“It (The 1901 abortion ban) was passed before Arizona was a state and before women could vote…This law is cruel, life-threatening, and rips away millions of Arizonan’s freedoms... The government has no business interfering with the decisions doctors make every day when doing their jobs…As Arizona’s governor, I will do everything in my power and every tool at my disposal to restore abortion rights in Arizona…women’s rights are not a bargaining chip...”
Arizona Secretary of State and 2022 Democratic Gubernatorial Nominee Katie Hobbs.
“Women and Girls will die because of this…Together, we are strong and we are ready to will move forward, not be dragged back to 1901…The remedy is clear. Join us at the ballot box, stand up, speak out, and vote…We (when after taking office in January,) will not enforce any of the abortion bans that exist in Arizona. It is apparently okay with our Republican opponents that a woman is raped in the state of Arizona can be forced to carry to term. That is not acceptable. That is not acceptable…I will fight any subpoena that is issued by law enforcement against any woman, or any doctor, or any hospital. “
Arizona Attorney General 2022 Democratic Nominee Kris Mayes.
“As a woman from a country where women can be beaten, imprisoned, and even killed for showing strands of their hair, can’t imagine living in a state where my body is now once again controlled (by others…)“
Dr. Baharak Tabarsi, MD, FAAFP
The above remarks are some of the highlights from the joint press conference held today at the Arizona Attorney’s Office in Phoenix today (September 24, 2022) with Katie Hobbs, Kris Mayes, and Dr. Baharak Tabarsi.
All three soundly condemned the Pima County Court decision taking Arizonan women’s reproductive freedoms back to a time (1901) before they could vote.
All of them highlighted the stress that will immediately befall women and their medical providers now as they consider the following scenarios:
- As a woman, when can I get medical care if I start to miscarry? As a physician, when it is legally permissible to provide it?
- As a woman, can I purchase the morning-after pill? As a physician, can I legally prescribe it?
- As a woman who has undergone invitro fertilization and has some embryos in cold storage do I have to impregnate myself with them now?
- As a physician, am I liable if I advise a patient to go to a state where abortion is legal.
- As a woman, will I get in legal trouble when I come back to Arizona after getting an abortion in California, New Mexico, or Colorado?
- As a woman and/or a physician, should I move? Is Arizona safe to live in?
Dr. Baharak Tabarsi equates what is now happening to Arizona women with this abortion ban to what happens to them in her native Iran.
Family physician Dr. Baharak Tabarsi opened the press conference by relaying her concerns about the now active ban on abortion services.
She stated, “As a physician, I also know and fully attest to the fact that abortion is health care. A matter between a person with a uterus and their doctor. Imagine a law where your physician’s hands were tied and she could not prescribe for you the medications and treatments you needed so that you could live your life to the fullest.”
Dr. Tabarsi also noted that anti-abortion laws are devastating to the communities she regularly serves like “marginalized and vulnerable patients, color, people fleeing from persecution, immigrants, and refugees” because those patients do not “have the means to access care.”
In her closing remarks, she commented, “as a woman from a country where women can be beaten, imprisoned, and even killed for showing strands of their hair, can’t imagine living in a state where my body is now once again controlled by others.”
Attorney General Nominee Kris Mayes Lays Out what is at Stake for Women and Health Care Providers with this Now Active Abortion Ban.
Attorney General Nominee Kris Mayes quickly laid out what was at stake for women and health care providers after the September 23, 2022, Pima County Court Decision, stating:
“Let’s be honest. This cruel law is about controlling women by attempting to control our bodies and our lives…This outrageous law represents a clear violation of the rights of women in our state…It puts the health of women at risk in a way we have not seen in my lifetime. Women and girls will die because of this…It will impact our economy and our ability to attract and retain talent..It is a glaring black eye for the state of Arizona. What company is going to want to relocate to a state where their employees can have to deal with this extreme law. What young woman is going to want to come to Arizona and study and work at our universities in the face of a 1901 ban on abortion.”
She then outlined what she would do as Attorney General if elected this November, offering:
“When I am attorney general, I will immediately challenge this law as an unconstitutional violation of women’s rights and replace Bronvich’s opinion with mine. I believe that Arizona’s constitution express rights to privacy (Article 2 Section 8) protects reproductive rights in Arizona and makes all of these laws unconstitutional. What can be more private than what a woman does with her body?”
Reminding the press that she has a 12 Point Plan to deal with reproductive rights, she said, “When I am elected Arizona Attorney General, I will take every step to protect women’s rights…It is unacceptable that Arizona women are now being forced back in time to 1901 and the young women in this state now have fewer rights than I and other women have had our entire lives.”
Ms. Mayes then chastised current Attorney General Mark Bronvich and her opponent, Abe Hamadeh for supporting the 1901 abortion ban, relaying “they (Brnovich and Hamadeh) do not care about the safety and protection of women and they would probably like to take away the vote”
The Attorney General nominee then issued a call for people to vote, stating, “We refuse to go backward. We will fight to defeat this law by voting for an attorney general and governor that will uphold our right to privacy and our bodily autonomy. Our rights are on the ballot this November. With the people of Arizona, we will preserve the right of reproductive freedom for future generations by voting. Together, we are strong and we are ready to will move forward, not be dragged back to 1901. The remedy is clear. Join us at the ballot box, stand up, speak out, and vote.”
Katie Hobbs Talks about her Personal Experience and Vows, as Governor, to do Everything in Her Power to Overturn the Pre Statehood Abortion Ban.
Picking up from Mayes, Arizona Secretary of State and Democratic Gubernatorial Nominee Katie Hobbs opened her remarks by stating:
“I am here as a woman, mother, social worker, and an Arizonan to say that I am absolutely devastated and outraged by yesterday’s ruling by the Pima County Superior Court…Yesterday’s ruling to uphold a Draconian territorial era ban is a terrible blow to Arizonan’s reproductive freedoms.” She noted that there was no exception for rape or incest and “risks women’s fundamental freedom to make our own health care decisions. It was passed before AZ was a state and before women could vote. An outdated and oppressive law from 100 years ago…This law means providers can be thrown in jail for providing reproductive care.”
Secretary Hobbs then spoke about her personal experience of when she had to have a procedure done to remove the pregnancy tissue because her health was endangered. She noted that this new law could make that life-saving procedure illegal now.
She went on to say, “This law is cruel, life-threatening, and rips away millions of Arizonans’ freedoms…The government has no business interfering with the decisions doctors make every day when doing their jobs.”
The Gubernatorial Nominee then discussed her experience as a social worker when victims had to deal with domestic violence traumatizing effects an unwanted pregnancy (from rape) can have on the woman and her family.
She also said that the “overwhelming number of Arizonans support access to safe and legal abortion…This decision… is not democratic and it is not right.”
Hobbs also attacked her opponent, Kari Lake, for calling the 1901 abortion ban “a great law,” further saying, “make no mistake, Lake and her out-of-touch allies are not going to stop here. Kari Lake’s support of this ban and her support for additional restrictions on reproductive care prove that if elected governor, she will continue to put our health and freedoms on the line. We cannot let her hold public office and have the power to enact the extreme, anti-choice policies that she’s spent her entire campaign touting.”
She then told the gathering what she would do as Arizona Governor to restore abortion rights including calling “a special session to overturn this draconian law” and using “my veto pen to block any abortion legislation that comes to my desk.”
Saying, “I will not compromise my belief that women deserve access to a safe and legal abortion,” she told voters, “Now is the time to get off the sidelines. Elect pro-choice candidates up and down the ballot. Let’s fight like women’s lives are on the line. Get off the sidelines and vote.”
Hobbs and Mayes respond to Questions from Reporters.
After their presentations, the two nominees and Dr. Tabarsi responded to questions from reporters.
Among the noteworthy responses were:
- Kris Mayes mocking Republican candidates for “hiding under a rock” to avoid reporter questions about the Pima County Court decision.
- Katie Hobbs, when asked twice by reporters, about compromise legislation on abortion, said “women’s rights are not a bargaining chip.”
- Dr. Tabarsi on what doctors are feeling: “morally injured,” and they “feel like their hands are tied behind their backs.”
- On victims of rape and incest, Kris Mayes said, “It is apparently okay with our Republican opponents that a woman is raped in the state of Arizona can be forced to carry to term. That is not acceptable. That is not acceptable.”
- On enforcing the abortion bans if she becomes Attorney General, Mayes said,” we (when after taking office in January,) will not enforce any of the abortion bans that exist in Arizona…I will advise all county attorneys that these laws are all unconstitutional. This law is blatantly unconstitutional and I will not enforce it…The supreme law of Arizona is the constitution of Arizona. It may be inconvenient for our Republican opponents that we have an expressed right to privacy in our constitution but we do but I will enforce it (the right to privacy.) I will fight any subpoena that is issued by law enforcement against any woman, or any doctor, or any hospital. We will fight and fight and fight in the courts for the rights of women to access reproductive care and abortion in this state. We will use any legal means available to us.”
- On how Arizona can become like Texas, Hobbs relayed that “people are going to emergency rooms in Texas and are being turned away and told to come back when their life is at risk. That is not a stretch to say that can happen (here) with these one size fits all bans…”
- On invitro fertilization probably becoming illegal in Arizona, Mayes explained that “because this is a total ban on abortion and in IVF, you create multiple embryos. Sometimes, some of them are not used. This law would make that process and make that premeditated murder.” Talk about Future Shock and Brave New World.
The 2022 elections are in 47 days.
Voters have to decide.
Do they want to live in a society that mirrors the totalitarian worlds depicted in Handmaid’s Tale, 1984, It Can’t Happen Here, and Brave New World?
Or
Do they want to live in a state and country where everyone has equal rights with safe health care laws where women do not have to drive in the middle of the night to a neighboring state to get the reproductive care they need and worry about being arrested when they come home?
These and other important issues like protecting the right to vote, combatting climate change, and fully funding public schools, where the divisions between both political parties are so vast, can only leave voters with one decision.
Vote for the candidates that will safeguard your rights, work to lift you up, and serve to move the state forward.
“Krazy Kari” Lake, the GQP candidate for governor, appeared on Fox News’s Sunday Morning Futures with Trump Fluffer Maria Bartiromo on Sunday morning.
“I’m pro-life. I’ve never backed away from that and never will I. I want to protect lives and I want to help women,” Lake said. “We’ve got to make sure we are giving women the support they need. I’m all for health care for women.”
“We want to make sure that the scary moments when you find out you’re pregnant, and it can be scary, that we are there with them providing assistance in any way possible,” Lake said.
Lake asserted that “Democrats have tried to politicize this issue” and that Hobbs’ position on abortion is “inhumane and immoral.”
-So that’s a firm “I’m a forced birther.” “You WILL have that baby!”
Fellow election denier Abe Hamadeh, the Republican candidate for attorney general, was one of the first GOP candidates for top office in the state to issue a response to a county judge’s ruling reinforcing a pre-statehood law banning abortion in most cases.
“The court’s latest ruling affirms the intent of the Legislature [in 1977]. The role of the Attorney General often is to seek clarity on behalf of the state when a statue is legally challenged. This defense shouldn’t be a partisan exercise, but a core responsibility to the people of Arizona to defend laws as they exist, not based upon what they think the law should be,” Hamadeh said.
Clarity? This guy is one horseshit lawyer. Listen to an expert:
ASU’s Paul Bender says Arizona now has 2 abortion bans on the books, with no certainty about which one is the law. Gov. Ducey appears to agree. “‘Doesn’t make sense’: Legal expert questions ruling that revived Arizona’s 158-year-old abortion ban. “‘Doesn’t make sense’: Legal expert questions ruling that revived Arizona’s 158-year-old abortion ban”, https://www.12news.com/article/news/politics/legal-expert-questions-ruling-that-revived-arizonas-158-year-old-abortion-ban/75-8c2eeedf-75f6-49ce-9feb-05a909a31a44
A court ruling allowing Arizona’s 158-year-old abortion ban to take effect has only created more confusion about restrictions on women’s reproductive rights, according to a leading expert on constitutional law.
“I really want to stress that this is not clear,” said Paul Bender, a law professor at Arizona State University who has taught U.S. and Arizona constitutional law for many years.
“I have my view. I think it’s right. But I can understand the other view. And anybody who tells you it’s absolutely certain, I don’t think he’s telling the truth.”
With that caveat, Bender offered his view: Pima County Superior Court Judge Kellie Johnson reached the wrong conclusion.
“Would we really want a statute passed more than 100 years ago to be the current Arizona statute on abortion?” Bender said in an interview for this weekend’s “Sunday Square Off.”
“Would anybody want that? That doesn’t make any sense.”
The Arizona ban was first enacted in 1864 – a year after Arizona became a U.S. territory – and then re-enacted several times over the next 100-plus years, most recently in 1977.
Here’s why the situation is confusing: There are now two abortion bans on Arizona’s books – the blanket ban and a new abortion ban after 15-weeks of pregnancy, which took effect Saturday, the day after Johnson’s ruling. Neither law has an exception for rape or incest.
“You have two statutes, which say different things,” Bender said. “Ordinarily, the one that prevails is the most recent one.
I think that’s what should happen in this case, both because it’s the ordinary legal rule – that is, the most recent one – and also because it makes sense.”
In her ruling, Johnson didn’t take into account the 15-week abortion restriction. She said that was beyond the scope of the legal question she was asked to answer by Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich.
Attorneys for Planned Parenthood of Arizona had asked Johnson to “harmonize” abortion restrictions enacted over the last 49 years with the Civil War-era ban.
Johnson said that wasn’t her job.
“While there may be legal questions the parties seek to resolve regarding Arizona statutes on abortion,” Johnson wrote, “those questions are not for this court to decide here.”
Gov. Doug Ducey, a staunch abortion opponent, has maintained for several months that the 15-week ban passed by the Legislature last spring is the law of the land, though he has never explained why.
Heather Cox Richardson has some background on that 1864 law. Her take is that the ban was to prevent men from poisoning women.
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/september-24-2022
Excellent article about the 1864 legislature.
Excerpt:
The legislature provided that “No black or mulatto, or Indian, Mongolian, or Asiatic, shall be permitted to [testify in court] against any white person,” thus making it impossible for them to protect their property, their families, or themselves from their white neighbors. It declared that “all marriages between a white person and a [Black person], shall…be absolutely void.”
And it defined the age of consent for sexual intercourse to be just ten years old (even if a younger child had “consented”).
So, in 1864, a legislature of 27 white men created a body of laws that discriminated against Black people and people of color and considered girls as young as 10 able to consent to sex, and they adopted a body of criminal laws written by one single man.
And in 2022, one of those laws is back in force in Arizona.
It’s interesting isn’t it?
A few years ago, in the pre-Trump era, it looked as though white supremacy was on its last gasp.
It turns out that it’s more like a very long, slow, debilitating respiratory disease.
In the end, they will lose, at least in this country.
But what they accomplish in the interim is to stifle progress and accumulate victims.
And it feels endless at times. Just imagine what this country could have been without them.
Thanks Dorothy for the link and to Liza for encouraging us to go read it.
Arizona. Shady then, shady now.
I remember being 12 or 13 and realizing John Wayne was the bad guy in all those old cowboy movies.
It’s not a shock that those “men of their time” were horrible to women and minorities.
The mainstream media back then covered up genocide by printing fairy tales about the Wild West and Billy the Kid, brave settlers defending themselves.
The GOP did an autopsy after their loss in 2012 that basically said “be nice to women and minorities” and they knew they’d never win another nationwide election again.
Until the MSM saw the rating’s from T4ump and bailed them out.
The MSM of our time ignored decades of crime and business incompetence by T4ump and covered the fairy tale of a fake rich TV star.
Between both-sides-ism, trying to balance two sides when there are not two sides, their corporate ownership, and the desire for ratings (money) above all else, I don’t know…
I don’t want to say the MSM is the enemy of the people, I don’t want crazy people going after them, but they are not the friend of democracy the Founding Father’s envisioned.
Spare me the spin:
“It (The 1901 abortion ban) was passed before Arizona was a state and before women could vote…”
You forgot to mention that the 1901 law was passed by the duly elected representatives of the people and that those duly elected representatives kept it on the books until 1973. In addition, the duly elected representatives did not take it off the books. That law was taken off the books by a Supreme Court decision that has since been overturned.
So a more accurate statement would be that the law which is coming back is Arizona’s long running historical ban on abortion, although liability for the women who receive the abortion was recently removed by the legislature.
Were any of these duly elected representatives from over a century ago women or did they receive votes from women? So you are okay with victims of rape and incest being forced to go to term? You are okay with unborn children with fatal disabilities being born? You are okay with women having to wait before their life is threatened during a miscarriage to get medical care?
The law was never repealed up until 1973, when repeal became moot. I believe women voted during most of the time the old law was in effect.
I am talking about in 1901.
The law was on the books well after women were given the right to vote in Arizona and were later elected to the legislature. It was not repealed. In fact, even after Roe v. Wade the legislature did not repeal this law but kept it on the books. Again I say, “Stop the spin.”
WRONG. The law was first enacted by Arizona’s first territorial legislature in 1864; it has been reenacted several times. 1864 to 1973 is 109 years. Women did not gain the right to vote until 1920, so only 53 years.
BTW, have you designated yourself official spokesman for the AZ GQP? Because the AP reports. “GOP quiet as Arizona Democrats condemn abortion ruling”, https://apnews.com/article/abortion-voting-rights-health-arizona-legislature-323965504b0182af0191eb07542054cd
Republican candidates were silent a day after the ruling, which said the state can prosecute doctors and others who assist with an abortion unless it’s necessary to save the mother’s life. Kari Lake, the GOP candidate for governor, and Blake Masters, the Senate candidate, did not comment.
[T]he old law was first enacted among a set of laws known as the “Howell Code” adopted by the 1st Arizona Territorial Legislature in 1864. Legislative researchers said it remained in the penal code in 1901 [still a territory] and was readopted in subsequent rewrites, including in the 1970s.
Lake has spoken positively of Arizona’s territorial ban on abortion, which she called “a great law that’s already on the books.” She has called abortion “the ultimate sin” and has also said abortion pills should be illegal.
Masters called abortion “demonic” during the GOP primary and called for a federal personhood law that would give fetuses the rights of people. He’s toned down his rhetoric more recently, deleting references to a personhood law from his campaign website and dropping language describing himself as “100% pro-life.”
More recently, Masters has said he would support a bill proposed by Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., that would ban abortions nationwide after 15 weeks of pregnancy, except in cases of rape, incest or risk to the physical health of the mother. He has also said he supports a different Arizona law that seeks to ban abortions at 15 weeks.
Neither the Lake nor Masters campaign responded to requests for comment.
“Their silence speaks volumes,” said Mayes, the Democratic attorney general candidate. “They know how absolutely unpopular this 1901 law is. They know how indefensible it is. And they know that when Nov. 8 comes the people of Arizona are going to resoundingly reject this extreme abortion ban this attack on the people of Arizona by voting them down.”
To AzBlueMeanie:
First, I only speak for myself.
Second, the law was on the books well after women were given the right to vote in Arizona and were later elected to the legislature. It was not repealed. In fact even after Roe v. Wade, the legislature did not repeal this law but kept it on the books. Again I say, “Stop the spin.”
Third, do you think Hobbs should get the same penalty for failing to disclose income on her disclosure report as Republican State Treasurer David Petersen received, which was resign from office and three years probation, or do you only support criminal justice punishment for Republicans lawbreakers?
As I understand it, the Uber gig was in 2016 –six years go – when she ws a state senator, not in her current post as secretary of state. And as all candidates know, they can always file amended statements, even years later. Katie Hobbs can speak for herself, “KATIE HOBBS DETAILS TIME DRIVING FOR UBER TO MAKE ENDS MEET,” https://katiehobbs.org/katie-hobbs-details-time-driving-for-uber-to-make-ends-meet/
Did you really want to use the Petersen family as your false equivalency? “Paul Petersen’s father was an Arizona elected official who resigned after investigation”, https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2019/10/13/paul-petersen-father-david-petersen-resigned-arizona-treasurer-2006/3947951002/
Before Paul Petersen was Maricopa County assessor and embroiled in a scandal of his own, he sometimes performed the role of spokesman for another embattled politician: his father David Petersen.
David Petersen ascended in state politics in the 1990s and the first part of the decade that followed. Elected in 1994 to a state Senate seat representing Mesa, he rose to the post of majority whip.
He worked extensively on adoption during his stint in the Legislature — the issue that has entangled his son today. He chaired the Family Services Committee and described adoption as a priority issue. He sponsored legislation to speed up the adoption process in some cases and to spend more money on recruiting adoptive families.
This was all before Paul Petersen began practicing as an adoption lawyer. But as a young lawyer, he would end up speaking for the family when his father landed in hot water.
David Petersen was elected state treasurer in 2002.
But investigators found he blurred lines between his work for the government and his work with nonprofit groups, according to records obtained at the time by The Arizona Republic.
David Petersen was active in several organizations working on character development and sat on the boards of the Arizona Communities of Character Council and Arizona Character Council Foundation. And some of that work happened on taxpayers’ dime, The Republic reported.
David Petersen fielded calls and faxes about his nonprofit work from the Treasurer’s Office. He also clocked hundreds of miles on trips called “community updates” paid for by the taxpayer while mixing information about his nonprofit groups into presentations, The Republic reported, with some describing him as a sort of pitchman who did not understand boundaries between state and personal business.
But David Petersen agreed to step down in 2006 as part of an agreement to plead guilty to one misdemeanor count of failing to report income from the group Character First!
In news reports at the time, it was sometimes Paul Petersen who spoke for the family, seeking to defend or at least tamp down speculation.
While noting that his work was legal, David Petersen told The Republic at the time that, in hindsight, he would have been more circumspect about mingling his passion for character building and state work.
[Character building which did not extend to his own son.]
“‘Turned adoption on its head’: Utah judge sentences Paul Petersen on human smuggling charges”, https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2021/04/21/paul-petersen-sentenced-utah-charges-adoption-scheme/7324590002/
Former Maricopa County Accessor Paul Petersen will serve up to 15 years in prison for crimes connected to an international adoption scheme.
On Wednesday, a Utah judge sentenced Petersen to serve one to 15 years in prison for human smuggling and communications fraud. That sentence will run concurrently with his federal and Arizona sentences.
“Without a doubt, Mr. Petersen, your actions have caused pain,” Judge Linda Jones said.
In December, a U.S. District judge in Arkansas sentenced Petersen to 74 months — just over six years — in federal prison for perpetrating illegal adoptions in what prosecutors called a “get-rich-quick scheme … hidden behind the shiny veneer of a humanitarian operation.”
In Maricopa County, he was sentenced in March on fraud and forgery charges to serve 10.4 years on four charges, but all but five years were to run concurrently with the federal sentence.
Federal and state authorities accused Petersen of running an illegal adoption scheme, transporting pregnant women from the Republic of the Marshall Islands to the United States, frequently enrolling the women into Medicaid and adopting out the babies to families for nearly $40,000 each.
Daniel Strong, Utah assistant attorney general, told the court multiple mothers were found during the course of the state’s investigation, which started in 2017. He described the process as “manipulative, exploitative and illegal.”
The women told the office they were promised $10,000 to give up their unborn children for adoption, plus transportation to the United States from the Marshall Islands. However, they received little money, inadequate housing and no prenatal care in the United States, where they were housed in Utah, Arizona and Arkansas.
“This case turned adoption on its head,” Strong said.
-Nice friends you got there, Johnny.
Oh looky here! Another of your friends, “Mark Finchem failed to follow laws on income and business disclosures, records show”, https://roselawgroupreporter.com/2022/09/mark-finchem-failed-to-follow-laws-on-income-and-business-disclosures-records-show/
Arizona Rep. Mark Finchem failed for years to follow state laws requiring elected officials to report their sources of income and business ties.
Finchem did not disclose nearly $2,000 a month in pension benefits and a few businesses in which he was involved from the time he took office in 2015 until January, financial records show.
The four-term Republican lawmaker from Oro Valley reported his longtime public safety pension for the first time in seven years after launching his bid to become Arizona’s next secretary of state.
He declined to comment on the missing data in the reports, which he had avowed were “true and correct” and signed under penalty of perjury.
-Want him to resign too?
Oh? And how about the YEARS of failure to disclose by Mark Finchem? Presumably, you are in favor of his resignation and removal from the ballot, as well? Did we just break news here? “Rep. Kavanaugh Demands Mark Finchem withdraw from the race for SecState and resign his seat.” Nice.
Kavanagh is spinning, bringing up unrelated subjects because he’s out of his league and not enjoying the beatdown.
He’s not a lawyer or historian but he thinks he is. Dunning, meet Kruger.
He’s also full of spin, aka BS, because it’s never been about states rights, it’s about taking away women’s rights based on his bigoted religious beliefs and aggressive ignorance on the subject.
The GQP lies. Kavanagh lies.
He’s also clearly desperate and in distress, because it looks like Hobbs is going to win.
Two things, lying Johnny, pick a less crazy candidate next time, and donate to RaicesTexasDotOrg.
Doing either will make you feel better.
We’re never going to agree on the main topic here, but we can agree that Raices provides free or low cost legal help to immigrants.
OMG this guy is so predictable and boring.
Forgot to add that Kavanagh is not a medical doctor, either.
But he’ll legislate pretending he is even though most of the GQP men are clearly letting their wives down, based on their ignorance of the particular area they’re trying to legislate.
John Kavanagh complains about spin while he attempts some spin!
Keep reaching beyond your grasp, John!
And also, reach for your checkbook/credit card and stop by RaicesTexasDotOrg!
RaicesTexas provides free or low cost legal help to immigrants.
How great is that? Pretty great!!!
Remember to donate In Honor of Arizona Rep John Kavanagh!
Now that David Gordon has taught John Kavanagh about the 19th Amendment, John’s probably happy to know that Raices helps both male AND female immigrants.
Hooray!
Remember your Montesquieu, John from the Spirit of the Laws. Successful Republics endure because their customs and laws adapt forward with the times not move backward in a reactionary fashion.
Killing innocent human beings is not moving forward.
So you are okay with rape and incest victims having to carry all three trimesters? You are okay with babies with virtually no chance of survival after birth being born?
Are you OK with a perfectly healthy seven month fetus being aborted by the mother because she suddenly decided it was not convenient to have a child at that moment? Scratch the OK part. Do you think such an abortion should be legal?
Bull fecal matter John. That does not happen. Even Roe did not allow that.If she had that abortion, it was because either her life was in danger or because they found out the baby was not going to survive much longer after birth. Take care. birth.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
And you still have not answered the questions. Are you okay with rape and incest victims carrying to term? Are you okay with severely deformed unborn children with no chance of survival having to be born and suffer? Show some courage and answer.
Nobody has or ever will do such a thing because they “suddenly decided” to do so. Late-term abortions are ONLY performed to save the life and health of the mother and the baby is not viable based on a physician’s medical judgment. Generally, the outcome of such a situation will be induced or cesarian delivery of the child if it can possibly be viable outside the womb. The continual lies of the Right on this point are vile and dishonest, but we really kind of expect that from the Forced Birth crowd.
“Are you OK with a perfectly healthy seven month fetus being aborted by the mother because she suddenly decided it was not convenient to have a child at that moment?”
Johnny, WTF are you babbling about? Do you actually believe that a seven month pregnant woman just walking down the street arbitrarily decides “I think I go have an abortion”. Or is that a reflection of the women you know?
Here’s a free clue Johnny Boy. When a woman who’s seven months pregnant has an abortion it is because the fetus is non-viable and if carried to term will result in being born deformed or dead. You also pointedly ignore the immeasurable emotional toll that takes on the woman, her family and her friends.
But since you and your grossly unqualified ilk persist in making medical decisions for everyone, all reasonable people can say is GFY, you pathetic POS.*
*And you can quote me on that!
John Kavanagh is NOT pro-life and as usual is lying.
Being pro-life means providing shelter, feeding, bathing, caring for, and educating a child up to adulthood, and beyond.
John Kavanagh is against government from helping do any of those things regardless of the parents ability to do so and doesn’t care if the child he would force a woman to have suffers for a few hours or for years.
He’s forcing his ignorant bigoted religious view on others, something not allowed by the Constitution, and not supported by science.
John Kavanagh supports forced birth. And any suffering that may cause.
I figured out his Constitution problem, I keep saying he hasn’t read it, now I think he just has the original version without the updates (aka Amendments).
He also has not read his bible, see Numbers 5:11-31, where a husband can force his unfaithful wife to have an abortion that is provided by a priest in a church and done by “magic”.
John Kavanagh has spent his life hurting families and children.
His is an example of someone being the opposite of pro-life based on the example of his life.
RaicesTexasDotOrg, please donate in Honor of Arizona Rep John Kavanagh.
Planned Parenthood would be another good option.