AZ now bans abortion based on dormant 160-year old law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who knows the law better than me explain how an 1864 law has standing in Arizona? Arizona wasn't even a state until 1912. Arizona's Constitution dates to 1910. Arizona Territory was technically an entity separate from the state of Arizona, how is there still jurisdiction of Territory law? With this ruling, couldn't one then also argue that earlier Spanish Colonial laws are still in effect in Arizona, or that Navajo, Hopi or Apache laws predating Westerners are still in effect in Arizona?

I like you! These are great questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who knows the law better than me explain how an 1864 law has standing in Arizona? Arizona wasn't even a state until 1912. Arizona's Constitution dates to 1910. Arizona Territory was technically an entity separate from the state of Arizona, how is there still jurisdiction of Territory law? With this ruling, couldn't one then also argue that earlier Spanish Colonial laws are still in effect in Arizona, or that Navajo, Hopi or Apache laws predating Westerners are still in effect in Arizona?

It was a Confederate Territory in 1864 FFS.

Existing laws were probably maintained as a part of the process for admitting Arizona as a state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who knows the law better than me explain how an 1864 law has standing in Arizona? Arizona wasn't even a state until 1912. Arizona's Constitution dates to 1910. Arizona Territory was technically an entity separate from the state of Arizona, how is there still jurisdiction of Territory law? With this ruling, couldn't one then also argue that earlier Spanish Colonial laws are still in effect in Arizona, or that Navajo, Hopi or Apache laws predating Westerners are still in effect in Arizona?

It was a Confederate Territory in 1864 FFS.

I thought the Union had recaptured Arizona by 1864 but if it were part of the confederacy when the law was passed that would be yet another similar wrinkle as the CSA was essentially a foreign country.

[Anonymous]

It’s comical that pro-life folks in their zeal to implement a theocracy are seeing the opposite with all the ballot initiatives or backtracking from fellow republicans. Obviously, this law from 1864 won’t last. Do you people even read the news? Have you seen all the ballot initiative outcomes?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Life of the mother is an exception

And if you’re a doctor and someone disagrees with your call on “life of the mother,” you get at least two years in jail. So you wait until it is so bad no one can argue the point. At which point, she might still die, and have permanent injuries and/or be infertile as a result. Because extreme impairment of a mother’s health and fertility are not allowed. You go to jail for these. You want to be an MD in AZ making this call? Of course not. This is why OB-Gyns are fleeing red states.

Exactly. Why don't people understand this?!?

[Anonymous]

Oh hey look it’s the guy who appointed five of the seven Supreme Court Justices who made this ruling, with his mouth full of car bumper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh hey look it’s the guy who appointed five of the seven Supreme Court Justices who made this ruling, with his mouth full of car bumper.

These folks are shtting in their pants worrying about their elections lol. You got want you wanted! Are you not amused!??? Are you not amused???!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No one is voting for policy when they vote MAGA. It’s all about vibes and owning the libs. FWIW I don’t think she can pull it off like Trump can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Life of the mother is an exception

And if you’re a doctor and someone disagrees with your call on “life of the mother,” you get at least two years in jail. So you wait until it is so bad no one can argue the point. At which point, she might still die, and have permanent injuries and/or be infertile as a result. Because extreme impairment of a mother’s health and fertility are not allowed. You go to jail for these. You want to be an MD in AZ making this call? Of course not. This is why OB-Gyns are fleeing red states.

Exactly. Why don't people understand this?!?

Willful ignorance coupled with the fact that too many Americans has no idea how the human body reproduces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Life of the mother is an exception

Sure but MDs have to protect themselves and hospitals are going to want to consult with a lawyer first. Women will die. Women with other living children relying on them.

OBGYNs already have the most expensive malpractice insurance. It’s going to be hard to find a doctor for all pregnant women.

This is the likeliest outcome when you place criminal liability on someone's profession in addition to the usual malpractice liability. You can be in trouble regardless what you decided to do, there is this risk. You can be cautious and allow abortion under the "life in danger" premise only to find yourself facing potential criminal charges. Or you can be cautious to avoid potential criminal charges and say no to abortion, patient gets hurt and sues you for malpractice anyway. It's why OBGYNs who aren't hard core anti-abortion themselves will start leaving. This will hurt women of all ages (incl. menopausal) and can also lead to the increase in childbirth mortality and complications.

[Anonymous]

More delicious car bumper from this GOP Congressman in an eminently flippable district. We can’t let these aholes get away with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More delicious car bumper from this GOP Congressman in an eminently flippable district. We can’t let these aholes get away with this.

Well. It’s a bit late now.

But just consider how many lives will be ruined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Life of the mother is an exception

Sure but MDs have to protect themselves and hospitals are going to want to consult with a lawyer first. Women will die. Women with other living children relying on them.

OBGYNs already have the most expensive malpractice insurance. It’s going to be hard to find a doctor for all pregnant women.

This is the likeliest outcome when you place criminal liability on someone's profession in addition to the usual malpractice liability. You can be in trouble regardless what you decided to do, there is this risk. You can be cautious and allow abortion under the "life in danger" premise only to find yourself facing potential criminal charges. Or you can be cautious to avoid potential criminal charges and say no to abortion, patient gets hurt and sues you for malpractice anyway. It's why OBGYNs who aren't hard core anti-abortion themselves will start leaving. This will hurt women of all ages (incl. menopausal) and can also lead to the increase in childbirth mortality and complications.

Arizona will lose not only OB/GYNs, but also physicians from other specialities who want high quality OB/GYN care for themselves and their families. And we know there won’t be OB/GYNs in Arizona…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh hey look it’s the guy who appointed five of the seven Supreme Court Justices who made this ruling, with his mouth full of car bumper.

These folks are shtting in their pants worrying about their elections lol. You got want you wanted! Are you not amused!??? Are you not amused???!!!

Keep in mind that the legislature could have rescinded the 1864 law when they passed the 15-week ban and explicitly chose not it when you see actual Arizona Republicans shaking their heads at this totally foreseeable outcome.