Topic: Arizona Supreme Court rules state can use 1864 law to ban nearly ALL abortions - page 2. (Read 220 times)

This just isn't practical. Most abortions these days are done using the pill, and that can easily be transported across state lines. And people can transport themselves the other direction. Since the Republicans overturned Roe, abortions have actually increased even though individual states made it illegal.

And the ruling on the FDA action on the abortion pill shows just how easily Trump could effectively ban all abortions in the USA without an act of Congress.

Republicans are trying to "states rights" this issue away, but it won't work. And probably two thirds of their voters don't want it to work anyhow as they want an abortion ban that actually works instead of this "return it to the states" nonsense.

I think that states cannot interfere with individual rights of women. For example, the state of Texas, where the dumBAss of the world spawn from their churches an a racist educational system, cannot decide that it is ok to rob black people on sight, because black people & anyone in general have the right not to be robbed. That is the fallacy of all this "decision by the state" that goes against a well stablished jurisprudential precedent.

But as said, this may be the call to action that women from Georgia and Arizona need to understand that if they ignore Trump, they will be Trumped.

I think regardless of your stance on abortion you should be able to respect that states have rights and are choosing to have different abortion policies. This is how the United States of America is supposed to work. If you don’t like the laws in your state, relocate to a state that appeases you. That’s the freedom America offers. Take advantage.

Here is where you are wrong about trusts. And maybe it doesn't apply to you much, in your situation in life.

Any person walking down the sidewalk and passing other people going the opposite direction, has formed a simple trust with these people. How? They all trust each other that they are not going to be harmed by them, etc.-whatever, in their sidewalk walking activities, with that simple relationship to each other.

The point? We all have trusts going on every day, with or without formally written terms to back them up.

If the trust between a man, woman, and the new life didn't include the new life, it would totally be a different kind of trust. But when the new life is included, the new life must be consulted in the dissolution of the trust. If the new life isn't consulted, it is breaking of trust law... at least natural trust law.

Natural trust law? Essentially all the animals in nature give warning before they attack. The warning might be the rattle of the rattle snake. Or it might be the roar of the lion. Animals recognize natural trust law between all living things, instinctively. It's only people that ignore it.

badecker.. its not..

you have been listening to the silly idiots of the freeman/sovereign cult of the 1990's that have been getting things wrong and debunked soo many times. you have no clue

setting up a trust is more complicated then getting married

if you wanna put a baby in it and have a contract... put a ring on it (marry it)
your religion knows this

if you want a contract involving the childs welfare and future without marriage you will have to wait until its born and ASK to be put on the birth certificate.. (you cant demand it, and its not default your power or control at conception) its the mothers power and control and decision

sex is not a formation of a trust of a baby
sex consent is different to cenceiving a baby consent..

Remember to consider that it is a trust situation, and trust laws rule.

Grantor = the man.
Trustee = the woman.
Beneficiary = the new life.
Property in trust = the body being built in the woman's tummy.

Since there isn't any Trust Protector (or is there?) the new life should be consulted about the destruction of the property being held for it in trust. Of course, to do this, the new life has to be allowed to live and grow up, at least to the age of majority.

So, since the woman accepted the position of trustee, she made her choice before the pregnancy. If she breaks her trust, she is a murderer.

Of course, there are extenuating circumstances in some cases.

For info regarding where the government (US) should stand in this all, see: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63927834.

you do know that a gestating foetus is on life support for approximately the first 24-26 weeks.. unable to survive on its own without the life support(womb)
so do you atleast consider the rights and choices of that foetus lay with the women that is incharge of the life support(her own womb)

next thing is who is to say of the condition of the foetus or its life prospects.. not every foetus is the same and not always going to have a productive life
what about foetuses with genetic or congenital diseases whereby it will be born impaired if carried to full term

what do you feel of the scenarios of foetuses under 24weeks with impairments?
should there be a "no womens choice" about the life support system being taken away to give peace

are you categorically still thinking "if you have sex the woman should be forced to carry all foetuses to term and take responsibility"

are you aware that if "rape" is the only clause to allow abortion.. then every consensual act of sex that accidentally ends in pregnancy due to slippage or failure of birth control. may end up with women having to make claims of rape due to not wanting pregnancy but ended up pregnant thus not giving consent to the pregnancy. as a form of validation to get an abortion. thus rape claims will sky rocket to get the treatment they need

and keep in mind
sex is not just for procreation
sexual precautions, protection, birth control are not 100%
having consensual sex is not the same as pregnancy consent

you may want to look into people that have consensual sex, but the male knowingly has an STD and doesnt inform the woman that his intentions is to pass her an STD. which when she finds out he passed her something she did not consent to which affects her life. that is a sexual crime

whereby the same scenario of the woman initial consent to sex is not consent to STD or pregnancy. so then becoming pregnant/infected due to intentions/accidents caused by the man.. then mean she can claim a sex crime occurred

what about the silly illogical non medical but judicial decision of the rape clause not using the common sense biological limit of 24 weeks but instead the limited scope of just days to a few weeks being the barrier of abortion

A family member that is in life support or has a medical condition where they're suffering excruciating pains between life and death, I think that the family members should be strong and see the patient through their last moment, I can only imagine the pains that the family members will be in, but they can sincerely wish the person to die and have peace, than taking an innocent life. Frankly talk is cheap and I don't know if I can sincerely watch my loved one to continue to suffer when it has been proven that there's 99.9% chances of not surviving, I don't wish to be in such a situation to make that kind of decision.

Although considering to end the life of a person that is in a critical life and death situation is different from ending a life that is developing in their mother's womb, and there's no complications to warrant ending it or in simple term "aborting it" to save the mother's life, the motives are different, one is to end suffering and the other is to be free of responsibilities. If a woman will have a consensual sex with her partner without protection, then it's only fair that they should accept the responsibilities of their choice.

if you are not conscious to realise you are alive. you dont have rights. the next-of-kin has medical proxy.
i think women should have more power than men. and state should not over power the woman when there is a life support system in place that IS THE WOMAN

however abortions should be the womans decisions before the fetus has its own independent survival ability (usually above 24 weeks)
before this period the woman decides.. as she is the life support machine

..
a question for you:
what is your opinion on decisions of elderly/disabled relatives on medical life support with no consciousness?
should families never have the choice in removing the life support?

I personally don't support abortion because I see it as terminating the life of an innocent being, because it's the right of every unborn child to be born, so couples should be responsible for their actions, if they must have unprotected sex then let them face the consequences.

Where I'll make exceptions and support abortion is in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of a mother if abortion is an option, other than these reasons, abortion remains an immoral act, as far as I'm concerned. People in the US are politicizing this matter in Arizona, probably because of the coming election, but the fact is that abortion is wrong, except for the reasons that are mentioned above, Arizona state should understand this..

why is it that the virgin incels(people like badecker) think they have a right to decide on female choices

put it this way when a family member is not conscious, on life support. the law and ethics is that the closest family member gets medical proxy on medical decisions and most courts, hospitals and doctors honour that

so in regards to pregnancy
the woman is both the medical proxy and the biological life support machine. her decision means more then anyone elses

....
as for the "contract" a certain incel talks about

his religion should tell him. 'if you want to put a baby in it, put a ring on it', THEN the guy has a contract with the woman(via marriage)
(the whole marriage before procreation thing)
yep marriage forms a contract between a male and female

..
as for the topic creator (virgin incel that wants to control womens consent)
when he gets excited about thinking he has gained controlling rights over a womans decisions in cases of rape and incest.. that says more about what sexual activity he prefers to dream of having one day

having sex with a woman does not give a man a contract to control that woman

as for his silly misunderstanding of legalese(law speak) of trusts, bonds and guardianships

the contract begin with marriage. which is a 2 party consent to unite and form a family bond into a contract of trust of any conception, progeny after the marriage

..
as for his assertions over a mans sperm grant contractual rights over the future use or new creations when the sperm is given out to someone else

contract law does not give things like panasonic(that provide batteries to elon musk) the right to decide how elon musk can use the batteries for tesla cars
panasonic do not then own tesla company, nor have decision power over tesla manufacturing process, nor own a unfinished tesla car whilst in the factory..nor after it leaves the factory..

once a car leaves the factory the registration documentation may then indicate a partnership with tesla and panasonic. for whomever becomes the family that keeps the car. in regards to whom has warrenty, repair, recall, disposal control over the car.. but that is still written up and decided by tesla. not panasonic

by elon receiving panasonic batteries it then becomes elons product, which he as tesla car manufacturer decides on how the batteries should be used for the product he creates in his factory. even state law cant stop elon for calling/deciding to do a recall, repair, disposal of his product whilst in his factory. elon(tesla) decide what happens in their factory

replace elon(tesla) for woman and panasonic for man, and sperm for batteries, car manufacturer for females pregnancy, registration for birth certificate, factory for womb

That's because most Americans want higher taxes on people other than themselves--and most agree that "rich people" aren't themselves.

Republicans used to run principally on tax cuts for the rich, but that is super-duper unpopular, and that kept making them lose elections, so they dropped that (and so many of their other old policies like reforming SS and healthcare), and now they just talk about relatively meaningless social issues like bathrooms and beer commercials.

I have not said that 50% of the population will vote for Biden because of this, I am saying that Trump has alienated many women that feel that they are the ones who should have the decision to keep a fetus or pass. Those who have been brainwashed by the Christian Integrists of any flavour were anyway going to vote Trump, but many of the others who may have abstained or be indifferent to the election have now a good reason to vote.

As things are now, the swing in some states may be a question of a few thousand votes, so again "congratulations" for this "victory".

BTW Trump knows this, but he has to balance the support of Evangelist and other extremists versus what he know is the majoritarian opinion in the US. This is the problem of dividing instead of uniting - your shit eventually is uncovered.

I understand the point of view you have on the possible reaction people of the United States could have because of this ruling, you talk about about half of the population turning away from Donald Trump and the Republican party in general because of this political happening, but I would also like to point out there are women out there who (because whenever reason) they have developed very restrictive views about this topic. So, the percentage of people turning away from Trump because of this would not be fifty percent exactly.
I would take us to see the statistics on many many women have grown up in very religious households or how many of them are part of the Mormon religion or how many of them are amish. As far as I know, those are very conservative groups which are likely to still follow the conservative ideology they harbor.

The difference between women and stupids like you is that they have spent centuries refraining themselves from cross=face bitch-slap monks, popes, imans and dumBAss like you pretending to tell them that they know more than them about what is to be a mother and whose decision is to become one.

Trump has chosen: between all the women in the US (more than 50% of the population) and the Evangelists and other miscarriages of religion he has chosen Christian integrists. Honestly, Biden could not hope for something that will take more people to vote against him than this.

Please, make sure that every young women out there in Arizona, Georgia and other swing states knows that thanks to Trump she may go to jail for not wanting to bear the child of a rapist, a stupid boyfriend or for that matter a dumBAss. Again, congrats and keep on shouting about it and mumbling about knowing a lot about something that does not exist.


Have you seen any debate lately about actual issues? Because all the arguments I hear are name-calling or even calls to direct harm- e.g. singling out the daughter of a judge to make sure all those crazy nut-heads that support Trump think is OK to kill her, like the one that attacked the Pelosi at their home.

Perhaps it is because I am not from the United States and perhaps it is also because I don't have much of a good memory for politics from other countries, but I don't recall the right to abortion to have been much of a big issue back in the 2000s and the 2010s in the United States.
I believe both the Republican and the Democrat party were debiting other topics which were very different from what we see today daily on Television. I wonder what changed and what happen the what we should have called "normal" politics.

It would be good if someone the the USA give us their opinion on the change of political discussions and the evolution of the mainstream politics in their country, to me it seems the disorder and the entropy of all these topics are far from being normal.

I barely see a normal debate on taxes on Television these days. 

The difference with women and their bodies is the contract.

When a man and a woman get together, it's a trust situation. The man is the grantor. The woman is the trustee. The beneficiary is the new life in the woman's tummy. The property being held in Trust is the body being made inside the woman. It's a contract between all three parties, and God is included because He is the only One Who can make a person's body and soul happen.

The Contract Clause in the US Constitution is this, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1:
Adjudication of Contract Law extends it to people of the States in addition to the States themselves. This means that breaking of the 'pregnancy' trust - a contract - is illegal until all the parties sign off regarding it, including the Beneficiary. But for the Beneficiary to sign off, he/she has to be allowed to be born, learn about his/her rights, learn to read and write, and then sign off on it. The process is called 'growing up'.

Isn't it about time that you grew up rather than constantly showing your ignorance?

Perfect. If there is something that will eventually turn nearly every woman in the US against Trump and most men too, to be honest is this. Now everyone who was reluctant to go to vote for Biden (let's be honest, he is a weak candidate), has perfectly understood what means to have Trump in power.

This is going to be an electoral main point to many people dumBAss, so please keep shouting about it.

Anyway and to the detail, this is enforcing a law that is more than 100 years old and it is not a done thing, as there will probably be a vote and later on can be changed or challenged.

BTW is not "Pro-abortion" it is "pro-choice". You are too used to think that you can tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies dumBAss and they are going to show you the finger in the next elections and tell you what you can do with your own finger.

A gift to the unborn people of Arizona. Note that Arizona didn't become a State until 1912.

Let's watch Arizona cause its own downfall by repealing this law with regard to itself.


Arizona Supreme Court rules state can use 1864 law to ban nearly ALL abortions

---

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13289415/Arizona-Supreme-Court-rules-state-use-1864-law-ban-nearly-abortions.html
This makes Arizona one of the states with the most strict abortion laws in the country after federal abortion protections were stripped with the ruling overturning Roe v. Wade in June 2022.

Pro-abortion critics dubbed it a 'dark day for Arizona' and President Joe Biden immediately responded to the 'cruel' ruling with a statement claiming it will subject Arizonans to an 'extreme and dangerous ban.'

The 4-2 decision could influence other states looking to restrict abortion after the Dobbs ruling two years ago and could have wide-reaching and long-standing impacts going into the 2024 election where women's health rights remains at the front of voters' minds.

The 1864 law provides no exceptions for abortion in the case of rape or incest, but allows a mother to seek termination of their pregnancy if their life is put in danger should they carry the fetus to term.

Even pro-life Republicans are speaking out against the radical ruling.

U.S. Senate candidate for Arizona Kari Lake wrote in a statement: 'I oppose today's ruling, and I am calling on Katie Hobbs and the State Legislature to come up with an immediate common sense solution that Arizonans can support.'

Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.) called Tuesday's ruling a 'disaster for women and providers' and slammed the law as 'archaic.'
...

---