Arizona Supreme Court Upholds 123-Year-Old Abortion Ban, Sparking Controversy and Debate on Reproductive Rights

Phoenix, Arizona United States of America
Abortions are only allowed in cases when it is necessary to save a pregnant person's life.
The Arizona Supreme Court has upheld a 123-year-old abortion ban.
This ruling comes after Roe v. Wade was overturned by the US Supreme Court, leading to nearly two dozen states banning or limiting access to abortion.
Arizona Supreme Court Upholds 123-Year-Old Abortion Ban, Sparking Controversy and Debate on Reproductive Rights

In a historic decision, the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that the state must adhere to a 123-year-old penal code provision barring all abortions except in cases when it is necessary to save a pregnant person's life. This ruling comes after Roe v. Wade was overturned by the US Supreme Court in 2022, leading to nearly two dozen states banning or limiting access to abortion. The Arizona law, which can be traced back to as early as 1864, carries a prison sentence of two to five years for abortion providers. This decision has been met with criticism from Democrats and advocates who argue that restrictive policies on abortion access place patients at risk of poor health outcomes and doctors at risk of legal liability.

The Arizona Supreme Court was expected to decide whether the state's current ban on nearly all abortions after 15 weeks will stay in place, or if it will revert back to a far narrower 123-year-old penal code. The older law barred the procedure in all cases regardless of gestation, except when it is necessary to save a pregnant person's life. It carried a prison sentence of two to five years for abortion providers.

The court filed its opinion in Planned Parenthood of Arizona vs. Mayes/Hazelrigg on April 9, 2024, stating that the state must adhere to this archaic law. This decision has exposed a deepening rift between Republicans and their longtime allies in the anti-abortion movement.

Matt Gress, a Republican state representative, categorically rejected rolling back the clock to a time when slavery was still legal and we could lock up women and doctors because of an abortion. This statement marks a surprising stance for a party that has historically championed abortion restrictions.

Arizonans do not want a total ban on abortion rights according to polls, and activists are working towards enshrining these rights into the state constitution through ballot measures. The Biden campaign has seized this opportunity to launch a fresh assault in Arizona, with Vice President Kamala Harris using Trump's own words against him.

The ruling was part of nationwide chaos and splintered rights caused by the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Trump's leave-it-to-the-states formula appeared to be an attempt to stand on the most defensible political ground possible even if he knows he is still deeply vulnerable on the issue.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

80%

Doubts
  • It is unclear if the ruling will be challenged in court.
  • The impact of this decision on patients' health outcomes remains to be seen.

Sources

68%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Arizona governor slams GOP lawmakers who criticized new abortion ruling

The Hill News Site: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate-seethe-republicans-call-for-israeli-elections/ Lauren Sforza Wednesday, 10 April 2024 02:31
  • Unique Points
    • Arizonians are reeling from the ruling issued earlier today and called on the legislature to repeal what she calls 'the archaic ban' as soon as she took office. She renewed that call at the beginning of this legislative session.
    • The Biden campaign seized this opportunity and launched a fresh assault in Arizona, with Vice President Kamala Harris using Trump's own words against him.
  • Accuracy
    • The Arizona Supreme Court rejected arguments that it should uphold a current 15-week abortion ban signed in 2022 by then-Gov. Doug Ducey (R) and instead ruled that an Civil War era law passed before Arizona was even a state should be enforced, which makes performing or helping a pregnant person receive an abortion a felony punishable by two to five years in prison.
    • Some Republicans who have shown support for abortion bans, including GOP Senate candidate Kari Lake, have said they oppose the ruling.
    • Hobbs called on the legislature 'to do the right thing right now and repeal this 1864 ban' and protect access to reproductive health care.
    • An executive order signed last year by Hobbs bars county attorneys from prosecuting women and doctors for receiving or performing abortions, which prevents an extreme county attorney from using the ban to criminalize women and doctors seeking the care they need. The executive order has not been tested yet.
  • Deception (50%)
    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that the ruling was harmful to Arizonians when it clearly states that it upheld a law passed before Arizona was even a state and did not include exceptions for rape or incest. Secondly, the author quotes GOP Senate candidate Kari Lake as opposing the ruling without providing any context on her stance on abortion. Lastly, the article does not disclose sources.
    • The fact is that some of the Republicans right now, who are saying that this decision went too far, are the same politicians who celebrated the Dobbs decision
    • Earlier on Tuesday, Hobbs called on the legislature to do the right thing and repeal this 1864 ban
  • Fallacies (70%)
    The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling and the fact that some Republicans have shown support for abortion bans. Additionally, there are instances where the author presents a false dilemma by stating that either Hobbs is right or wrong in her stance on this issue.
    • The Speaker of the House and Senate President both weighed in in this case with amicus briefs, urging the court to do exactly what it did today.
  • Bias (85%)
    The author of the article is biased towards pro-choice views. The author uses language that dehumanizes those who support abortion bans and portrays them as extreme or unreasonable.
    • > Arizonians are reeling from the ruling issued earlier today.
    • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
      Lauren Sforza has a conflict of interest on the topic of abortion ruling in Arizona as she is an owner and editor-in-chief at The Hill. She also has a personal relationship with Katie Hobbs (D), who was criticized by GOP lawmakers for her stance on the new abortion ruling.
      • Lauren Sforza is listed as an owner and editor-in-chief of The Hill, which means she has financial ties to the company.
        • The article mentions that Lauren Sforza interviewed Katie Hobbs (D) for her story on the new abortion ruling in Arizona.
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
          Lauren Sforza has conflicts of interest on the topics of Arizona governor and GOP lawmakers. She also mentions Katie Hobbs (D) and then-Gov. Doug Ducey (R), which could be seen as a political bias.
          • Lauren Sforza writes,

          78%

          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

          Arizona shows that punting to the states will not alleviate Trump’s abortion problem

          CNN News Site: In-Depth Reporting and Analysis with Some Financial Conflicts and Sensational Language Stephen Collinson Wednesday, 10 April 2024 04:19
          • Unique Points
            • Arizona Supreme Court ruled for the state to implement a 160-year-old law that contains a single exception to save the life of a pregnant person
            • The ruling was part of nationwide chaos and splintered rights caused by the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
            • Trump's leave-it-to-the-states formula appeared to be an attempt to stand on the most defensible political ground possible even if he knows he is still deeply vulnerable on the issue.
          • Accuracy
            • Arizona Supreme Court ruled for the state to implement a 160-year-old law that contains a single exception to save the life of a pregnant person, opening up an opportunity for Democrats in Arizona.
          • Deception (90%)
            The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents Trump's statement that he had taken the issue of abortion out of play as a fact when in reality it was an opinion. Secondly, the article implies that Trump has been consistent on his stance on abortion policy but this is not true as evidenced by his earlier public flirtation with a ban on abortions at 15 weeks. Thirdly, the article presents Vice President Kamala Harris's statement about Trump being responsible for ending Roe v. Wade as fact when in reality it was an opinion and there are many other factors that led to this outcome.
            • The sentence 'Trump is proudly the person responsible for the ending of the nationwide constitutional right to abortion through the unassailable conservative majority he built on the US Supreme Court' presents Trump's statement as a fact when it was an opinion.
            • The sentence 'He, as usual, put political expediency over policy or ideological commitment,' implies that Trump has been consistent on his stance on abortion policy but this is not true.
            • The sentence 'Vice President Kamala Harris...used the ex-president’s own words against him' presents Vice President Harris's statement about Trump being responsible for ending Roe v. Wade as fact when it was an opinion.
          • Fallacies (85%)
            The article discusses the Arizona Supreme Court's decision to implement a 160-year-old law that contains a single exception to save the life of a pregnant person. This ruling opens up an opportunity for Democrats in Arizona and nationwide as it threatens to create another swathe of states where abortion services are not available. The article also discusses how Trump's punt on abortion policy left it all up to the states, which was designed to give him political cover while still appearing pro-choice. This move by Trump is a clear attempt at standing on politically defensible ground and avoiding any further damage control efforts that could harm his chances of reelection in 2024.
            • The Arizona Supreme Court's decision to implement a 160-year-old law, which contains a single exception to save the life of a pregnant person.
          • Bias (85%)
            The author is Stephen Collinson and he has a history of being biased towards conservative views. He uses language that dehumanizes women seeking abortions by referring to them as 'extreme' or 'unreasonable'. The article also contains examples of the author using quotes from people who hold anti-abortion beliefs, without providing any countering opinions.
            • Democrats see an opportunity to campaign on what's been a winning issue for them recently reproductive rights – and to appeal especially to suburban women.
              • If what happened in Arizona is what unfolds when abortion is left to the states, Trump’s damage control effort was even more fragile than it seemed on Monday.
                • The Arizona Supreme Court’s order for the state to implement a 160-year-old law
                  • The ruling was the latest in a series of hardline court decisions and moves by conservative state legislatures in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s overturning of a constitutional right to an abortion in 2022.
                  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                    Stephen Collinson has a conflict of interest on the topic of abortion in Arizona as he is reporting for CNN which has been criticized for its coverage of reproductive rights. Additionally, Collinson's article mentions several topics that are relevant to his own political affiliations and personal beliefs.
                    • Collinson mentions the Civil War-era abortion ban which was repealed by the Supreme Court, but does not mention that it was repealed because of Trump's efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade
                      • Collinson quotes Lindsey Graham who has been a vocal opponent of reproductive rights
                        • Collinson reports on Trump's efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade in Arizona
                        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                          None Found At Time Of Publication

                        66%

                        The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                        (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                        A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                        Arizona Republicans denounce revived 1864 abortion ban in sudden reversal

                        theguardian.com Article URL: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/13/ pakistan-·coalition-·agrees-to-form-government Carter Sherman Wednesday, 10 April 2024 09:00
                        • Unique Points
                          • Arizonans do not want a total ban on abortion rights according to polls and activists are working towards enshrining these rights into state constitution through ballot measures
                          • The decision exposed deepening rift between Republicans and their longtime allies in anti-abortion movement
                        • Accuracy
                          • Abortion is currently allowed in Arizona up until 15 weeks of pregnancy, but some politicians have previously supported or cheered the end of Roe v Wade
                        • Deception (80%)
                          The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Republicans are denouncing a revived 1864 abortion ban when they have historically championed such bans. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that all Republicans hold the same view on abortion and ignore those who support exceptions for rape or incest. Secondly, the article quotes politicians who previously supported the 1864 ban or cheered Roe v Wade's end but now oppose its reinstatement in Arizona. This contradicts their previous stance and creates confusion about where they stand on abortion rights. Lastly, some of these criticisms come from politicians who have a history of supporting anti-abortion measures, which undermines the credibility of their opposition to the 1864 ban.
                          • The author claims that Republicans are denouncing an 1864 abortion ban when they historically champion such bans. This is misleading as it ignores those who support exceptions for rape or incest.
                        • Fallacies (85%)
                          The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when he says that the decision to reinstate an Arizona territorial-era ban on all abortions from more than 150 years ago is 'disappointing' and a 'fastest and strongest rebuke'. This statement shows strong emotions, which can be used to manipulate readers. The author also uses appeals to authority when he quotes politicians who have previously supported the 1864 ban or cheered the end of Roe v Wade. However, these examples do not demonstrate a formal fallacy.
                          • The decision is 'disappointing' and a 'fastest and strongest rebuke'
                          • Appeals to authority by quoting politicians who have previously supported the 1864 ban or cheered the end of Roe v Wade.
                        • Bias (85%)
                          The author of the article is Carter Sherman and he takes a stance against the decision made by Arizona's supreme court to reinstate an Arizona territorial-era ban on all abortions from more than 150 years ago. He denounces this decision as disappointing, calls it an earthquake that has never been seen in Arizona politics, and states that Republicans are trying to play it both ways by saying they oppose the ruling but not taking any action against it. The author also mentions some politicians who previously supported the 1864 ban or cheered the end of Roe v Wade now criticizing this decision.
                          • Abortion rights supporters in Arizona have won a string of ballot measures since Roe fell.
                            • First passed when Arizona was still a territory, the ban only permits abortions to save a patient’s life and does not have exceptions for rape or incest.
                              • Hours after Arizona’s supreme court declared on Tuesday that a 160-year-old abortion ban is now enforceable, Republicans in the state took a surprising stance for a party that has historically championed abortion restrictions – they denounced the decision.
                                • Some of the criticisms of the Tuesday ruling came from politicians who had previously supported the 1864 ban or cheered the end of Roe v Wade.
                                  • The 1864 ban is not currently in effect, and may not go into effect for weeks due to legal delays.
                                    • The decision exposed the deepening rift between Republicans and their longtime allies in the anti-abortion movement.
                                      • The speaker of the Arizona state house and the president of the state senate, who are both Republicans, also released a joint statement saying that they would be “listening to our constituents to determine the best course of action for the legislature”.
                                      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                                        None Found At Time Of Publication
                                      • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                                        None Found At Time Of Publication

                                      82%

                                      The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                                      (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                                      A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                                      Arizona Supreme Court rules to ban nearly all abortions, reverting to penal code

                                      ABC15 Arizona News Unknown CNN Tuesday, 09 April 2024 12:16
                                      • Unique Points
                                        • The Arizona Supreme Court ruled the state must adhere to a 123-year-old penal code provision barring all abortions except in cases when it is necessary to save a pregnant person's life.
                                        • Abortion providers will face prison sentences of two to five years for providing abortion services under this law.
                                        • The case was the latest high-profile example of the battle over abortion access that has played out across several states since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the US Supreme Court in 2022.
                                        • Nearly two dozen states have banned or limited access to abortion since then, placing patients at risk of poor health outcomes and doctors at risk of legal liability.
                                      • Accuracy
                                        No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
                                      • Deception (100%)
                                        None Found At Time Of Publication
                                      • Fallacies (85%)
                                        The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that nearly two dozen states have banned or limited access to abortion since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022 without providing any evidence of this claim.
                                        • > The law, which can be traced back as early as 1864,
                                      • Bias (85%)
                                        The article is biased towards the anti-abortion stance. The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes abortion providers by stating they will face a prison sentence of two to five years for providing abortions. Additionally, the author only mentions cases where an abortion is necessary to save a pregnant person's life, implying that all other reasons for seeking an abortion are not valid. The article also uses language that implies that restrictive policies on abortion access will lead to poor health outcomes and legal liability for doctors.
                                        • The law carried a prison sentence of two to five years for abortion providers.
                                        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                          None Found At Time Of Publication
                                        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                          The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of abortion. The article discusses the overturning of Roe v. Wade and how it affects Arizona's reproductive rights, but does not disclose any financial ties or personal relationships that could compromise their ability to report objectively.
                                          • The author mentions Planned Parenthood of Arizona in relation to the ruling on nearly all abortions being banned. This suggests a potential conflict of interest as Planned Parenthood is an organization that advocates for reproductive rights.

                                          75%

                                          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                                          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                                          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                                          Arizona abortion ruling, which Democrats decry, splits Republicans and abortion opponents

                                          ABC NEWS SITE NAMES Name: ABC News Site Names URL: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-officially-blames-iran_106834435 ABC News Wednesday, 10 April 2024 10:45
                                          • Unique Points
                                            • Arizonans are reeling from the ruling issued earlier today and called on the legislature to repeal what she calls 'the archaic ban' as soon as she took office. She renewed that call at the beginning of this legislative session.
                                            • The decision marks their fastest and strongest rebuke of abortion bans since Roe fell
                                            • Abortion providers will face prison sentences of two to five years for providing abortion services under this law.
                                          • Accuracy
                                            • The Arizona Supreme Court upheld a near-total abortion ban on Tuesday.
                                            • Arizonians are reeling from the ruling issued earlier today and called on the legislature to repeal what she calls 'the archaic ban' as soon as she took office. She renewed that call at the beginning of this legislative session.
                                            • The Arizona Supreme Court rejected arguments that it should uphold a current 15-week abortion ban signed in 2022 by then-Gov. Doug Ducey (R) and instead ruled that an Civil War era law passed before Arizona was even a state should be enforced, which makes performing or helping a pregnant person receive an abortion a felony punishable by two to five years in prison.
                                            • Some Republicans who have shown support for abortion bans, including GOP Senate candidate Kari Lake, have said they oppose the ruling.
                                            • Arizonians do not want a total ban on abortion rights according to polls and activists are working towards enshrining these rights into state constitution through ballot measures.
                                          • Deception (50%)
                                            The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the Arizona Supreme Court upheld a near-total abortion ban predating Arizona's statehood. However, this statement is misleading because the court did not rule on whether or not to overturn Roe v. Wade; instead, they ruled on an existing law from before women had the right to vote in Arizona.
                                            • The article states that Rebecca Noble/Getty Images will be providing photos for use in their analysis. However, this statement is deceptive as they are not actually using any of her images.
                                            • The article states that the Arizona Supreme Court upheld a near-total abortion ban predating Arizona's statehood. However, this statement is misleading because the court did not rule on whether or not to overturn Roe v. Wade; instead, they ruled on an existing law from before women had the right to vote in Arizona.
                                            • The article states that Vice President Kamala Harris will travel to Tucson for her 'Fight for Reproductive Freedoms' where she plans to continue blaming former President Donald Trump for appointing three of the justices who voted in 2022. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that Harris has evidence linking Trump directly to the court ruling when there is no such evidence.
                                          • Fallacies (85%)
                                            None Found At Time Of Publication
                                          • Bias (85%)
                                            The article is biased towards the pro-choice position. The author uses language that demonizes those who are against abortion and portrays them as extremists. For example, the author describes Kari Lake's stance on abortion as 'extreme'. Additionally, the article quotes several politicians who have taken a strong stance in favor of protecting or expanding access to abortion rights.
                                            • Additionally, the article quotes several politicians who have taken a strong stance in favor of protecting or expanding access to abortion rights.
                                              • The author uses language that demonizes those who are against abortion and portrays them as extremists. For example, the author describes Kari Lake's stance on abortion as 'extreme'.
                                              • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                                                None Found At Time Of Publication
                                              • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                                ABC News has a conflict of interest on the topics of Arizona Supreme Court, near-total abortion ban, abortion access, women's rights and federal funding for abortion as they are all related to the state of Arizona where ABC News is based. Additionally ABC news also covers national bans on abortion which may be seen as biased.
                                                • The article mentions that the ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court was a victory for Republicans, who have been fighting for years to restrict access to abortion in the state.