Arizona Supreme Court's Abortion Decision Could Hand Entire State To Democrats
We are still over half a year away from the 2024 election, so it would be premature to say: "This is the issue is that the election will all be about" (since anything could happen in the meantime which could eclipse all the biggest current issues). But it is looking like abortion rights are going to be a major part of it, at the very least. The fallout from the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision continues -- in statehouses, in ballot measures, and in court decisions. Republicans continue to learn that the most Draconian abortion laws are incredibly unpopular, and they scramble to figure out some way to deal with it all. Democrats are out there championing "freedom" and "protecting your rights" and "get the government out of your private business," which are all very potent arguments in general and which all seem to be resonating with the voters on abortion.
Yesterday, the Arizona supreme court dropped a bombshell into the political fray. It ruled that an abortion law first written in 1864 was still valid and constitutional and would soon go back into effect. This law, written during the Civil War era, completely bans abortion with only one exception. Here is the relevant text of the original, from the section criminalizing poisoning (and "just after the section banning duels"):
[E]very person who shall administer or cause to be administered or taken, any medicinal substances, or shall use or cause to be used any instruments whatever, with the intention to procure the miscarriage of any woman then being with child, and shall be thereof duly convicted, shall be punished by imprisonment in the Territorial prison for a term not less than two years nor more than five years: Provided, that no physician shall be affected by the last clause of this section, who in the discharge of his professional duties deems it necessary to produce the miscarriage of any woman in order to save her life.
Note that: "Territorial prison" -- Arizona had just become a U.S. territory and wouldn't be admitted to the Union for almost another half-century (in 1912, the last of the contiguous 48 states to join). This law was quite literally "frontier justice," to put it a different way.
As I said, the decision by the highest Arizona court to proclaim this law still valid has roiled politics in a big way. Joe Biden won Arizona, but only barely (by roughly 11,000 votes). It was considered a red state for a long time, but has turned truly purple in the past decade or so. But this issue could cause the state to get a lot bluer, in one fell swoop.
Arizona was supposed to be a big battleground state this November. Not only will the two major-party presidential candidates be campaigning here, but there will also be an open Senate race, after Kyrsten Sinema announced she wouldn't be running for re-election. And while Republicans hold control of both chambers of the statehouse, they do so in each by a single vote. But the biggest factor of all is that a ballot measure is already headed to the ballot in November (the people behind the initiative report that they've already collected enough signatures to qualify it). If approved, this would enshrine abortion rights in the state's constitution.
There are differing opinions about whether the abortion rights issue has its own "coattails" -- whether having an abortion rights ballot initiative really helps Democratic candidates on the ballot out or not. Arizona might be the best test case of this theory. They currently have a Democratic governor (who is not up for re-election), and for a while they had two Democratic senators (until Sinema left the party), but after this election they could wind up with Democrats winning control of both chambers of the statehouse, holding both Senate seats, and perhaps gaining a few extra seats in the House of Representatives to boot. Joe Biden could win the state a lot more decisively than he did last time, too. And there may be one other important voter reaction as well:
Tuesday's ruling could also have consequences at the ballot box for two of the justices who voted for the ban. They face a retention election in November. Under Arizona law, the seven Supreme Court justices are appointed by the governor but appear on the ballot two years after their initial appointment and every six years thereafter.
If they lose their job, it could shift the political balance of the state supreme court. So this one single ruling could politically upend both the entire legislature and the highest court -- which would turn Arizona a whole lot bluer in a single election cycle.
This prospect is already terrifying Republicans, as well it should. Even though Republicans control the legislature, they are already pondering whether to pass some sort of measure very quickly which would restore the current 15-week ban rather than the Civil War era one about to go into effect. This would be rather momentous and astounding -- Republicans in essence overturning an abortion ban. But even that might not save their majority.
Kari Lake, Republican candidate for Senate, is already desperately trying to backpedal on the issue. Problem is (for her) she was both incredibly supportive and incredibly specific about the territorial abortion law:
Ms. [Kari] Lake, an ally of former President Donald J. Trump and a 2020 election denier, had voiced enthusiastic support for the law less than two years ago, when she was in the midst of a scorched-earth campaign for the Republican nomination for governor. Asked then what she thought of the ban, she said she was thrilled it existed and called a "great law."
Asked for comment, the Lake campaign pointed to a post from Caroline Wren, a senior adviser to Ms. Lake, who insisted on Tuesday that Ms. Lake was not referring to the territorial-era law in the interview. But in that 2022 appearance, Ms. Lake cited the 1864 law's number in the Arizona state code.
"I'm incredibly thrilled that we are going to have a great law that's already on the books. I believe it's ARS 13-3603," she said in a 2022 interview on "The Conservative Circus With James T. Harris." She made other remarks in support of the 1864 law during that campaign as well.
Now, however, she is trying to sing a brand-new tune:
Kari Lake, the leading Republican candidate for Senate in Arizona, was quick to denounce the state Supreme Court's ruling upholding an 1864 law banning nearly all abortions in the state. The law is "out of step with Arizonans," she said in a statement. She called on state lawmakers to "come up" with a "solution that Arizonans can support."
One sincerely hopes she didn't get whiplash, reversing course that quickly.
She's not the only one reconsidering her stance. Donald Trump, not exactly a paragon of consistency on any issue, is also now trying to have it both ways, after his announcement two days ago that he preferred to leave abortion laws up to the states. He was asked today whether he would sign a national abortion ban as president, and he replied "No," but (being Trump) it's hard to take him at his word on that one.
Trump expressed confidence that "it'll be straightened out," while stating he didn't agree with the Arizona court:
"Yeah, they did and I think it'll be straightened out and, as you know, it's all about state's rights and it will be straightened out," Trump said when asked if Arizona's ruling went too far. "And I'm sure the governor and everybody else have got to bring it back into reason and that it will be taken care of I think."
. . .
"Arizona is definitely going to change, everybody wants that to happen," Trump said after greeting supporters at the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
Trump also kinda-sorta predicted that the Florida ballot initiative which would enshrine abortion rights in Trump's home state will pass, although he didn't say whether he supported it or how he'd vote on it:
"Florida is probably going to maybe change also," Trump said. "It's the will of the people, that's all I've been saying. It's a perfect system. So for 52 years, people wanted to end Roe v Wade to get it back to the states. We did that. It was an incredible thing. And now the states have it and the states are putting out what they want. So Florida is probably going to change."
Trump's never been a staunch anti-abortion ideologue, of course. He's no Mike Pence, in other words. And Trump realized a lot sooner than most Republican politicians how damaging the whole abortion debate could ultimately be to the Republican Party. Which is what doubtlessly led to his new "hands off" approach to the issue: "Let the states do whatever they want, I don't care one way or the other," essentially.
The problem for Republicans (and to a lesser extent, Trump) is that not only are abortion rights very popular, but that support has been growing ever since Roe was overturned. The trend is in the wrong direction for the forced-birth side, as polling from Arizona shows:
An October New York Times-Siena College poll found that 59 percent of Arizona registered voters said abortion should be mostly or always legal; 34 percent said it should be mostly or always illegal. A March Fox News poll also found 39 percent of Arizona voters said abortion would be extremely important in deciding their vote for president, with another 32 percent saying it would be very important. Voters who supported Biden in 2020 were nearly twice as likely to say the issue would be extremely important in their vote, 51 percent to 27 percent.
About a decade ago, Republicans were ideologically trapped by a different issue that was rapidly losing popular support: banning gay marriage. But that situation resolved itself in a way that is virtually impossible right now, because a Supreme Court decision defused it for the Republican Party. Republicans went from using gay marriage as a wedge issue against Democrats to attempting to sound more reasonable on it to just washing their hands and refusing to talk about it -- all in an incredibly short period of time. What Republican today runs on banning gay marriage, after all?
But that was because they could shift all the blame onto the Supreme Court and throw up their hands in helplessness: "Well, what are we going to do? It's legal everywhere now, so let's just not talk about it any more." This worked for them, at the time, but such a conclusion simply isn't possible this time around.
This time, it was a Supreme Court decision which started the whole mess. And barring any unforeseen developments, the Supreme Court is going to stay conservative for a very long time, so they won't be overturning Dobbs any time soon. So Republicans are already at the point where they really would prefer to just run away from the abortion issue, but instead they have to deal with the reality of millions of women losing a right they had enjoyed for half a century.
If this flips large segments of Arizona's government Democratic, then Republicans are really not going to want to talk about abortion, heading into subsequent elections. If the Florida ballot measure passes -- a longshot, I always remind people, since it requires a 60-percent supermajority -- this will strike fear into Republicans even in deep-red states. Donald Trump is essentially correct -- this is a losing issue for Republicans, both in the short term and the long term. The most fervent of the forced-birth activists would truly like to see Arizona's territorial abortion ban become the law in every single state, and they refuse to confront the fact that this is increasingly unpopular with the voters. So far, Republican politicians are mostly held ideologically captive by these extremists, but that could begin to change if they suffer some major electoral defeats as a direct result.
If Joe Biden wins the presidency because he holds onto Arizona, then this is really going to sink in. Vice President Kamala Harris is already scheduled to make an appearance in Arizona this week, as she continues to show leadership on the issue. Democrats everywhere are going to try to tie Arizona's Draconian law to all of their Republican opponents, who are backed into a corner because they can't exactly be seen as advocating for loosening abortion restrictions.
So while it may not wind up being true nationwide, in Arizona the 2024 election is almost certainly going to be centered squarely on abortion rights. If Republicans suffer crippling losses as a result, it could change the entire tenor of the debate for years to come.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
It's interesting that in Arizona they apparently have no conception of a dead letter. I thought it was understood everywhere that a law that has not been enforced or regarded as current law for a century or even for many decades is not to be regarded as currently in force simply because it was never repealed. In other words, I'm surprised that the Arizona Supreme Court didn't think they were overstepping any legal bounds by hauling a law down from the attic, dusting it off a little, and declaring that it was good as new. If that's the way to go, then I challenge them to a duel on Boston Common next Sunday.
Yesterday, the Arizona supreme court dropped a bombshell into the political fray. It ruled that an abortion law first written in 1864 was still valid and constitutional and would soon go back into effect.
So let me get this straight. Around the time of Sherman's "March to the Sea" (after he burns down dang near half of Atlanta) this Howell Code frontier justice became Arizona Territory law and the Arizona Supreme Court is just fine with that 160 years later in 2024!? In Section 47 of this garbage, what we would today commonly refer to as "statutory rape" is defined: “carnal knowledge of any female child under the age of ten years, either with or without her consent.” So a 9-year-old child is off limits, but a 10-year-old can give you consent in Arizona in 1864... around 17 years before the gunfight at the O.K. Corral in Tombstone and about 48 years before the Arizona Supreme Court even came into existence.
Absolute nuts.
maybe it's the Illuminati beaming Jewish space lasers into their brains.
The Florida-Arizona one-two is not long for this world as both states have an abortion rights referendum on the ballot this November. Sixty percent is required in Florida and should Florida hit anything over 55% that may lead many voters (in Florida and elsewhere) to see the undemocratic nature of the GOP — that Republicans don’t want to represent they want to RULE.
You’re right, Elizabeth — my 5:11 Peter Zeihan links haven’t worked on this site. Let’s try it without the fancy stuff. Copy and paste it into your browser…
https://youtu.be/Rh4QU7hxKVg?
This link works, Elizabeth. I’d really like to hear what you think about his reasoning. He’s a Generalist in that he knows a lot about a lot and synthesized it together, and he travels the world giving Geopolitical lectures.
Trump also kinda-sorta predicted that the Florida ballot initiative which would enshrine abortion rights in Trump's home state will pass, although he didn't say whether he supported it or how he'd vote on it.
Probably because he exhibits "consciousness of guilt" and knows convicted felons cannot vote in Florida until they've met all the following criteria:
* Completed all prison or jail time.
* Completed all parole, probation, or other forms of supervision.
* Paid the total amount owed for all fines, fees, costs, and restitution ordered as part of the conviction.
Next time ask him if he could vote how he would vote. Heh. ;)
Caddy,
I'll take a look at it Caddy but, don't expect me to comment on it unless Chris writes something about the Ukraine war.
The Biden campaign didn't waste any time getting out an ad to address this issue:
*
"I will fight like hell to get your freedom back" is the perfect message, in my opinion. :)
Kick,
Biden's "I will fight like hell to get your freedom back" is the perfect message..."
We shall soon see how effective this message can be on its own and how many elections will be won on the force of it.
Elizabeth Miller
10
We shall soon see how effective this message can be on its own and how many elections will be won on the force of it.
"Soon" and "on its own"? Oh, I wish the election were soon, but the election is about seven (7) months away, and that's a long time in politics where all manner of things can happen, we both know. The Biden campaign has already put out other ads regarding the issue and are likely to put out a whole lot more so it's not exactly going to be running "on its own."
How many U.S. presidents have been able to honestly use the phrase: "I will fight like hell to get your freedom back" and have a genuine discussion about the other freedoms he won't allow to be taken away as long as he is your president? Rhetorical question. Because how many rights in America have been taken away from millions and millions of Americans in one fell swoop?
*thinking*
Prohibition: 1920 to 1933. A bunch of Protestant Christians et alia called the "temperance movement" decided alcohol was the devil's tool, and Congress eventually passed the Volstead Act (National Prohibition Act) despite it being vetoed by Woodrow Wilson (D). Medicinal alcohol that physicians deemed necessary, however, remained legal, with an allowable "prescription" being one pint of alcohol every 10 days. Religious leaders could obtain a permit to use alcohol for "sacramental" purposes, oh irony.
Anyway, fast forward (really fast), and Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) campaigned on ending that, and then won the presidency... four times . :)
Okay, I'm beginning to accept the tedious nature of this place, so let me re-phrase my [10] and see what you can do with it.
By the time we are watching the counting of the actual votes beginning on the evening of the 2024 presidential election this November we will see just how effective this message and countless others just like it or very similar to it, sticking to the usual line of messaging around abortion rights, will have been.
Go!
Heh.
I'm betting that [12] is still too imprecise for this crowd. Prove me wrong. :)
Elizabeth Miller
12
Okay, I'm beginning to accept the tedious nature of this place, so let me re-phrase my [10] and see what you can do with it.
I knew exactly what you meant and obviously in what reference as relates to your previous rant from another commentary. But November isn't "soon," and my point was that you cannot possibly know between now and then what future ads or debates/discussions will or will not contain, and that this 30-second commercial is but a single shot fired in a hail of metaphorical bullets on the way.
In other words: You're still on a rant about making the abortion issue about your aforementioned "sexual health of men and women in general" (your words) as if a 30-second commercial is going to actually be able to do that "on its own"... and we're about 7 months away from the election.
It's a targeted ad to Arizona voters, Elizabeth. It (obviously) isn't designed to carry the election on its own. I would think this is obvious and needed no explanation, but here we are.
You just can't stop yourself, can you? Sigh.
Let me know when you are able to act in a civil manner and until you can do so, please stop responding to comments that I make that are not directed your way.
Hope that's crystal clear. ;)
One more word(s) of advice for you ... as long as you obsess over "the sexual health of men and women" - and I think you are even missing the point here - to the exclusion of the rest of what I said, you will continue to miss the important point of what I am saying.
If you aren't comfortable discussing sexuality, in general, then maybe the discussion I would like to have here around the abortion and reproductive rights debate isn't for you, anyway.
Elizabeth Miller
15
You just can't stop yourself, can you? Sigh.
Nice try, Canada, but you posted in two (2) comment boxes asking for a response: "Go!" in comment box [12] and "prove me wrong" in comment box [13], and now you deign to feign "outrage" that you received one.
Well, isn't that special!?
Let me know when you are able to act in a civil manner and until you can do so, please stop responding to comments that I make that are not directed your way.
I can't stop laughing. Civil manner!? I think you have a very thin skin when other posters disagree with your comments. Let me know when you're ready for some actual "muscular debate" like you keep claiming to want.
In the meantime, I'll respond to whatever comments I so desire... particularly and especially when I am practically begged by the poster in multiple comment boxes to provide it.
Hope that's crystal clear. ;)
As I have reiterated many times, there hasn't been a single comment you've made on this forum that's been the least bit complicated. :)
Elizabeth Miller
16
One more word(s) of advice for you ... as long as you obsess over "the sexual health of men and women" - and I think you are even missing the point here - to the exclusion of the rest of what I said, you will continue to miss the important point of what I am saying.
I'm not missing any of your point(s), Elizabeth, and I don't/won't take it personal that you just cannot seem to shake the idea that anyone who posts a comment on the forum that disagrees with one of yours simply cannot understand you. Trust me; we understand you.
If you aren't comfortable discussing sexuality, in general, then maybe the discussion I would like to have here around the abortion and reproductive rights debate isn't for you, anyway.
*laughs* Incorrect. I'm perfectly comfortable discussing sexuality, in general, in English, and also in Latin. So where should we start: Colei, landica, culus, mentula, cunnus and/or culus? You choose. :)
[18]
Yo, Kick I’m pleased to find that I’m not the only one I’ve ever met that has an interest/fascination with Latin. Thanks!
Where do I begin besides agreeing with you that our Elizabeth “ain’t quite riiight…in her head” — gratuitous Braveheart quote. Ahem.
I'll take a look at it Caddy but, don't expect me to comment on it unless Chris writes something about the Ukraine war.
WTF? Why the fuck do you decline to realize that there aren’t any rules down here in Weigantia. I have read and reread “Comments Tips” and I missed the part where that was some “rule”. The only rule is “don’t be a dick” but [he, who shall not be named] stirred up endless comments by, er, pushing THAT edge. I hated his poison! This is why we rightfully give you shit for trying to be some Board Mother. Ain’t yer place, Gurl.
So don’t be a wuss, spend 311 seconds on this geopolitical assessment of “WHO caused the Russo-Ukrainian Escalation — NATO in general since the 90s? Biden in particular? Maybe even Putin? — and let’s discuss.
Elizabeth, are you okay? Respectfully, something appears different about you going back, what, half a year? I/we love you and I’m just a tetch** concerned aboutcha, that’s all.
***tetch is halfway between a “tad” and a “touch.” I like to coin new words e.g. boldify verb, to highlight critical words in bold
Caddy,
It's always been an unwritten rule. I thought you understood this. :)
That Peter Zeihan guy comes across as a very angry and controlling man who talks in simplistic terms. In fact, he sounds like the type of person who would want to impose his will on a woman and her reproductive rights because he is pro-life and then force her to have an abortion when he doesn't wish to take responsibility for his own desires.
I can see, though, where you're commenting spirit of late comes from. :)
I can see, though, where you're commenting spirit of late comes from. :)
Oh, Chris ... CHRIS!
How's that new edit function coming along?
Caddy, I can see now where you're coming from with your new commenting spirit! Ahem.
[20]
Good Lord! What has gotten into you, my Dear Elizabeth?
How in the world do you derive …angry and controlling?…would enforce his will on a woman? from his five minute summary of Putin’s motivation for starting eight/nine wars in this century? How do you think you can discern his personality and politics from this short video? There is no reason to believe that this guy is a forced birther type…because he has a brain.
This is pretty whacko stuff, respectfully, and you give me that Trumpanzie vibe of someone with limited knowledge of a situation but nevertheless passionately argues everything. One who sees a Godless Commie baby killer in every Democrat behind every bush.
Honey, the simplistic terms are precisely why this guy lectures all over the world to industry groups and financial entities. He is able to reach people on their level of understanding instead of being a boring technocrat.
For the record, you have again failed to reply to his summary, which definitely contradicts your view of the cause of Putin’s full scale escalation. You have once again ducked the material.
Watch the fucking video and tell Weigantia how he’s wrong and you’re right. Please.
Caddy,
Oh, I don't doubt for a minute that he is able to reach a multitude of people at their level of understanding. He is very much like Trump in that regard.
I love the way he talks about all of the countries that have joined NATO since the fall of the Soviet Union as being the same.
And, he is quite right, as far as he goes, when he talks about the process for NATO membership. In fact, he is so right about it that Ukraine really, at this point in time, has little chance of ever becoming accepted into the NATO fold.
Let me be clear about one thing ... there is really only one person and one country to blame for the invasion of Ukraine and we both agree who that is and what country they lead.
Do you have a video to share where he explains how this war is progressing and how it will end. I'm sure he has a view on it ...