Connect with us

Politics

What to know about the Arizona Supreme Court's reinstatement of an 1864 near-total abortion ban

Published

on

What to know about the Arizona Supreme Court's reinstatement of an 1864 near-total abortion ban
  • The Arizona Supreme Court has given the go-ahead to enforce a law that bans almost all abortions.
  • The long-dormant law, which predates Arizona’s statehood, allows abortions only if the mother’s life is in jeopardy.
  • Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs has called for a repeal of the ban.

PHOENIX (AP) — The Arizona Supreme Court has delivered a landmark decision in giving the go-ahead to enforce a long-dormant law that bans nearly all abortions, drastically altering the legal landscape for terminating pregnancies in the state.

The law predating Arizona’s statehood provides no exceptions for rape or incest and allows abortions only if the mother’s life is in jeopardy. Arizona’s highest court suggested doctors can be prosecuted under the 1864 law, though the opinion written by the court’s majority didn’t explicitly say that.

ARIZONA SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS NEAR-TOTAL ABORTION BAN

The Tuesday decision threw out an earlier lower-court decision that concluded doctors couldn’t be charged for performing abortions in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.

This file photo shows Celina Washburn at a protest on Sept. 23, 2022, outside the Arizona Capitol in Phoenix to voice her opposition to an abortion ruling. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, April 9, 2024, that the state can enforce its long-dormant law criminalizing all abortions except when a mother’s life is at stake.  (AP Photo/Matt York)

HOW WE GOT HERE

Advertisement

The law was enacted decades before Arizona became a state on Feb. 14, 1912. A court in Tucson had blocked its enforcement shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing the constitutional right to an abortion.

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe decision in June 2022, then-Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, successfully requested that a state judge lift an injunction that blocked enforcement of the 1864 ban.

The state Court of Appeals suspended the law as Brnovich’s Democratic successor, Attorney General Kris Mayes, urged the state’s high court to uphold the appellate court’s decision.

WHO CAN BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE 1864 LAW?

The law orders prosecution for “a person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life.”

Advertisement

The Arizona Supreme Court suggested in its ruling Tuesday that physicians can be prosecuted, though justices didn’t say that outright.

“In light of this Opinion, physicians are now on notice that all abortions, except those necessary to save a woman’s life, are illegal” the ruling said. The justices noted additional criminal and regulatory sanctions may apply to abortions performed after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

The law carries a sentence of two to five years in prison upon conviction. Lawyers for Planned Parenthood Arizona said they believe criminal penalties will apply only to doctors.

The high court said enforcement won’t begin for at least two weeks. However, plaintiffs say it could be up to two months, based on an agreement in a related case to delay enforcement if the justices upheld the pre-statehood ban.

POLITICS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE

Advertisement

The ruling puts the issue of abortion access front and center in a battleground state for the 2024 presidential election and partisan control of the U.S. Senate.

Democrats immediately pounced on the ruling, blaming former President Donald Trump for the loss of abortion access because he appointed the justices who formed the majority that ended the national right to abortion.

President Joe Biden and his allies are emphasizing efforts to restore abortion rights, while Trump has avoided endorsing a national abortion ban and warned that the issue could lead to Republican losses. The decision will give Arizona the strictest abortion law of the top-tier battleground states.

Staunch Trump ally and abortion opponent Kari Lake is challenging Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego for the U.S. Senate seat now held by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who isn’t seeking a second term.

WHAT’S NEXT?

Advertisement

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs called on the state Legislature to repeal the ban.

“They could do that today,” she said Wednesday in an interview on “CBS Mornings.”

“They could gavel in today and make a motion to repeal this ban,” Hobbs said. “And they should do that. I’m hopeful that they will because this will have devastating consequences for Arizona.”

Under a near-total ban, the number of abortions in Arizona is expected to drop drastically from about 1,100 monthly, as estimated by a survey for the Society of Family Planning.

Advertisement

This past summer, abortion rights advocates began a push to ask Arizona voters to create a constitutional right to abortion. If proponents collect enough signatures, Arizona would become the latest state to put the question of reproductive rights directly before voters.

The proposed constitutional amendment would guarantee abortion rights until a fetus could survive outside the womb, typically around 24 weeks. It also would allow later abortions to save the mother’s life, or to protect her physical or mental health.

Politics

House Democrats challenge new Homeland Security order limiting lawmaker visits to immigration facilities

Published

on

House Democrats challenge new Homeland Security order limiting lawmaker visits to immigration facilities

Twelve House Democrats who last year sued the Trump administration over a policy limiting congressional oversight of immigrant detention facilities returned to federal court Monday to challenge a second, new policy imposing further limits on such unannounced visits.

In December, those members of Congress won their lawsuit challenging a Department of Homeland Security policy from June that required a week’s notice from lawmakers before an oversight visit. Now they’re accusing Homeland Security of having “secretly reimposed” the requirement last week.

In a Jan. 8 memorandum, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote that “Facility visit requests must be made a minimum of seven (7) calendar days in advance. Any requests to shorten that time must be approved by me.”

The lawmakers who challenged the policies are led by Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) and include five members from California: Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles), Raul Ruiz (D-Indio) and Norma Torres (D-Pomona).

Advertisement

Last summer, as immigration raids spread through Los Angeles and other parts of Southern California, many Democrats including those named in the lawsuit were denied entry to local detention facilities. Before then, unannounced inspections had been a common, long-standing practice under congressional oversight powers.

“The duplicate notice policy is a transparent attempt by DHS to again subvert Congress’s will…and this Court’s stay of DHS’s oversight visit policy,” the plaintiffs wrote in a federal court motion Monday requesting an emergency hearing.

On Saturday, three days after Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, three members of Congress from Minnesota attempted to conduct an oversight visit of an ICE facility near Minneapolis. They were denied access.

Afterward, lawyers for Homeland Security notified the lawmakers and the court of the new policy, according to the court filing.

In a joint statement, the plaintiffs wrote that “rather than complying with the law, the Department of Homeland Security is attempting to get around this order by re-imposing the same unlawful policy.”

Advertisement

“This is unacceptable,” they said. “Oversight is a core responsibility of Members of Congress, and a constitutional duty we do not take lightly. It is not something the executive branch can turn on or off at will.”

Congress has stipulated in yearly appropriations packages since 2020 that funds may not be used to prevent a member of Congress “from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens.”

That language formed the basis of the decision last month by U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, who found that lawmakers cannot be denied entry for visits “unless and until” the government could show that no appropriations money was being used to operate detention facilities.

In her policy memorandum, Noem wrote that funds from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which supplied roughly $170 billion toward immigration and border enforcement, are not subject to the limitations of the yearly appropriations law.

“ICE must ensure that this policy is implemented and enforced exclusively with money appropriated by OBBBA,” Noem said.

Advertisement

Noem said the new policy is justified because unannounced visits pull ICE officers away from their normal duties. “Moreover, there is an increasing trend of replacing legitimate oversight activities with circus-like publicity stunts, all of which creates a chaotic environment with heightened emotions,” she wrote.

The lawmakers, in the court filing, argued it’s clear that the new policy violates the law.

“It is practically impossible that the development, promulgation, communication, and implementation of this policy has been, and will be, accomplished — as required — without using a single dollar of annually appropriated funds,” they wrote.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments

Published

on

Video: Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments

new video loaded: Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments

transcript

transcript

Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments

Minnesota and Illinois filed federal lawsuits against the Trump administration, claiming that the deployment of immigration agents to the Minneapolis and Chicago areas violated states’ rights.

This is, in essence, a federal invasion of the Twin Cities and Minnesota, and it must stop. We ask the courts to end the D.H.S. unlawful behavior in our state. The intimidation, the threats, the violence. We ask the courts to end the tactics on our places of worship, our schools, our courts, our marketplaces, our hospitals and even funeral homes.

Advertisement
Minnesota and Illinois filed federal lawsuits against the Trump administration, claiming that the deployment of immigration agents to the Minneapolis and Chicago areas violated states’ rights.

By Jackeline Luna

January 12, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Rep Ro Khanna demands prosecution of ICE agent in Minneapolis fatal shooting

Published

on

Rep Ro Khanna demands prosecution of ICE agent in Minneapolis fatal shooting

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., called for the arrest and prosecution of the ICE agent who fatally shot Renee Good in a residential neighborhood of Minneapolis, Minnesota on Jan. 7.

Khanna also urged Congress to back his legislation with Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, to require ICE agents to wear body cameras, display visible identification, stop wearing masks during operations and be subject to independent oversight.

In a post shared on X, the former Obama administration official said: “I am calling for the arrest and prosecution of the ICE agent that shot and killed Renee Good.”

“I am also calling on Congress to support my bill with @JasmineForUS to force ICE agents to wear body cameras, not wear masks, have visible identification, and ensure ICE has independent oversight,” Khanna added.

Advertisement

MINNESOTA BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION DROPS OUT OF ICE-INVOLVED SHOOTING INVESTIGATION

An ICE agent shot and killed the 37-year-old Minneapolis woman during a federal enforcement operation in south Minneapolis. Federal officials have said agents were attempting to make arrests when the woman tried to use her vehicle as a weapon against officers, prompting an ICE agent to fire in self-defense.

Good’s death sparked widespread protests in Minneapolis and across the U.S. as demonstrators called for changes to federal immigration enforcement.

Renee Nicole Good moments before she was shot and killed by a federal agent in Minneapolis.  (Obtained by Fox News)

Local officials, including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, criticized the federal account of the incident and rejected the claim that the officer acted in self-defense. Minnesota has since sued the Trump administration, claiming the immigration enforcement surge in the state is “unlawful” and “unprecedented.”

Advertisement

“What we are seeing right now is not normal immigration enforcement,” Frey said. “The scale is wildly disproportionate, and it has nothing to do with keeping people safe.”

The Trump administration pushed back sharply against the lawsuit, with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) accusing Minnesota leaders of undermining public safety and obstructing federal law enforcement.

MINNESOTA SUES TRUMP ADMIN OVER SWEEPING IMMIGRATION RAIDS IN TWIN CITIES

Federal officials, including DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, maintained that the agent fired in self-defense.

Renee Good’s crashed car after the shooting. (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Noem critisized Democrats on Sunday amid an Illinois lawmaker’s push to impeach her following the deadly shooting.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“These law enforcement officers are trained to be in situations that are dangerous, and they rely on that training each and every day to make the right decisions,” Noem said during “Sunday Morning Futures.” 

Fox News Digital’s Greg Wehner contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending