Posted on 04/24/2024 1:01:04 PM PDT by Morgana
The Arizona state House has bowed to the pro-abortion mob by approving a measure to repeal the state’s new abortion ban before it ever reached implementation to begin saving babies.
With the ban repealed, babies would lose almost all protection in the state. A 15-week abortion ban would go into place that only allows protecting babies up to that point – meaning 90% of more abortions would become legal.
The pro-life group Center for Arizona Policy lameted the vote in comments to LifeNews.
“Today’s House vote to repeal the pre-Roe law opens the door to great loss of life for unborn children and harm to women. With the Senate already on record to vote on the repeal, the most protective pro-life law in the country is poised to fall to the appetites of pro-abortion activists,” it said.
“The law to limit abortion to cases where the woman’s life is in danger was in effect in January of 1973 when Roe v Wadewas wrongly decided and should be in effect today. It was reaffirmed by a bipartisan legislature and the governor in 1977,” it added. “I applaud those lawmakers who stood boldly for the unborn and their mothers and made the effort today to force Arizona Attorney General to defend the state’s 15-week law if the pre-Roe law was repealed.”
Democrats prevailed on the vote to repeal the law because three Republicans joined them, including Matt Gress, Tim Dunn, and Justin Wilmeth.
Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jake Warner said the abortion ban should stand.
“Life is a human right, and the Arizona Legislature has again reaffirmed that fundamental right. Life begins at conception. At just six weeks, unborn babies’ hearts begin to beat. At eight weeks, they have fingers and toes. And at 10 weeks, their unique fingerprints begin to form. Arizona’s pro-life law has protected unborn children for more than 100 years, and the people of Arizona, through their elected representatives, have repeatedly affirmed that law,” he said.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled recently to uphold the state’s pro-life law as written by overturning a lower court decision that misinterpreted the law.
“We conclude that [Arizona’s law] does not create a right to, or otherwise provide independent statutory authority for, an abortion that repeals or restricts [the law], but rather is predicated entirely on the existence of a federal constitutional right to an abortion since disclaimed by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,” the court wrote in its opinion in Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes. “Absent the federal constitutional abortion right, and because [the law] does not independently authorize abortion, there is no provision in federal or state law prohibiting [the law’s] operation. Accordingly, [Arizona’s law] is now enforceable.”
After the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the state’s abortion ban, one of the big attacks against it is that the 1864 law supposedly doesn’t represent the will of the people and is antiquated. Trump referred to that in his post.
But that contention is not true.
First, the judges on the Arizona Supreme Court represent the people. The seven justices on the state’s highest court are initially appointed by the governor to serve. They then stand for a retention vote for regular terms of six years and that is a ballot vote cast by Arizona voters. As a result, the justices represent the people via electing the governor and electing them directly.
Secondly, the law was affirmed twice after it was initially approved in 1864. As CatholicVote notes in an article:
The over century-and-a-half-old law is set to replace the state’s existing pro-life law which only protects most unborn children after 15 weeks gestation.
Republican then Gov. Doug Ducey signed the significantly weaker legislation into law in March 2022. Less than three months later, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturning Roe v. Wade.
The Arizona Supreme Court held that the 2022 law “is predicated entirely on the existence of a federal constitutional right to an abortion since disclaimed” by the Dobbs decision.
Axios reported that “[a] provision of the 2022 law had affirmed it wasn’t repealing the 19th-century law.”
FOX News noted that the 1864 law “was codified in 1913 after Arizona became a state” and “includes an exception in cases where the mother’s life is at risk.”
Planned Parenthood was challenging the potential reinstatement of the state’s near-total abortion ban from 1864, which has exceptions for life-threatening emergencies, but had been blocked by 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The Dobbs ruling should allow it to go into effect but the nation’s biggest abortion business challenged it.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represented Dr. Eric Hazelrigg, an obstetrician and medical director of Choices Pregnancy Center in Arizona, who filed a petition last March asking the state’s high court to review an Arizona Court of Appeals ruling.
The appellate court’s ruling misinterpreted state law, against its plain meaning, to allow abortion in circumstances where the Arizona Legislature prohibited it. It also enjoined officials from fully enforcing the state’s pro-life law to protect unborn children. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed this ruling, allowing the law to be enforced as written.
“Life is a human right, and today’s decision allows the state to respect that right and fully protect life again—just as the legislature intended,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jake Warner, who argued before the court. “Life begins at conception. At just six weeks, unborn babies’ hearts begin to beat. At eight weeks, they have fingers and toes. And at 10 weeks, their unique fingerprints begin to form. Arizona’s pro-life law has protected unborn children for over 100 years, and the people of Arizona, through their elected representatives, have repeatedly affirmed that law, including as recently as 2022. We celebrate the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision that allows the state’s pro-life law to again protect the lives of countless, innocent unborn children.”
In September 2022, the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County appointed Dr. Hazelrigg as the substitute guardian ad litem to legally represent the best interests of unborn children in Arizona, a role Arizona courts have recognized for over 50 years.
We unfortunately are surrounded by people who don't want to do the hard work.
They want a republican politician to do all the hard work for them, or they want to donate to some conservative cause who will do the hard work for them.
But they themselves - no. They don't want to do the hard work.
Before we can win on any issue, we need to stop this mindset that "Somebody needs to do something!!!" (Just not me)
Well done.
Killing children & consuming weed are the primary American values now.
The former America is dead & gone.
No, just ONE kind.
Politics is about the art of the possible, not reaching perfection.
True enough, although leaders must win some — and the occasional significant one — along the way lest they lose momentum and, as important, they begin to lose the confidence of the true warriors and of the base which tends to accelerate in a surprisingly short time.
The Arizona Supreme Court held that the 2022 law “is predicated entirely on the existence of a federal constitutional right to an abortion since disclaimed” by the Dobbs decision.
I am not convinced that is true. Does the AZ Supreme Court want to legalize all abortions by this trick?
Moses allowed it
gaslight
“Moses allowed it”
GOD allowed it. Or do you think the “Law of Moses” was written based on the personal opinion of Moses?
Permissive will?
I think God distinguished between what is moral and what is workable AS CIVIL LAW. For example, if there was a 100% ban on divorce, would women be more likely to be murdered? Or would men be less likely to take wives and more likely to have concubines?
What is right for believers to do may be different from what is best for all concerned in a society that has many unbelievers.
Civil law needs to concern itself with society while moral law is about the individual. And our society, if pushed to ban ALL abortions, may turn around and allow UNLIMITED abortions.
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.