Republicans Arguing To Revive A Law From 1864. Nothing Says More About The GOP Than This

[Billiejeens]

Not your call doosh

Oh

WHOOOOOOOSE.

 

[blackhawk]

 

[jknowgood]

Trump’s gone full Bible-thumper this time around. Problem for him is that his radical social agenda is incredibly unpopular.

God is the entity that can save this country.

 

[Lesh]

God is the entity that can save this country.

Then go pray and shut up

Render into Caesar…

 

[john doe 101]

I’m the psycho for NOT killing children. You’re a fucking moron.

A couple of cells isn't a human. You're going to lose this battle, psycho.

 

[Lesh]

And women’s rights matter

 

[john doe 101]

And women’s rights matter

Not if you're an incel.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Unkotare]

And women’s rights matter

ALL women?

 

[para bellum]

It is too Machiavellian for the Democrats but reviving this Civil War era law (60 or so years before women could vote) and baiting the trap for the GOP...or is it?

It seems the SCOTUS "revived" the law when they repealed Roe.

Someone must have challenged it, because it was decided by the AZ Supreme Court just the other day, that it was now enforceable.

The dems are trying to do an end-run around the GOP by demanding an immediate repeal of the law.

I expect the repubs prefer to amend the existing law, put in some exemptions and probably some time limits to when an abortion can be performed.

So they can't cave to the dems on the repeal without making it that much harder to pass another law. Dems will fight any new restrictions tooth and nail, say they are going backwards, etc.

It is smarter and easier for the repubs to revise the existing law to make it less strict, and that is a much harder battle for the dems to fight...

 

[Westender]

Shouts of ‘Shame! Shame!’ erupt in Arizona House as fight over abortion ban engulfs lawmakers

The fight over a newly revived 1864 Arizona law criminalizing abortion throughout pregnancy unless a woman's life is at risk has engulfed the state's lawmakers.

apnews.com

It is too Machiavellian for the Democrats but reviving this Civil War era law (60 or so years before women could vote) and baiting the trap for the GOP...or is it?

I still doubt the Dems framed the GOP so well but if they did...well played guys. You give us all hope

How much of a disgusting pos do you have to be to run your political party on killing babies. Obvious you are all atheists

 

[candycorn]

It seems the SCOTUS "revived" the law when they repealed Roe.

Someone must have challenged it, because it was decided by the AZ Supreme Court just the other day, that it was now enforceable.

The dems are trying to do an end-run around the GOP by demanding an immediate repeal of the law.

I expect the repubs prefer to amend the existing law, put in some exemptions and probably some time limits to when an abortion can be performed.

So they can't cave to the dems on the repeal without making it that much harder to pass another law. Dems will fight any new restrictions tooth and nail, say they are going backwards, etc.

It is smarter and easier for the repubs to revise the existing law to make it less strict, and that is a much harder battle for the dems to fight...

The optics of the GOP trying to find precedent in a law from the Civil War era and 50 years before we became a state 200 days before an election is helping the Democrats across the board.

There is a lot of English on the cue ball here as far as my thinking that the Dems are playing the GOP but one really has to wonder what the GOP is thinking by amplifying something from our disgraceful past.

 

[candycorn]

How much of a disgusting pos do you have to be to run your political party on killing babies. Obvious you are all atheists

Well, I'm not a democrat; they are far too passive for my tastes. I'm an agnostic myself.

 

[Greenbeard]

How much of a disgusting pos do you have to be to run your political party on killing babies. Obvious you are all atheists

Important question for Republicans to ask themselves.

When Republicans control state legislatures, infant mortality is higher

 

[lennypartiv]

Well, they do tend to live in the past.

We were more moral in the past.

 

[para bellum]

The optics of the GOP trying to find precedent in a law from the Civil War era and 50 years before we became a state 200 days before an election is helping the Democrats across the board.

There is a lot of English on the cue ball here as far as my thinking that the Dems are playing the GOP but one really has to wonder what the GOP is thinking by amplifying something from our disgraceful past.

I don't see that the GOP brought this up. They'd just as soon not talk about it right now...

The law was always there- it wasn't enforced after 1973. The AZSC ruled a couple days ago that it was now back in effect. Meaning someone in AZ challenged it after the SCOTUS repealed Roe, and the ruling was just handed down.

AZ Dems are making a political play. They don't like the court ruling, and want to end-run the repubs by demanding a repeal of the law now. If the repubs refuse, they will make it a campaign issue.

Repubs are saying no, we'll take this through the debate process and do an amendment (preferably after the election I would guess).

 

[Batcat]

Their coming for all the rights women have gained since the Civil War.

Vote them out in every state ladies, it's up to you now. Right the fuck out!

The Republicans are not trying to do away with all women’s rights gained since the Civil War.

You must believe the women in our nation are so stupid they would believe that line of bullshit. In my opinion women are just as smart as men if not smarter.

 

[Magnus]

The worst part is Republicans are still supporting it

The best part is seeing Republicans running away from it...

Gives new meaning to the phrase...(and I paraphrase)..."It is the best of times, it is the worst of times”

 

[candycorn]

I don't see that the GOP brought this up. They'd just as soon not talk about it right now...

The law was always there- it wasn't enforced after 1973. The AZSC ruled a couple days ago that it was now back in effect. Meaning someone in AZ challenged it after the SCOTUS repealed Roe, and the ruling was just handed down.

AZ Dems are making a political play. They don't like the court ruling, and want to end-run the repubs by demanding a repeal of the law now. If the repubs refuse, they will make it a campaign issue.

Repubs are saying no, we'll take this through the debate process and do an amendment (preferably after the election I would guess).

"However, in 2022, when Lake was running for governor of Arizona, she said that the 1864 law was “a great law that’s already on the books,” according to the Associated Press."

"Former Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, (AND CONSERVATIVE ASS-HAT) who called the 15-week abortion ban bill that he signed a “thoughtful conservative policy,” expressed on X that the ruling was not his “preferred” outcome.

“I call on our elected leaders to heed the will of the people and address this issue with a policy that is workable and reflective of our electorate,” Ducey said in the post."

Arizona’s Supreme Court ruled that a 160-year-old abortion ban can be enforced. Here's what the ruling means.

The Arizona Supreme Court has upheld a Civil War-era law banning abortions with one exception. Here's what that means for women in the state.

www.yahoo.com

They're hardly lining up against the ruling.

 

[Care4all]

And yet you don't have a problem with going after Trump with laws from the Civil War era.

Section 241: Trump Could Be Charged Under 1870 Statute Used To Prosecute KKK—Here’s What To Know About It

The statute, dating back to just after the Civil War, could punish Trump for attempting to interfere with the vote count.

www.forbes.com

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/03/enforcement-acts-trump-00109622

Not a good comparison....imo

From your link, the civil war era law being used in Georgia has been used repeatedly and upheld by the supreme court as late as 1974....

____________________________________________________________

Section 241 was initially passed after the Civil War as part of the Enforcement Act of 1870 as a way to punish members of the Ku Klux Klan and other Southerners from intimidating or harassing Black voters for exercising their new voting rights, but has since been used more broadly to thwart attempts to interfere in federal elections.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the use of Section 241 in prosecuting election-related crimes and defending both Americans’ right to vote and the right to have that vote properly counted, ruling in the 1974 case Anderson v. United States: “The right to an honest [count] is a right possessed by each voting elector, and to the extent that the importance of his vote is nullified, wholly or in part, he has been injured in the free exercise of a right or privilege secured to him by the laws and Constitution of the United States.”