Posted on 04/10/2024 10:19:12 AM PDT by Eleutheria5
The Arizona Supreme Court has decided to uphold a Civil War-era law that bans abortion. A law on the books from 1864 is enforceable, according to Arizona judges. The year in which that law was passed, 1864, was before human chattel slavery was outlawed, and almost 50 years before Arizona was officially part of the United States. The law makes abortion a felony punishable by two to five years in prison. But the ban may be overturned at the polls in November. The 1864 law goes back into effect in 14 days.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K2aww8xKcE
These sleazebags are trying to associate abortion with slavery.
“””A law on the books from 1864 is enforceable, according to Arizona judges.”””
Sure looks like the Judiciary is a political branch of government as the Judiciary was in 1973 when it ruled on
Roe vs. Wade.
Their position is that a woman with less than full and complete autonomy over her own body is nothing more than livestock, so that’s where the slavery connection comes in.
Abortion will lose elections for Republicans. Even many Republican women will vote FOR abortion. As I’ve stated before...this is more important to liberal/moderate women than ANY OTHER ISSUE. They would rather the economy crumble, the US be overrun by drug dealing hordes, and children be sold in sex trafficking than lose their ability to kill babies in the womb.
The majority ruling of "Roe vs Wade" codified an unborn baby to be the sole property of the mother via the following clause from the 14th amendement, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.".
That’s because they’re selfish and hedonistic, along with so many “men”.
Every day brings another abortion story because of that imbecile Alito who wrote that my right to live is subject to the vote of the majority. The 2nd greatest jurist we have could not see that if the SC could create a right to abortion where the constitution is silent on the matter, how simple would it be to create a right to life since the constitution is silent on that also.
We did some thing better those days. No sex changes. No murders let loose.
Stare decisis.
Why point out the year the law went into effect? Are they implying that the older the law, the less relevant it is?
They have to take it out on the court, rather than simply changing the law. Changing the law requires drafting a new one and passing it in the legislature, and then maybe enduring and responding to a legal challenge.
It was so much easier to just hang all the decision making on SCOTUS, and hoping that RBG would live forever. Now she’s dead. Post RBG, SCOTUS has forced them to make decisions and stand by them. And they simply aren’t up to it. So instead they feign outrage at the AZ high court for noting that a law is a law, and “democracy” requires representative government involving themselves in fitting the law to the times and the will of the people. It’s what Maynard G. Krebbs used to do as “WORK?!”
Oh, there was plenty of other evils back then. Ol’ massa’s taste for dark flesh would sometimes be carried on generationally. So if he sired a daughter by a slave girl, and that girl came of age and he forced her to roll in the hay with him, he was a true degenerate, and the products of his incest were prone to birth defects of all sorts. If he carried on with his daughter/grand daughter, there was no end to his depravity or the defects of his progeny/slaves. See Harriet Jacobs’ Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl for the details.
Also Frederick Douglas tells of a young master who went out to get a rounded education and came back a quadriplegic as a result of “dissipation,” forcing his male slave to gratify his still-living member. At one point, he refused, and the young massa’ summoned the sheriff to force the poor bondsman to do his servile “duty”. Really sick.
uphold a Civil War-era law that bans abortion.
= = =
So just who was that to protect or serve?
Unborn babies?
Why was abortion an issue?
White masters and their black slaves?
Fill in the blanks ____________
The Roe court held that since there were hardly any anti-abortion laws on the books until right after the Civil War, women had a right to abortion from the Revolutionary War until after the Civil War, which is nonsense. I doubt women in the young country were interested in killing their babies, who would help them with chores when they were old enough, and the boys would be able to help paw out in the field. So there was no need for laws concerning abortions at all back then. Abortion probably first became more widespread after the Civil War, due to increased urbanization and the industrial revolution, so states began to legislate. But that’s the house of straw, partially on which they built a “constitutional right” to an abortion, together with some other crap. Penumbras, and such.
Ironically, some Ariz GOP legislators will try to pass a law to “moderate” abortion restrictions, because they are afraid that with the help of dem ads, and despite the fact that Trump opposes the old law, Trump will lose the state in Nov. If they do pass such a law, will the dem governor veto the bill to help Biden? Will dems challenge the law giving them more abortion freedom in court to delay it past Nov.?
Stranger things have happened. Dead babies don’t vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.