Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (3 Viewers)

[LovesMusic7360]

Not long ago Kari Lake proclaimed Arizona's abortion law was a great law and wanted it the law of the state.

Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.

As I have been saying since 2022, the overwhelming vast majority of women aren't going to vote for the man who proudly boasts that he got rid of Roe V. Wade. Nor are those women going to vote for a forced birther politician.

Turns out, republican belief in "pro life" was all just lies to get votes. Who is surprised? I sure am not.

How many forced birthers will do the same about face?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ka ... r-BB1ltx3I.

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is actively lobbying state lawmakers to overturn a 160-year-old law she once supported that bans abortion in almost all cases, a source with knowledge of her efforts told CNN.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

and then also want to give the rapists parental rights to the child...

 

[Optimus Prime]

Arizona GOP Senate candidate Kari Lake said in an interview with an Idaho media outlet that "unfortunately," her state's near-total abortion ban dating from 1864 is not being enforced, flipping back on comments she made against the law earlier this month, when she called state legislators asking them to repeal it.

In an interview with the Idaho Dispatch on Saturday, Lake described the recent court decision upholding the 1864 law: “The Arizona Supreme Court said this is the law of Arizona. But unfortunately, the people running our state have said we’re not going to enforce it,” Lake said, expressing disappointment in steps taken by Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes, both Democrats, to block prosecutions under the ban.

“We don’t have that law, as much as many of us wish we did,” Lake added.

Lake’s campaign did not immediately respond to questions about her comments in the Idaho Dispatch interview.

Lake was in Idaho as the keynote speaker for a local county Republican Party dinner. Her comments came in response to criticism from a group that opposes abortion rights, Idaho Chooses Life.

Lake’s latest comments are very different from how she’s been speaking about the abortion law, which bans abortion after conception with no exceptions for rape or incest, since the state Supreme Court’s ruling. ............

Kari Lake says 'unfortunately' Arizona isn't enforcing 1864 abortion ban, flipping again

The Senate candidate supported the 19th-century ban in 2022, came out against it this month, and now appears to be backing it again in a new interview.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

……The abortion access measure would allow abortions without any limitations until the point of fetal viability, and access to abortion after viability if a healthcare provider determines it is needed to protect the patient’s life or physical and mental health.

The legislature has several routes it could take: doing nothing, and upholding the 1864 ban; repealing the ban, which would set a 15-week limit as the prevailing law; sending one or more questions to voters to set limits on abortion access.


The abortion access measure needs about 384,000 valid signatures from Arizona voters by 3 July to make the ballot and has reported collecting more than 500,000 so far.

But the state applies strict scrutiny to citizen’s initiatives, with intense requirements for each signature and the people collecting them.

In recent years, groups have sued, at times successfully, to remove signatures for various reasons in attempts to keep measures from reaching the ballot.

“We know the Republicans in the next three months are going to do everything in their power to try to take that initiative off the ballot,” former Democratic lawmaker and congressional candidate Raquel Terán said at an abortion rights rally last Friday.

“So we should not count on just half a million – we need to turn in a million signatures or more. Do not stop. We cannot stop, not take any signature for granted.”

Lawmakers do not have to collect any signatures to put their questions to voters, and they don’t need the governor’s approval. Instead, they can vote to send any number of questions to the ballot directly……

‘Have you signed yet?’: Arizona activists battle to overturn near-total abortion ban

‘Citizen’s initiative’ aims to put abortion rights in the state’s constitution and repeal a long-dormant outright ban

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

The risk of stating plainly what Idaho argued at the US supreme court on Wednesday morning is that it is so sadistic and extreme that people might not believe you. Idaho has one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country.

Prohibiting all abortions at any stage of gestation, with no exceptions for rape or incest, the Idaho law allows doctors to perform abortions in cases where the life – but not “merely” the health – of the pregnant woman is at risk.

In practice, this has wound up being a ban on abortions needed to save women’s lives: according to Idaho hospitals, six pregnant women experiencing medical emergencies have had to be airlifted across state lines to hospitals in states with life and health exemptions in the months since Idaho began enforcing its abortion ban.

One way to describe this state of affairs is to say that Idaho’s abortion law has come into conflict with medical best practice. Another way to describe it is to say that the law has forced pregnant women to flee the state for their lives.

The federal government says that Idaho’s ban on health-preserving emergency abortions conflicts with a federal statue known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or Emtala.

The 1986 law requires that all emergency rooms located in hospitals that receive Medicare funding – that is, basically all of them – are required to issue stabilizing care to patients facing medical emergencies.

The law was designed to ensure that patients in medical crisis could not be turned away from emergency rooms for lack of ability to pay.

In practice, the law also formalized the spirit of the medical profession’s ideals, giving doctors and hospitals an obligation to preserve their patients’ health, prevent further deterioration of those in crisis, and save lives. It creates an affirmative obligation for doctors to treat patients.

This obligation – to intervene in a medical emergency, and to stand between a patient and the maiming, organ failure, or death that may await her in the event of medical inaction – is precisely what the Idaho law prohibits.

In barring abortions to preserve women’s health, the state forces those women to deteriorate until they are close to death – threatening doctors with professional sanction, prosecution and imprisonment if they treat the patients that the state has deemed undeserving of treatment.

In short, Idaho’s abortion ban requires doctors to treat pregnant women’s health as disposable, and the loss of their lives as an acceptable risk. For this, the Biden administration sued.

As the case wound its way through the federal courts, the supreme court stepped in to allow Idaho to enforce its abortion ban pending litigation, even without a health exception. Their own Dobbs decision, after all, did not require any state to allow abortions in the case of risks to women’s health.

Sepsis, organ failure, and loss of fertility in women were thereby tacitly accepted by the court as an acceptable cost of prohibiting abortions…….

The US supreme court heard one of the most sadistic, extreme anti-abortion cases yet | Moira Donegan

Idaho’s law requires doctors to treat pregnant women’s health as disposable – and the loss of their lives as an acceptable risk

www.theguardian.com