Arizona Republicans have finally, on the third try, decided that maybe it’s not necessary to drag women’s rights back more than a century and a half. Meanwhile, at the Supreme Court, the plight of women subjected to harm by anti-choice legislation seems to be breaking through.
Earlier this month the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed that yes, an 1864 law banning abortion in every case except to save the life of the mother could be enforced. That took women’s rights back to a time when there were no ultrasounds to find fetal anomalies, no DNA testing to identify a rapist, and many of the tests, treatments, and medications that make pregnancy (and ending pregnancy) safer today were not yet available.
The state’s legislature has tried and failed twice to repeal the restrictive law, with Republicans aiming for other offices and hopeful for the votes of Arizona women — including Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Senate candidate Kari Lake — urging them to do so quickly. On a third try, the House of Representatives finally had success. CBS reports:
“The state Senate is set to consider the law on May 1. The 1864 law is set to go into effect on June 8, and it would supersede what had been the current 15-week abortion ban. Two Republicans joined all the Democrats overrule GOP House Speaker Ben Toma, who twice previously blocked the bill from moving forward.”
Republicans hold a narrow majority in the Arizona Senate, with 16 of the 30 seats. For the draconian restrictions to be withdrawn, at least a few of them will need to join Democrats in the 21st century.
If the bill passes the state Senate, Governor Katie Hobbs will likely sign it into law quickly, so as long as Republicans are willing, the 1864 ban could be repealed before it ever goes into effect.
There are signs that at least one conservative on the Supreme Court is beginning to hear the damage that abortion bans can do, too. On Wednesday, SCOTUS heard arguments over an Iowa law banning most abortions after 6 weeks of gestation, so early that many women don’t even yet know they’re pregnant.
The law carves out an exception for emergencies, but the definition of emergency is vague, and Justices heard a story of a woman who received an abortion at 27 weeks after being denied one earlier. The delay cost the patient her reproductive health.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett is the Justice whose conservative views on religion and human rights are so intertwined that she’s been referred to by a variety of names stemming from the show A Handmaid’s Tale, a dystopian story about a world in which women are property and their reproduction is controlled by the government.
Even Barrett had a moment today in which she seemed surprised to learn that the “exceptions” in legislation can still leave women in danger. She said:
“I’m kinda shocked, actually, because I thought your own expert had said that these kinds of cases were covered, and you’re now saying they’re not?…Some doctors might reach a contrary conclusion, I think is what Justice Sotomayor is asking you.”
SCOTUS Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett press Idaho’s counsel over how much latitude state law gives doctors to perform emergency abortions:
Josh Turner: “It is very case by case.”
Sotomayor: “That’s the problem.”
Barrett: “I’m kind of shocked.” pic.twitter.com/mVooj2sHoR
— The Recount (@therecount) April 24, 2024
That exchange doesn’t mean that Barrett — or the rest of the Supreme Court — has reached a decision on emergency abortion care. They seemed to stay divided along partisan lines throughout questioning, according to the Iowa Capitol Dispatch, and are expected to issue a ruling before the end of their current term in June.
Despite these rare moments of clarity, abortion rights are unlikely, on a larger scale, to be handed back by conservatives uncontested. They’ll have to be hard-fought, all over again, just like our grandmothers already did.
For clarifications, comments, & typos, email: editor@occupydemocrats.com.
