The state’s highest court said the law, moribund for decades under Roe v. Wade, was now enforceable, but put the decision on hold for a lower court to hear other challenges to the law.

Arizona’s highest court on Tuesday upheld an 1864 law that bans nearly all abortions, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for women’s health care and election-year politics in a critical battleground state. The 1864 law, the court said in a 4-2 decision, “is now enforceable.” But the court put its ruling on hold for the moment, and sent the matter back to a lower court to hear additional arguments about the law’s constitutionality. The Arizona Supreme Court said that because the federal right to abortion in Roe v. Wade had been overturned, there was no federal or state law preventing Arizona from enforcing the near-total ban on abortions, which had sat dormant for decades.

The ruling could prompt clinics in Arizona to stop providing abortions and women to travel to nearby states like California, New Mexico or Colorado to end their pregnancies. Until now the procedure has been legal in Arizona through 15 weeks of pregnancy.

The ruling concerned a law that was on the books long before Arizona achieved statehood. It outlaws abortion from the moment of conception, except when necessary to save the life of the mother, and it makes no exceptions for rape or incest. Doctors prosecuted under the law could face fines and prison terms of two to five years.

  • Baron Von J
    32•7 months ago

    The ruling concerned a law that was on the books long before Arizona achieved statehood.

    What the shit?! Seriously how is it not automatic the these laws are removed from legal code when a court ruling deems it unconstitutional?

    • @AdamEatsAss
      5•7 months ago

      I believe if a state and federal law contradict each other the federal law wins. But the state law does not have to be reversed, even though it is meaningless. It’s pretty stupid but just means if the federal law is ever changed your state law is already in place. Now this law was written before Arizona was a member of the USA so I have no idea if unconstitutional laws had to be removed or not before joining the union. The supreme Court of Arizona pretty much said “this is what we think it is, but until there is a court case we don’t know.”

      • Baron Von J
        14•7 months ago

        It’s just a perfect example of why Roe should have been codified. and Lawrence and Obergfell and all the other ones Thomass wants to revisit, so all those unconstitutional laws left in place in regressive states can suddenly come back in effect.

      • @grueEnglish
        6•7 months ago

        Now this law was written before Arizona was a member of the USA

        “Not a state” and “not a member of the USA” are two different things. It sounds to me like the law is from when Arizona was a US Territory, not when it was still owned by Spain or Mexico.

        • @AdamEatsAss
          0•7 months ago

          Interesting. I have no idea what that changes.

  • @[email protected]
    11•7 months ago

    cut to interior of a medical practice in the Victorian Era. A doctor covered in blood saws off a leg amidst blood curdling screams

    Blood splattered Nurse: " Doctor, why are you performing an amputation? It’s just a simple ankle sprain!"

    Doctor:

    " This is the state of medicine now! With the implemented laws from the 1800s i have to follow the Republican laws or risk jail! This is what we have to work with here.!"

    gestures to crude instruments spattered in blood and gore

    Doctor:

    “And don’t get me started on womens heathcare!”

    cut to a silent graveyard filled with 100s of fresh graves

    See? The attack ads write themselves!

  • Optional
    5•7 months ago

    But the court put its ruling on hold for the moment, and sent the matter back to a lower court to hear additional arguments about the law’s constitutionality.

      • State Supreme Court sends the case back down to decide its constitutionality. Pffft. Jerk-offs. –

    So i have been edumacated that a lower, trial, court is required because the state supreme court needs a record created, and they . . . don’t do that. So. They’re apparently not jerk-offs for that.