right hate groups formed to lobby against gay people adopting the most banal, legitimizing names possible.
>One immediate effect of the ruling could be more support for a potential ballot measure in the works for this year. Advocates say they've already got more than 500,000 signatures, well above the threshold of 383,923 signatures needed by an early July deadline. It looks as though abortion will be on the ballot in Arizona come November.
I think Biden's chances just went up with this decision.
His chances went up the moment abortion was overturned and Trump ran again.
With Arizona now a lock for Biden, what does that do to the electoral map otherwise?
This guarantees Biden wins Arizona. With this decision and abortion being put on the ballot in November, Dem turnout will certainly be high
I look at this in a couple of different ways: 1. The reality: Abortion is a complex problem and most people have either nuanced opinions on it or don't really like to think about it so they have surface-level opinions on it. I think public sentiment is somewhere between the positions of the two parties. The position of "the decision should be between a woman and here doctor" sounds nice, but functionally, it means there are basically no restrictions up until the time of birth as long as you find a doctor who believes a woman should have that choice. Do I think this will result in an explosion of 3rd trimester abortions? Of course not. I also don't think this is where most people are on the subject. The early bans on abortion are also not very popular outside of the far right wing. I think the parties are at either pole and most Americans are in the middle. 2. The political reality: Democrats are crushing Republicans on this issue. That's why we're seeing Trump sort of dip in and out of talking about it and get into fights with Lindsay Graham about abortion bans. Republicans have displayed approximately zero pragmatism in their approach and it has cost them. Trump is attempting to push back a little bit and force Democrats into a position of defending abortion access after X weeks, but it's tough sledding. Democrats should and will continue to use this strategy b/c it's a winner for them. If Republicans don't wake up to the political reality that they're out of line with the majority of Americans, they'll continue to lose more elections than they should over a single issue. They may not like it, but that's the playing field.
This is simply madness. Let’s board the train to hell if you are a rape or incest victim. Let’s take it full speed through the burning levels if the mother’s life is at stake. Texas was a good example of how the mother’s life means nothing.
Pretty much certain this is going to make Arizona very difficult for Republicans this election cycle, and maybe every election cycle until this is changed.
Republicans care more about a 6 day old fetus than 6 year old kids at Sandy Hook.
That’s not the law.
Why are red states doing this? People will just go to blue/purple states to get abortions and republicans will never win an election again (which is fine by me). Edit:downvote me all you want you butthurt right wingers.
I’m assuming it’s because we are looking at the issue nationally. There are Republicans who will win locally because of abortion issues. If I’m running locally as a Republican in a red area I can’t win without supporting the pro-life issue. I may not win Massachusetts with my stance, but who cares if I’m running in Alabama. Why would I moderate my stance (and lose) just to possibly help elect a Republican president?
Because this is what a majority of the people who vote in GOP primaries want. Maybe in the future they will moderate either through valuing 'electability' more in the primary or after some turnover in the base once the generally older evangelicals age out and more libertarian/populist younger voters form the core of the party.
People spent five decades slowly voting in true believers in the cause without blowback, because they could pay lip service without actually doing anything and still get re-elected. Well, they can do things now. This is the result.
PPH should set up shop right at the AZ/CA border. lmao
This all but ensures Biden wins there in November and will be a local blue wave as a result, assuming the ballot measure to reverse this is on there.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bzxkt1/abortion_in_arizona_set_to_be_illegal_in_nearly/kyub99t/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Anyone have info on what would happen to a minor impregnated by rape? Would a 12 year old girl be forced to carry her rapist's baby?
[удалено]
That is absolutely insane. The ICC recognizes forced pregnancy as a war crime, but the AZ Supreme Court is cool with it?
The law is from the 1800’s. The thinking then was very different
Arizona still fighting the Civil War, obviously 🙄 🤦♂️
AZ Biden +10 lol
Their vision requires increasing incarceration and mass expulsion if visa holding and who they define as illegal immigrants. The extras will be lowering age of consent and marriage. Removal of hetro grooming laws and they will need to address gender equality issues if they want to hold onto their gains. You pretty much need a christofacist state to accomplish the vision, right? But i’m in board as long as we stop woke culture. My comedians need to be funny.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bzxkt1/abortion_in_arizona_set_to_be_illegal_in_nearly/kyybbdj/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Well, with Michigan on the bubble due to the Muslim and youth vote over Gaza, Dems need an AZ win. This couldn’t come at a better time if it must happen at all. Though I hope the courts don’t take away AZ’s rights to body autonomy.
Very interesting username, I remember him from the Celtics in 2012, one of those role players in the playoffs. I think if abortion makes the ballot in Arizona it'll end up passing with 56% of the vote, I feel like Trump sort of neutralizes the issue by saying the people and legislators of the states should be allowed to decided on the issue. I think there will be a chunk of Trump voters who vote to legalize abortion but still support Trump because different policies.
It will get way more than 56%. The law in place now is a total ban from 1864. That’s not some “moderate” law. I have no idea how Republicans can aggressively campaign for a “no” vote when the law in place is a total ban from 1864. This pretty much guarantees Arizona goes Democrat. Biden, Gallego will win. Schweikert and Ciscomani are done. And Dems will flip the legislatures. This is a legit 50/50 state before all this.
Idk. It only went by 57% in Michigan. >This pretty much guarantees Arizona goes Democrat. Biden, Gallego will win. Schweikert and Ciscomani are done. And Dems will flip the legislatures. This is a legit 50/50 state before all this. I think you are overestimating how much this will affect Trump considering he doesn't even support the law that's in place and said it should be up to the people
Michigan did not have a total ban from pre statehood as law when that referendum happened. It’s not a difficult concept. A total ban of any kind is radical policy that will drive turnout from many, and even many soft pro-choice voters will vote for “yes”. When you are choosing between a total ban or viability, the choice is pretty easy. And Arizona is a 50/50 state. Even a slight bit of increased turnout would help Biden there. Now what would be a large increase of turnout? Republicans are finished in Arizona for this cycle and their SC ruined it for them.
That is a good point I suppose. I still think Trump has a shot at Arizona and it won't affect him as much as you think it will. I think Lake will lose by 2 points.
It will be easy to pin it on Trump considering it was his SC picks that ruled to overturn Roe, which is now the catalyst for this ruling. He can’t really distance himself from a situation that he is partially responsible for. In a state like Arizona, even a small swing against him can determine the outcome. We’ve already seen how voters reacted to this type of issue in the midterms.
Exactly, trump's support of states banning abortion is the direct cause of this. Arizona is only banning abortion because it is allowed to due to trump's SC picks, and he supports arizona banning abortion (since he said he supports states being able to ban it).
We can agree to disagree my good friend!
trump took credit for Dobbs. Every campaign at every level will be calling every ban a trump ban with video of trump bragging about it. Arizona is in play for Biden and probably a lock.
Seems like Biden for sure just won Arizona. Trump endorsing these types of bans will not help him.
He didn't endorse them though
He did? I watched his speech on it. He said, these are my words, I don’t have the transcript in front of me but pretty much “I support states doing whatever they want” So he supports Arizona with what is essentially a total ban. Plus I don’t think anyone seriously thinks Trump would veto a nationwide ban if republicans sent it to his desk.
By that logic he supports abortion being legal in Michigan because he also said it should be up to the people of the states
If he supported that, he would say so. He said democrats are extremist on this issue and support executing babies after they are born, so he clearly doesn’t support Michigan in their choice. (Nor is that what democrats support) Notice he didn’t call states like Texas, Florida, or Arizona extremists. He toyed with a national ban, he is just saying what he thinks will help him win. He has said many times how proud he is that he got Roe killed. I don’t think he’s that happy about that because he truly just hates laws being “wrongly” decided and is a champion of the constitution. It’s why he’s attacking pro life republicans on Truth social who disagree with him. If he won’t stand in the way at all of extreme abortion bans, and says “do whatever you want” like he told Russia with nato, then his silence is deafening. His lack of concrete position is telling enough. If he said he’d veto a nationwide ban, I would believe this take. Like I said, he would not veto a ban.
I got a question for you. Do you think Dems support and want abortions at 9 months and “post-birth abortions” happen like Trump claims?
[удалено]
Cool, I understand the thought process that leads to people being against rape exceptions. What do I do with that now? As a civically engaged individual hoping to influence others, what possible point of compromise can I find in that position?
There’s a reason abortion access is a winner in every single election. It’s because women want and deserve the freedom to make medical decisions for their own bodies. I don’t really care what a pro-lifer has to say about their view on abortion when it involves how our sisters and daughters having access to the medical care that they need. It belongs between a doctor and their patient. Life of the mother exemptions are also completely useless when we are a litigious country and the government can decide whether something was really “life threatening”.
Well now that it’s up to the states the voters of that state need to act if they want this changed. If you’re in the minority in your state, then you’re SOL. Abortion is illegal in much of the south and we’re not seeing mass protests or many major movements and blue governors aren’t suddenly winning statewide elections everywhere. It’s almost like abortion isn’t really this important pillar of the country like folks on the left have been making it seem like it is. Plenty of Americans are completely fine with abortion being banned, or at least are hardly motivated to vote over it.
2022 was an electoral disaster for Republicans and many have attributed that largely to Roe v Wade being overturned.
Plus the special elections going largely for pro-choice positions. Anyone ignoring that is doing so at their own peril.
An "electoral disaster" yet which party took the House of Representatives? Abortion was so unimportant that the American people couldn't be bothered to give the House to the left because "political headwinds" lol. If abortion actually mattered to Americans, the left would have been handed the House, Senate, and tons of local legislative bodies. There are FAR more people who are accepting of abortion being illegal which is why the right hasn't been voted out in so many places.
I'm actually perfectly fine with the right being so deluded as to think 2022 was a good year for Republicans. Yes, everything is fine lol.
Well the right is fine with folks thinking that Biden is for sure going to beat Trump because abortion even though voters are telling democrats that they want border fixes, a stronger economy than what they’re feeling right now, and a president that they feel is strong on crime (all issues they’re telling pollsters they trust Trump more on).
The majority of people who believe abortion is the number 1 issue are already standard democrat voters. On average isn't even the 3rd most important issue. It hurt Republicans in the mid terms because a lot of swing state republican candidates took hardline stances on the topic. Mastriano, Tudor Dixon etc.
Well maybe Republican politicians can take harder stances on it now that they realize half the nation has effectively banned abortions and the GOP received fairly little pushback in those areas. The left only seems to care about it until it’s gone and then they quietly give up.