• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Roe v Wade overturned - this is some BS part II

acbytesla said:
I know. That said, there was obvious intent in the new law.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe a bunch of pro-life legislators put forward a bill that allowed abortions for the first 15 weeks? According to the sponsor, and the bill itself, that's a no:

The bill to create a 15-week ban did not include language overturning the old law. Former Sen. Nancy Barto, who sponsored the 2022 bill, said that was intentional. In fact, she pointed to a legislative intent clause in the bill that explicitly affirms the validity of the 1864 ban.

That clause said the new law did not “repeal, by implication or otherwise, [the old law], or any other applicable state law regulating or restricting abortion.”
Click to expand...

A few of the judges "discovered" the intent to repeal hidden somewhere, but this appears to be confirmation bias at best and pretension at worst.

That article goes on to note that the (few) Republican legislators upset about the ruling are in competitive races. It will be interesting to see if there are enough of those Republicans to form a majority with the Democrats to get the old law repealed. Long-term, the ballot initiative should settle the matter, and in the meanwhile, the (Democrat) Attorney General has pledged not to prosecute.

The purpose of the 2022 law was to set up a test case for the Supreme Court, not to legalize abortion for the first 15 weeks of a pregnancy.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
That article goes on to note that the (few) Republican legislators upset about the ruling are in competitive races.
Click to expand...

Ah. That's why they're saying they're upset. If they win their races then suddenly they'll be just okay with the law as is, will of the people, Jesus, conscience, etc etc.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Ah. That's why they're saying they're upset. If they win their races then suddenly they'll be just okay with the law as is, will of the people, Jesus, conscience, etc etc.
Click to expand...

Quite a few Arizona Republicans are facing a fate worse than death: losing an election. They've earned it. Professing pro-life beliefs for a Republican was easy under Roe, because a) it didn't matter a hill of beans, and b) all the passion was on that side. They have sown the wind, now they must reap the whirlwind.
 
I expect the Arizona initiative which effectively would bring back the rules of Roe v Wade to be on the ballot in Arizona come November. It is currently gathering signatures.
 
acbytesla said:
I expect the Arizona initiative which effectively would bring back the rules of Roe v Wade to be on the ballot in Arizona come November. It is currently gathering signatures.
Click to expand...

It's actually more liberal than Roe. Viability (about 24 weeks) and for physical or mental health of the mother.

They currently have over 500K signatures, and need about 380K. I believe they will be collecting them until July.
 
The Atheist said:
What are the odds?

The Supreme Court Is About To Debate Whether States Can Outlaw Life-Saving Abortions
Click to expand...

Among Idaho's abortion ban: "The law also has a fetal non-viability provision, meaning that even if a fetus dies in utero, the pregnancy must still be carried to term unless doing so would also kill the mother."
"Idaho’s law is so narrow that it only allows physicians to perform an abortion when death is imminent. Those added delays could leave patients with long-term health conditions such as uterine hemorrhage (requiring a hysterectomy) or kidney failure that requires lifelong dialysis — if the procedure is performed in time to save their lives in the first place."

Well, Ms. Smith, the bad news is that your 5 month fetus is dead. But, the good news is that you get to carry it for four more months while it slowly rots inside of you. Hopefully, you won't get sepsis, but if you do and are at death's door, we'll go ahead and allow an abortion. No one can ever say we don't care about a woman'shealth life.

What the hell is wrong with these people?
 
Stacyhs said:
What the hell is wrong with these people?
Click to expand...

Hey, sometimes when you're "pro-life" you have to destroy some lives in the process.

I'm not sure how a policy that will, not might, will kill and harm women, making some infertile, is conducive to "life," but I'm not privy to their deeper understanding of what God wants.
 
slyjoe said:
It's actually more liberal than Roe. Viability (about 24 weeks) and for physical or mental health of the mother.

They currently have over 500K signatures, and need about 380K. I believe they will be collecting them until July.
Click to expand...

IIRC, Roe allowed abortions in the first two trimesters and in the third if it endangered the life of the woman.
 
smartcooky said:
https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/arizona-1864-abortion-ban-repeal-senate-rcna150214

The vote was 16 - 14 with two Republicans crossing the floor to vote with Democrats.

Governor Katie Hobbs will sign it.
Click to expand...

Excellent. It's disgusting that 14 Republicans would vote to keep a law punishing those who would provide safe abortions to impregnated children, victims of rape or incest, or even carrying a dead or unviable fetus. But such is the state of the extremist GOP today.

Thank goodness for the Democrats and those two Republicans.

The 1864 law:

"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."
 
Stacyhs said:
Excellent. It's disgusting that 14 Republicans would vote to keep a law punishing those who would provide safe abortions to impregnated children, victims of rape or incest, or even carrying a dead or unviable fetus. But such is the state of the extremist GOP today.

Thank goodness for the Democrats and those two Republicans.

The 1864 law:

"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."
Click to expand...

There is about a month between the time the 1800s abortion ban becomes law again and when the new law legalizing abortion takes affect. How are they going to deal with that?
 
acbytesla said:
There is about a month between the time the 1800s abortion ban becomes law again and when the new law legalizing abortion takes affect. How are they going to deal with that?
Click to expand...

To me it would make sense to drag heels so that no prosecutions are brought in that narrow time window.

I fear however that activist prosecutors and judges will seek to make use of their limited time to make some high profile examples.
 
acbytesla said:
There is about a month between the time the 1800s abortion ban becomes law again and when the new law legalizing abortion takes affect. How are they going to deal with that?
Click to expand...

The AZ AG Kris Mayes is asking the AZ Supreme court for a 90 day delay. Not sure what the rationale is, but since 2 of the 4 jurists that said the 1864 law was just fine are up for "retainment" on the ballot, the pundits around here think they will grant the delay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom