National attention, correctly, focused on the Arizona Supreme Court's decision to enforce an 1864 law banning abortions in the state. Most of that attention has focused on the potential political fallout of the decision.
That makes some sense, as Arizona is considered one of the critical “swing states” in this November's presidential election. And if that managed to elude anyone, national Republicans called on the Arizona Legislature to modify the territorial-era law to something less draconian…even dare I say it… a change allowing women to have a choice. As GOP Senate candidate Kari Lake said:
“I chose life, but I'm not every woman. I want to make sure that every woman who finds herself pregnant has more choices so that she can make that choice that I made,” she said.
We'll see how that plays out….particularly as the Arizona Legislature seems to be in no great hurry to do anything on the matter right now. As state Rep. Teresa Martinez said:
“We do not want to repeal the pre-Roe law without first having a conversation about it,” she said in a floor speech. “There is no reason to rush on this very important topic. We must listen to all viewpoints thoroughly. We cannot do that when our colleagues are acting in the way they did this morning.”
Okay…but to be fair, when any politician says they want more discussion to hear all sides of important issues, they are usually just stalling for time as they search for political cover.
But let's set our cynicism about politicians for a moment and take the idea of discussion at face value. The New York Times has a fascinating piece on the context that surrounded the adoption of the 1864 law – and the “moralistic streak” that helped make it possible.
And while the Arizona worthies are having a discussion, perhaps they may wish to include a story brewing in Indiana. There, state courts have ruled that there is a religious exemption to Indiana's stringent abortion law. The reasoning: different faiths have different beliefs about when life begins. A law using an explicitly conservative Christian view of when life beings to craft an abortion law violates another state law – the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
As Religion News Service's Mark Silk noted, one appeals court judge was clear that one sect cannot dictate policy for all:
…Judge L. Mark Bailey put it bluntly in a short concurrence:
Legislators, an overwhelming majority of whom have not experienced childbirth, nevertheless dictate that virtually all pregnancies in this State must proceed to birth notwithstanding the onerous burden upon women and girls. They have done so not based upon science or viability but upon a blanket assertion that they are the protectors of “life” from the moment of conception. In my view, this is an adoption of a religious viewpoint held by some, but certainly not all, Hoosiers. The least that can be expected is that the remaining Hoosiers of child bearing ability will be given the opportunity to act in accordance with their own consciences and religious creeds.
That might be useful for the Arizona pols to add to their full, complete and wide-ranging discussion on whether to change that state's law.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
READ NEXT: GOP House Votes To Repeal Hugely Controversial Law
Please allow time before your comment appears, as all comments are reviewed and subject to moderation. View our Comment Policy here.