Arizona’s Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments on an appeal out of District Two regarding the Arizona Legislature’s rampage of anti-abortion laws and the territorial era law entirely banning and criminalizing any abortion next Tuesday.
Here is the Court’s argument summary.
Here is the lower court’s opinion (PDF link), which would stand should the Supreme Court deadlock 3 to 3, as some legal observers expect may happen.
You can watch oral arguments in this landmark case here on Tuesday.

This infuriating story out of TX (of course) about a woman trying to gain the right to abort a non-viable fetus that is threatening her ability to conceive and her very life, might be the future of women in AZ in the not too distant future, depending on the votes of just six judges. Do we really want moral monsters like Ken Paxton deciding which women can and can’t have needed healthcare?
This is no way to run a free society. Women should not have to deal with courts and elected assholes in order to get vital healthcare, but that’s exactly where the MAGA GOP wants to take us.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just a guess I’m predicting that in a split decision, the court will support that a current law is more applicable than one that predates Arizona’s entry into the Union.
The current law is pretty tyrannical. Just not as tyrannical as the territorial one.
IOW. a citizen-based initiative question will still be needed.
Both are terrible and unacceptable, but one will kill MORE women than the other…
I think that women have as much right to control all aspects of their bodies as men do. Men cause women to reproduce. Therefore, if men have the right to add their sperm and cause a pregnancy with anyone they please, then women have the right to stop the end result of that sperm’s introduction to an egg any way they please. Women need to assert their power. I’m tired of allowing courts and religion to control female reproduction. Freedom of religion is one of our fundamental rights. Why is it not asserted?