Ruling in Arizona puts abortion at the center of 2024 elections

I’m honestly shocked no republican made it a big part of the primary. Where are the Rich Santorums at? The so called liberal media really dropped the ball not pushing them to take positions on it.

 

And some of those 1864 legislators were freaking pedophiles!

Meet the ‘pursuer of nubile young females’ who helped pass Arizona’s 1864 abortion law
The Arizona Supreme Court has decided the law is still relevant. So let’s talk about the guy who led the body that passed it.

snip~

The time has come to reflect on the life and times — especially the times — of William Claude Jones.

Jones was a “prevaricator, a poet, a politician and the pursuer of nubile young females,” according to a 1990 article published in the Journal of Arizona History, which appears to be the most comprehensive biographical report published on the life of the 19th-century rogue.

His pursuit of such nubility began with a marriage to Sarah Freeman, who bore him two children in the 1840s, when Jones would have been in his 20s or early 30s. He was a sitting member of the Missouri state legislature at the time, but his family followed him to Arkansas and then Texas as he searched for more prominent government appointments. In 1854, President Franklin Pierce eventually named him U.S. attorney for the New Mexico territory, and it was hereabout that Jones’s first wife filed for divorce.

His next wife was a girl whose name was believed to be Maria v. del Refugio, writes L. Boyd Finch, the author of the journal article. New Mexico’s delegate to Washington, Miguel Otero, was bothered by the union. He “declared that the bride was twelve years old,” Finch writes, “and that Jones had ‘abducted’ her.” Otero petitioned President James Buchanan to fire Jones for the moral failing, but Jones resigned instead.

No matter! The mid-19th century was, by any standard you or I would recognize, a hideous place for women. The predatory relationship did not end Jones’s political career; he merely moved farther west, to the Arizona territory. There, Jones supported secession from the Southern states in the impending Civil War. He also landed upon his third wife, Caroline Stephens, who was 15 years old. Claude, by this time, was around 50.
​

 

absolutely SPOT ON!!! As he is planning in winning the election. he won't have to deal with this prickly subject ,if the states are granted that responsibility. Given the nature of the man.... one is ill advised to look to him for any ideas on this sensitive subject. He will sway with the direction that benefits him the most. Not sure he actually cares about the issue at all. Not sure that any politician should be deciding this issue. It belongs in the realm of the medical/ legal segment.

 

Absolutely !!

 

In other words he was a sick twisted Paedophile who was a serial abuser and controller of women

 

(((Sigh))) Trouble is TD that every legislation across the planet that has a caveat for “life and health” ends up with an unworkable and useless piece of legislation. Happened here. There is no sodding way you can predict EVERY possible health impact that would allow abortion and where do you draw the line for health impacts? Plus it is too easy for someone to fudge those issues. Hyperemisis? (Throwing up your toenails). Not uncommon and can be life threatening so - take the woman’s word for it? Peri natal depression? Take the woman’s word for it? If you have a “health clause” you effectively do not have any legislation and the rabid so called “pro-lifers” know it

 

There are two options: leave it to the states, or get a constitutional amendment. Like typical democrat legal think, they tried to stretch a case to make the constitution fit it. It worked with the posers.
It is pretty simple in spite of the bloviating.

 

I cannot see a rational argument for banning abortion prior to obvious viability. and there is no rational reason for banning abortions in the case of rape, incest etc

 

Because there isn't one. The operative word is "rational".

This sensitive issue is between the patient, her medical advisor, her partner (if relevant) and the law. It should never be a political issue as the result is just what has happened. Mixed messages, confusion, unpredictability, & uncertainty. The abortion issue is not a happy situation for anyone and should be handled with maximum professionalism and sensitivity.. An abortion can be a traumatic event.

 

I agree it should simply be a medical decision. But a legal one? Who do you think writes our laws if not politicians?

 

There is if one really thinks life begins at conception.

 

Of course. Good point.

 

I don't think it'll have any effect on the presidential election I mean what Arizona does has nothing to do with the president.

 

I don't think Trump had anything to do with it/ He has supported every imaginable position on abortion, so he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Abortion bans is what socially conservative people have always wanted, - apparently for at least 160 years. Florida put it on the ballot for people to decide, which I think is the right thing to do. Any issue can be put on the ballot when you gather 800 000 signatures and pro-choice people had way more than that to force it on the ballot, and same is true with pro-pot crowd.

When they start digging, they will find a whole slew of weird laws from 160 yrs ago.

 

I got no issue with that. Before the overturning, it was roughly 20 wks, and I'm good with that. I can deeper into this issue, with the notion another option is needed to help resolve this.

 

No, the operative word is "political". It is a great wedge issue.
Apparently female and male(?) democrats want abortion over public safety, taxes, the economy, WW3, and like in California, using it to reduce the need for more prisons.

 

true but what I tell those types-if they really believe it violates "God's law" then why worry, God will punish the abortionists.

 

That would be a fine idea, having birth control pills more available would take time.

 

If that's what you say, so be it. Maybe Trump did and maybe he didn't. We'll find out sooner or later.

 

And in the meantime we need some rational rules regarding this issue that blew up with the over turn of R/W...... and now were are dealing with the aftershocks. ( In the REAL world that we live in where things are seldom black and white , and some issues are personal ....between a lady and her medical advisors. ) In fact this is no one's business except those that have to make this challenging decision. ( for medical or psychiatric reasons)

 

Good for you. Wait until the FACTS are confirmed.

 

I generally agree but I also believe that at some point, the government has a valid interest in preserving the life of the fetus.

 

Well if nothing else it's going to be an interesting test of Trump's authority over the GOP at State level. It's going to be an arm wrestle between the those who want Trump win their State in the next election and the local, ardent anti abortion membership. If I had to guess? The easiest solution would for all concerned would be to just have Arizona amend the legislation to be more generous in terms of when an abortion is permitted.

Then as soon as the election is over? Change it right back again. Problem solved. Trump won't give a dam one way or the other about reproductive rights once he's in.

 

And that right there is the rub. They are trying to redefine life beginning in utero. It's an issue of personhood based on religious beliefs, even though it is contrary to how humans have historically defined personhood.