Former Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey says the abortion ruling from justices he chose goes too far

Daily Mail UK ^ | April 11, 2024 | AP

[Morgana]

A ban on nearly all abortions in Arizona doesn´t sit well with the Republican former governor whose expansion of the state Supreme Court allowed him to appoint the four conservative justices whose ruling cleared the way for it.

Doug Ducey is among Republicans in several states who are wrestling with the consequences of their opposition to abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. He expanded the state court in 2016, but thinks its ruling this week went too far.

After the Arizona court ruled 4-2 on Monday to revive an 1864 law that criminalizes abortion throughout pregnancy unless a woman´s life is at risk, Ducey posted on the platform X that it was "not the outcome I would have preferred." He said a law he signed in 2022 banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy was more in line with what voters want.

In Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio, where an abortion ban signed into law by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine got overturned in a referendum that enshrined the right to an abortion in the state constitution, the issue has helped Democrats win races and in some cases begin to reverse Republican-led bans.

More may be in store. In Florida, the state's high court cleared the way for a six-week ban that Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed while also allowing an abortion-rights referendum go before the state´s voters this November.

Abortion also is a major feature in the presidential race, potentially boosting turnout for Democrats and putting down-ballot Republicans on a back foot. Polls show most U.S. adults don´t support tough restrictions.

[Morgana]

In all due respect, SHUT UP SIR, the people have spoken on abortion. NO MORE babies murdered.

[Reno89519]

So funny, this is what they all wanted until they got it, now can't run away and cower fast enough.

What we need is leadership, thread to needle of pro-life with practical solution avoiding the extremes of both sides. I thought this is what Trump promised several weeks ago, but, nope, he's running and cowering as well for the moment. Will he reapproach this, fill the vacuum?

[Reno89519]

I agree, we should not be killing or allowing babies to be killed. But what is realistic approach that can defeat a complete legalization to birth as now being sought by Democrats?

[rdcbn1]

Arizona law is pretty explicit - it's not like the Arizona Supreme Court had any choice but to rule the way they did. It really does not matter how long the law has been in effect.

What ever happened to much touted principle of Stare Decisis?

[Recovering_Democrat]

I think both sides have it wrong. Judges didn’t go too far, did they? They interpreted a written law as intended by the legislature that created said law.

Judges merely did what judges ought to do. Judges did not write legislation in Arizona, they applied it. Same as in Alabama.

If the other two branches want to address that issue, they should do so.

[Political Junkie Too]

the abortion ruling from justices he chose goes too far

I'm confused.

A court saying that a law on the books is enforceable is going too far?

Why not just ask the legislation to repeal or change the law? Isn't that how it's supposed to be done?

Once again, cowardly politicians are afraid to vote on controversial things and hope the courts will do their job for them. When the court does not, they are "going too far?"

-PJ

[desertsolitaire]

It’s more confusing than that.
Ducey says here that he signed a law into effect in 2022 allowing abortions up to 15 weeks.
If so, why is that not now the law instead of the 1864 law prohibiting it entirely there?

[Political Junkie Too]

I don't know the details, but I would suppose that the legislature didn't know about the 1864 law or it would have included language in the 2022 law to repeal the 1864 law?

In the case of two conflicting laws, which one has precedence: the older law or the newer law? I guess the court decided it was the original law, but I don't know the details.

-PJ

[desertsolitaire]

Thanks.

[MMusson]

This actually sounds like a ruling on Law rather than a ruling on Abortion. The Abortion restriction kept getting included in the updated codified Arizona statues and was just ignored until Roe V. Wade was repealed. No one objected at the time and now it’s a problem.

[skr]

The life of the mother is the only reason for considering an abortion. Anything else is extreme for the one person who doesn’t get a choice.

[Eleutheria5]

Well, they spoke in 1864, anyway. Then all the Arizonans of 1864 got old and died, so now they’re voting Democrat.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“A court saying that a law on the books is enforceable is going too far?”

This is what the judge in NYC did to Trump. Applied a law close to 100 years old. If this changes in Arizona, Trump has a great appeal.

[Pete Dovgan]

It’s a State right.

States have legislative processes to change things, adopt things, work on things, for the people.

Somebody let the process work, whatever the outcome, it’s NOT a federal issue. To me, the overreach of the federal government is far more dangerous than the people deciding locally how to govern themselves.

I pray, that the people of Arizona make a decision best for all, and I mean that. I recognize that it is an Arizona decision. The problem with liberals is they don’t respect any decision they don’t like, regardless if it’s Constitutional. Just ask the Arizona AG…..

[Political Junkie Too]

Yes, and New York made Trump the predator and the banks the consumer.

-PJ

[Iron Munro]

It’s the law.

If you don’t like it petition your legislature to change it.

Federal and state legislatures keep making new laws without a thought about old laws that may be forgotten but are still the law.

Legislatures should spend part of their time reviewing older laws and killing those that have outlived their intended purpose.

[Obadiah]

Ah yes. Right on schedule we see the abortion issue being cranked up to secure the suburban women vote. Soon, very soon, celebrities will be seen on the nightly news at rallies expressing outrage. And the suburban women will lap it all up like imbiclic dogs.

[SisterK]

Yep
he needs to Shut Up

Arizona has enough problems without bringing down the wrath of God

[BuckeyeGOP]

if what I’ve heard is true, that there are no exceptions, then I agreee with it being overturned. If it isn’t...like it or not...Arizona goes blue.

Then what? In a perfect world we all get what we want, unfortunately this is not a perfect world and we have to share our oxygen with the marxist party. Losing Arizona gives them even more power to codify draconian laws.

Personally, I’d push for 20 weeks. It’s still not great but it’s something that the vast majority of Americans could rally behind.

[House Atreides]

“ In the case of two conflicting laws, which one has precedence: the older law or the newer law? I guess the court decided it was the original law, but I don’t know the details.
************************************************************

Without having read the actual language of the two laws I’m assuming the two laws don’t actually contradict each other. The old one says abortions are illegal throughout pregnancy. The new law says abortions are illegal after the 15th week of pregnancy.

So abortions in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy violate ONLY THE OLD LAW. Abortions after the 15th week violate BOTH LAWS. An upthread poster had it right… the 21st century legislators were guilty of poorly written legislation. I suspect some already knew that but kept their mouths shut hoping for the current outcome and its aftermath,