The high court of Arizona has affirmed a prohibition on nearly all abortions, based on a law that’s been in place for 160 years. This dramatic measure has been taken in a pivotal swing state, where election results could determine the next occupant of the White House come November.
On Tuesday, the state Supreme Court declared that the 1864 legislation that makes all abortions unlawful, save for those performed to preserve the life of the woman, is now valid. There are no exceptions incorporated in the law for the physical wellbeing of a woman, or for circumstances of rape and incest. Providers violating this rule could face a maximum of five years imprisonment.
The Court justices stated unequivocally in their ruling, that won by a 4-2 vote, that all abortions are illegal unless they are critical to saving a woman’s life. This resurrects a law written before Arizona achieved statehood and when women were yet to earn their right to vote. Earlier, Arizona had outlawed abortions carried out after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
Ever since the US Supreme Court repealed the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, which had established a constitutional right to an abortion, the subject of abortion rights has sparked immense controversy in American politics. Some states have enacted laws strictly forbidding abortions, with a few minor exceptions, after a woman is six weeks pregnant, a time when many are unaware of their pregnancies.
Arizona is a fiercely contested electoral state, where outcomes in November’s election could tilt in any direction. In the 2020 election, Joe Biden managed to trump Donald Trump by a slight edge of fewer than 11,000 votes. A recent Wall Street Journal poll revealed Mr Trump, the likely Republican nominee, enjoying a five-point lead over Mr Biden in Arizona, well beyond the margin of error.
On Monday, Mr Trump stated that decisions regarding abortion regulations should be the prerogative of individual states, not the federal government. But he refrained from commenting on the Tuesday ruling.
In stark contrast, Joe Biden has placed reproductive rights at the heart of his campaign, and termed the Arizona ruling as the manifestation of the extreme agenda of Republican officials committed to curbing women’s freedom.
Kris Mayes, the Democratic Attorney General of Arizona, indicated that she might attempt to halt prosecutions under the antiquated 19th-century law, labelling it ‘draconian’.
The possibility of Arizona voters overturning a ruling might be within reach as the alliance of pro-choice groups, ‘Arizona for Abortion Access’, revealed they had accumulated sufficient signatures to introduce a constitutional amendment to the November state ballot. This amendment would guarantee abortion availability until roughly 24 weeks into a pregnancy. This reflects the findings of a 2022 PRRI survey which indicated almost two-thirds of Arizonans believed abortion should mostly or always be legal.
A slew of other states might have an abortion referendum on their ballots this year. Notably, Florida’s supreme court gave the green light to an abortion referendum last week, set to take place in November. The voters will decide on whether to embed the right to access this medical procedure until it is deemed viable, into their state’s constitution.
Democrats critiqued Republicans for advocating for radical abortion regulations, citing these hardline policies as a reason for the Republicans not performing as expected in the 2022 mid-terms. Trump’s comments on Monday appeared to be a strategy to moderate the party’s stance, particularly as he stopped short of supporting a nationwide abortion prohibition, an action many pro-life groups have been campaigning for.
Ruben Gallego, a Democratic US Senate candidate in Arizona, accused his Republican rival, Kari Lake, and other “hardline politicians” of “inserting themselves into medical appointments and taking away a woman’s right to make healthcare decisions independently”. Lake refuted the judgement, aligning herself fully with Trump’s belief that abortion is a “highly personal matter that should be decided by each individual state and its citizens”. –Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2024