Right. A law that was enacted a half-century before Arizona became a state, when the primary occupations of Arizonans were cowboy, gambler, gunfighter and whore, is given credence?
Republicans, who formerly praised the law, are now running from it. Because they know that, other than the batshit-crazy Christian Talibanistas, a majority of voters favor keeping abortion legal. Even the looniest person in Arizona politics can read the signs.
In a sign of Republicans’ political bind, even Kari Lake, a staunch Trump ally and abortion opponent who is running for Senate in Arizona, said the total abortion ban “is out of step with Arizonans.” It’s a shift from two years ago when Lake praised the 1864 law.
Yeah, because now, Ms. QAnon has seen that a majority of people don't like her party's position and, in an election where it is on the ballot, will turn out. Which may happen in Florida and Arizona, among other states.
Apparently women are just property. It certainly seems that way.
ReplyDeleteIs it coincidence that most all of the abortion ban states are
also former slave states?
Guess if you can't buy and sell people you just revert back to
the civil war for a redo.
As to the bunch of rethugs... just another flip and lie.
Eck!
Previous governor expanded the court, adding two more judges. The ruling would’ve been 2–2 otherwise. Two of the judges which ruled in favor are on the ballot in November. Don’t expect them to return to their positions. The GOP dog finally caught the car, and doesn’t like the way the bumper tastes. Waiting for the usual suspects to say why it’s bad news for Biden.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I am being too hopeful but I see this as a wake-up call for women in the country. The ones that held back so far from making a statement thinking they could get away without. Dobbs was bad but now it's getting close. With an 1864 law of all things. I see a chance here for a GOP erasure at the ballot box. I hope this happens at least. What else will it take for the quiet voters to sound off?
ReplyDeleteOn another point. Am I wrong in thinking this push to legislate women's health began with the Terry Schiavo incident?
w3ski
The conservatives of the rad right seem to have confused
ReplyDeleteroles and rights.
Lets keep in mind 1864 is before the end of the civil war.
The key word would be property. To me that makes being a
women under the control of the state as property.
When do they deny the right to vote for women as they
might vote to recover their rights? They can't have that.
While it should be a womens rights wake up call,
too many have invested in hypocritical rad-religion
view of their role and surrender their rights as a
result.
We can hope.
Eck!
Well, yes. In 1864, married women were regarded as the property of the husband in parts of the country. I don’t know what the rule was in Arizona at the time.
ReplyDeleteIt predates statehood.
ReplyDeleteThen again most states or federal laws didn't allow women
to vote for another 55 years.
Womens status was in the mid to latter 1800s was:
They could not own property,
They could not enter into contracts,
They could not vote,
they had no legal rights to their children,
they were discouraged from working outside the home.
The list if far bigger than that. Pregnant out
of wedlock or raped (not by husband) could end
as a criminal case. Where the active religion
of the day was invoked it could be worse.
Even if you had social status and rich family
the above largely applied.
Ah, the good old days... >sarc<
Thankfully there were many that didn't comply.
Eck!
Well, we can hope that this puts Arizona firmly in the Biden column come November. Meanwhile, the women there, and in Texas, get to live in a Margaret Atwood novel.
ReplyDelete-Doug in Sugar Pine
Since the territory of Arizona was on the Confederate side in 1864 then all laws passed before or during their traitorous acts against the U.S. should be null and void.
ReplyDeleteDan, excellent point.
ReplyDeleteDriftglass featured this post on Mike's Blog Round Up at Crooks and Liars.
ReplyDelete-Doug in Sugar Pine