111
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by TheDudeV2@lemmy.ca to c/politics@lemmy.world

CNN —

In a historic decision Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled the state must adhere to a 123-year-old penal code provision barring all abortions except in cases when “it is necessary to save” a pregnant person’s life.

The law, which can be traced to as early as 1864, also carried a prison sentence of two to five years for abortion providers.

The case is the latest high-profile example of the battle over abortion access that has played out across several states since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the US Supreme Court in 2022. Since that decision, nearly two dozen states have banned or limited access to the procedure. Providers have warned that restrictive policies on abortion access place patients at risk of poor health outcomes and doctors at risk of legal liability.

In a notice Monday, the Arizona court indicated it will file an opinion in Planned Parenthood of Arizona vs. Mayes/Hazelrigg at approximately 10 a.m. PT Tuesday.

Justices heard opening arguments in the case last December, when abortion rights opponents claimed the state should revert to the 1901 ban, and advocates asked the court to affirm the 2022 law allowing abortions up to 15 weeks, CNN previously reported.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 74 points 8 months ago

This. This is why Biden must win in November, and Democrats must win up and down ballot. The alternative is the rapid erosion of decades of hard-fought progress on human rights.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 21 points 8 months ago

And for the spoilers: this comment is not an endorsement of Biden. It's a denouncement of trump.

[-] stanleytweedle@lemmy.world 42 points 8 months ago

Weird you never hear the right barking about 'activist judges' when they're getting their way.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

The irony being that the con judges are more activist than any other group. They somehow arrived at the conclusion that corporations are people, money is speech, women have no right to privacy, and so on...

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 30 points 8 months ago

My grandmother marched for a lot of these rights. All wasted now. I'm fed up. These are human rights. We should be riotting right now.

[-] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 4 points 8 months ago

What is stopping you from making an event or researching how best to do this in 2024

[-] BakerBagel@midwest.social 11 points 8 months ago

I have to work two jobs just to cover my rent.

[-] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

A very good point for some, instead of organizing, perhaps participating one day that you have off?

This is also why it’s important for those who aren’t necessarily directly impacted by the problem being protested to still show up and to show your support. Not everybody can make it out

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

My friend, this is part of the research.

[-] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

What? I’m not following what you mean here

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 26 points 8 months ago

The Arizona legislature and Trump are going to get hammered by this. The Arizona Supreme Court is seven Republicans and zero Democrats

[-] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

They sure are. This will help Biden and Gallego in November, both critical races. Unfortunately the GOP is going to hurt a lot of people with bullshit like this in the meantime.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

The GOP is trying to take down as many people with them as possible, but be sure, they are going down. Republicans may have just handed Democrats Arizona for the foreseeable future.

this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
111 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19233 readers
2509 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS