Read Blog for Arizona | Politics from a Liberal Viewpoint for more about Civil & Human Rights

Let’s talk about parental notification, shall we?

October 17, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com

“I obviously know more about any 14 year old’s family situation than she does!”

Anti-choicers hold two positions that are broadly popular with the public. One is support for late term bans, as antis have somehow convinced the majority of Americans that women will abort perfectly healthy pregnancies in the sixth to ninth months with alarming frequency unless the law stops them. The other is parental notification, which is one of those things that sounds reasonable if you don’t really think about it much (and most people don’t). So it’s no surprise that Arizona Republican candidate Doug Ducey would end his silence on reproductive rights throughout the general election campaign with an attack on Democratic candidate Fred DuVal over parental notification.

Here’s part of the statement that AZ GOP chair Robert Graham (pictured above) put out about it:

“Mr. DuVal’s position to remove parents from a decision of life and death is completely reckless,” said Pastor Jose Gonzales Q, of Harvest Bible Church. “Regardless of your position on abortion, we cannot possibly leave these types of decisions to developing minds. We are entering an age where parental involvement is increasingly important, but to even suggest that a minor – much less a 14 year-old – can intelligently comprehend the long-term impact of such an action is absurd.”

Decision Day: U.S. District Court for Arizona strikes down state’s same-sex marriage ban

October 17, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

In breaking news this morning, U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick has issued his opinion striking down Arizona’s same-sex marriage ban.The Arizona Republic reports, Ruling OKs gay marriage in Arizona, barring Horne appeal:

Arizona must allow same-sex couples to marry, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick has ruled that a recent appeals court ruling declaring marriage restrictions in other states unconstitutional applies to Arizona.

Read the Opinion HERE (.pdf).

“The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that substantially identical provisions of Nevada and Idaho law that prohibit same-sex marriages are invalid because they deny same-sex couples equal protection of the law, the right to which is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,” Sedwick wrote in his brief ruling. “This court is bound by decisions of the Court of Appeals.”

It is now up to Attorney General Tom Horne to decide whether he will appeal or comply and instruct county clerks to begin issuing licenses to same-sex couples. After conceding in a court filing Thursday that the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit would apply to Arizona, he’s widely expected to do the latter. It’s now likely just a question of when.

Status of same-sex marriage appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

October 17, 2014October 17, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cases regarding state same-sex marriage bans have not exhausted all avenues of appeal, and thus are not finalized.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet issued a mandate in any case other than Nevada.

Idaho

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports, Once more, same-sex marriages allowed in Idaho :

The Ninth Circuit also still has before it, and has not yet taken action on, a plea filed last Wednesday by Idaho officials to delay the ruling until they could seek a rehearing before the en banc Ninth Circuit, and then use the option of going back to the Supreme Court. That plea has not been mentioned by the Ninth Circuit since it was filed nearly a week ago.

* * *

Idaho’s governor had said that his lawyers read last week’s refusal by the Justices to delay those marriages to be an action of little consequence, and that a new plea for postponement would be made with the Justices if the Ninth Circuit refused a delay (Those new filings are here and here) — which the Court did.

Idaho has not yet filed its petition for en banc rehearing with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, nor a petition for review with the U.S. Supreme Court. Idaho has said it will take both of these actions. The Ninth Circuit will deny the petition for en banc rehearing. Unless circumstances change dramatically, the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to deny the petition for review as it has in all the other same-sex marriage appeals. This will take some time, however.

Tom Horne concedes 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down same-sex marriage bans applies to AZ

October 16, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

The state of Arizona has submitted its reply briefs in Majors vs. Horne and Connolly vs. Roche, the two legal challenges to Arizona’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

In a bit of a surprise, the Arizona-based Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom to whom Attorney General Tom Horne had farmed out the litigation of these cases did not submit the briefs — it was the Arizona Attorney General’s office.

A bigger surprise is that Tom Horne agrees that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from last week does apply to Arizona, just as soon as the Ninth Circuit Court issues its mandate. His brief is only two pages. Arizona is conceding the cases. Marriage equality in Arizona is only a technicality away.

The Arizona Republic reports, Horne concedes gay marriage ruling applies to AZ:

The state’s brief argument concedes that the 9th Circuit ruling would apply to Arizona, but says Sedwick should wait to issue his ruling until the 9th Circuit issues a mandate. The mandate is essentially a technical document telling the courts to go forward with the opinion. The 9th Circuit issued a mandate within hours of its original ruling but withdrew it so Idaho could appeal. That appeal is concluded but the 9th Circuit has not yet reissued the mandate.

Attorneys for the same-sex couples in the Majors vs. Horne case argued the 9th Circuit ruling “requires that Arizona’s discriminatory marriage ban be struck down as unconstitutional.”

The GOP war on women stumbles at the Supreme Court

October 16, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

Two weeks ago the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a major blow to women’s reproductive rights in Texas, allowing the state to begin enforcing the most restrictive anti-abortion law in the nation.

Acting with unusual speed on a request for a stay of the Fifth Circuit Court order, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday enjoined the Texas anti-abortion law from being enforced while the case is on appeal. Even more surprising to court observers was that the decision was 6-3, with only Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito dissenting that the law should be allowed to be enforced.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog writes, Court blocks abortion limits in Texas:

Over the dissents of three Justices, the Supreme Court on Tuesday evening barred Texas from enforcing two parts of its new abortion-restriction law — one part as it applied throughout the state, the other as it applied to two clinics in the southwest part of the state.

The state may not now enforce a requirement that all clinics in the state upgrade their facilities to be hospital-like surgical centers, even when they perform abortions only through the use of drugs, not surgery. And it may not enforce, against the clinics in McAllen and El Paso, a requirement that all doctors performing abortions have privileges to admit patients to a hospital within thirty miles of the clinic. That requirement can continue to be enforced elsewhere in Texas, the Court indicated.