So. Let's talk Arizona shall we? Most of us in AZ were blindsided by yesterday's AZ Supreme Court gob-smackingly horrific appalling decision.
Our state has officially gone back to the Civil War era. You know, the one where people felt entitled to own other people. Where husbands owned their wives pretty much too.
This was outcome was not expected. We are a purple state. Nearly all of the important executive elected positions are currently held by Dems. We have elected 2 dem senators ( though one has decided to become independent and is not running again this year).
But the state legislator is Republican and the AZ Supreme Court is 100% Republican.
The Washington Post notes this law, written decades before AZ was even a state, had a bunch of other "lovely" laws under the "Howell Code" including this gem:
In Section 34, it creates the category of “excusable homicides.” Those include situations such as when “a man is at work with an axe, and the head flies off and kills a bystander” or “a parent is moderately correcting his child, or a master his servant or scholar.” Only when that correction is “moderate,” mind you. Exceed the bounds of moderation correction, and you’re subject to more severe charges.
So if I kill my child through the use of moderate punishment, I am excused? My servant too?
I don't know when we are having a Civil Rights March on this, but there will be one.
And I will be marching. And marching!
Does anyone know if I now have to ASK my husband if I am allowed to march?
Is wearing shorts considered indecent and subject to arrest?
@lovendures The video of the AZ gop legislators kneeling in prayer on the AZ senate floor (and speaking in tongues?!) was not on my 2024 hellscape bingo card. Good grief.
@lovendures This is part of a larger effort to chip away on all women's rights and return them to their intended purpose as helpmates to their husbands. Consider the Republican movement to remove "no fault" divorces in those states that provide it. Like in the 19th century, women will have to prove the reason they want a divorce or be denied the right and suffer the financial consequences .
It's a terrible time to be a woman in America.
Anyone see any improvements on the horizon besides the general election?
Religious exemption lawsuit in Indiana.
This is a great article.
I just mentioned to my family Tuesday about how antiabortion rulings go against Jewish religious beliefs. The ability of one religion to force its views on another is just plain wrong.
@lovendures As I understand it, and I know this is an oversimplification so I stand to be corrected, SCOTUS kicked the issue regarding abortion rights back to the states and/or the legislature. Their position was that they should not have decided Roe vs. Wade in the first place. So, their decision was not made on religious grounds that intended to favor evangelicals over non-evangelicals, but as a practical outcome, this is exactly what happened. So, while @lowtide asks a good question, I doubt they'd agree to hear the argument because it's already "settled law" (what irony).
@lowtide Well, this is a huge legal issue and I believe it sure could. I would hope it does if needed. But I am not a lawyer so ...
@lovendures I agree with @kathleen that SCOTUS would not review it, but there's a kernel of a different and separate legal issue at the center of this that might have a slight chance if framed properly. This case isn't about whether abortion should be legal overall, but whether the state is favoring one religion over another in enforcing a ban that conflicts with other, well-established and well-known non-Christian religious belief and practice. I think it's an unspoken truth that banning abortion is a religious issue, and in saying that it's illegal for everyone, they are providing official, legally binding support to Christian-based religions over any and all others. The fact that Judaism and other belief systems do not agree with the Evangelical and or Catholic Christianity premise of when life begins, yet Jewish people - among others - would be required by law to abide by that restriction could properly be a SCOTUS worthy First Amendment issue, again assuming it's framed and argued properly.
There are religious objections for other things, like a requirement to work on the Sabbath, or take vaccinations to remain in healthcare jobs. Often, religious objections are recognized with a required signature of a minister. This is no different. Glad the ACLU is involved. May this wreak all sorts of havoc on the Republicans. Roe-vember is coming!
@matildagirl The Tail is Wagging the Dog.
Two days ago I wrote about the gun violence in the US. I included a recent Pew Research Report* and other data that helped explain something that probably puzzles you:
how can it be that the majority of Americans do not own guns,
that the majority of American households do not own guns,
that the majority of Americans do want strong gun control,
and yet we have more guns than citizens and extraordinarily high gun violence?
I lost that carefully written and documented post before I sent it. (Thank you Mercury Retrograde) I simply don't have the time or heart to go back to the research and reconstruct the post. Here's a partial synopsis in bullet points:
* The bulk of the guns are in Red (conservative GOP) regions
* Such households often have multiples of hand guns, rifles, and automatic weapons
* Perpetrators of mass shootings have a national average age in the low 30s
* Data shows that more guns means more gun violence. Conservatives refuse to believe that simple fact.
* The same conservative areas also have the highest domestic violence (and for decades have vehemently opposed any and all progressive policies be it universal health care, climate change mitigation, education, minimum wage... you name it). Many of these Red areas are currently busy increasing voting suppression... and banning books (some states are even banning dictionaries in schools).
* Based on our Constitution, political power is skewed to such regions (often rural regions) due to the structure of our Federal system. For example, in the US Senate every state has 2 votes: California (Dem) has 39+ million citizens; Missouri (GOP) has about 6 million.
* The concept of "States Rights" is a powerful force in the USA. Our 10th Constitution Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved by the States respectively, or to the people." Many forces in the US interpret this as a way to counter Federal regulations and oversight of all kinds... including national clean air and water... and guns.
* Federal safeguards to control gerrymandering districts and voter suppression has been weakened thanks to a conservative-dominated US Supreme Court. The SC eliminated some of the safeguards as no longer necessary. HA! This has resulted in a return to skewed electoral districts in some Red states (and more coming online every month)--in effect diluting the opposing party's representatives by breaking up their party's voting block). This in turn has weighted the current US House of Representatives toward not just conservative US House Representatives (which currently means MAGAs).
* When in control of the US Senate, each Party names Federal judges. Most of those judges stay true to their oaths to be impartial-- a handful do not. GOP Presidents GW Bush and George Bush--and Trump have named very conservative Justices to our US Supreme Court--for life. (Don't get me started about the life long appointment.) The SC is now controlled by conservatives.
* Our Presidents are not elected by popular vote. Based on our Constitution we have an "Electoral College" which has Electors who are supposed to vote based on their state's popular vote (but not all states allocate Electors based on "winner takes all"). For example, Trump lost the popular vote in both his runs for President. In the first, he won the Electoral College; in the second he lost it. If you think this is nuts, matildagirl, I couldn't agree with you more.
Our once proud GOP is controlled by hate-filled, conspiracy-spouting politicians. With a few notable exceptions, normal conservatives are afraid to speak up. Anyone who opposes MAGA is literally in fear for their life... and for good reason.
* Based on sheer numbers, the GOP is the Minority Party... in the past it has done its best to obstruct liberal legislation. Under Trump's influence, wherever it is in official control the GOP is now trying to turn the country into an authoritarian patriarchy.
Net Net? The tail is wagging the dog.
PS : dear @matildagirl all Americans do not call your country a "nanny state." That's just the conservatives. Liberals like myself do not use that derogatory expression. Quite the contrary.
Like many here on the Forum I foresee a political sea change in the United States. For some time, I have felt that our upcoming election will be close and contentious. There will be some violence ... states like Texas may threaten to leave the Union. Voting lines will be very long. But there will be a backlash against the MAGAs. Democrats will take the Presidency and control of both Houses of Congress in the next national election.** Progressives will push strongly for change in the late 20s and into the 30s. In time we will rewrite our Constitution.
Change is coming.
And non too soon.
Love and best wishes , from a friendly, mostly harmless, tree-hugging Yank
* The Pew Research Center is a non-partisan think tank, based in Washington, DC (pew research.org). I'll post the specific link to "Key facts about Americans and guns" in my next post. I don't want to loose this missive, too.
** The Democratic Party is far from perfect--exasperating at times--but most Democrats are united in believing in democracy and in governance for the well-being of all our citizens (not just our billionaires, our large corporations and white Christian males).
@lovendures As I understand it, and I know this is an oversimplification so I stand to be corrected, SCOTUS kicked the issue regarding abortion rights back to the states and/or the legislature. Their position was that they should not have decided Roe vs. Wade in the first place. So, their decision was not made on religious grounds that intended to favor evangelicals over non-evangelicals, but as a practical outcome, this is exactly what happened. So, while @lowtide asks a good question, I doubt they'd agree to hear the argument because it's already "settled law" (what irony).
There is a chance they will have to comment on this, specifically because the lawsuit directly cites Burwell vs Hobby Lobby. For some reason I don’t see Alito being ok with that ruling being used to allow abortion.
@freya Hi Freya
i do hope that the US can start changing things for the better. I think one of the best things that we did was to bring in compulsory voting, even though some grumble about it. I think it made people take some notice of what was happening politically and it was also compulsory to enrol to vote as well. For politicians to get in they needed to have policies that would benefit their constituents, there didn’t have to be all the hoopla and fund raising you guys do. They do need some funds for advertising etc and the federal government gives each party funds to do that plus they raise money from corporations etc there is lobbying as well. There are moves to limit how much they can raise from this and it has to be reported how much and who from and the independents are trying to bring in much more transparency regarding that.
I think the bogeyman of Communism in the US has blinded a lot of people to the benefits of socialist policies like universal healthcare, paid mandatory annual leave, parental leave, sick leave etc. We as a country aren’t too bad regarding socialist policies but there a lot of Scandinavian and European countries who do it so much better.
Its a big challenge for the US, but a vote is a powerful thing.
I better stay out of politics I don’t know enough really to make comment even though I have been but since Trump came on the scene watching what is happening in the US has become compelling. The outcome can affect the whole world not just the US.
Hope your visions are correct.
Regards
Matildagirl
@tgraf66 I see your point, but I also believe SCOTUS will be loathe to take up abortion again. They insert themselves into preserving religious liberties like praying before games or allowing a merchant to refuse service to gay couples, but they wipe their hands when it comes to applying a settled law in a pragmatic way to preserve everyone's liberties.
This is exactly what I was thinking, I just didn't state is clearly like you did. That is the issue that I believe could go to the SC. It becomes a religious issue. The entire thing is a religious issue, it certainly isn't science based.