Politics
Opinion: Is Arizona's abortion ban a return to the 19th century? No, it's actually worse
Arizona’s Supreme Court opened a new front in the war on women’s reproductive rights last week when it resurrected an obscure 1864 law that bans abortion in almost all cases. Critics of the ruling say the court has thrown Arizona back into the 19th century.
That isn’t entirely fair to the 19th century.
The irony of last week’s reactionary ruling is that the author of the original law, William T. Howell, was a progressive by the standards of his time. The politics of Arizona’s current justices bear little resemblance to the 19th century antecedent upon whom their ruling relies.
Although many of Howell’s views have aged poorly, he argued against the era’s prevailing patriarchal dogma and in favor of women’s property rights. Even his abortion law was guided by concerns about maternal health, not the right-wing, religious orthodoxy that animates much of the antiabortion movement today.
If 19th century legal precedent is important, so is historical context. As today’s lawyers and politicians battle over the future of abortion rights, they should understand how and why the original Arizona law came to be. The statute emerged from the upheaval of the Civil War and its little-known front in the West.
As a history professor and the author of a book on this subject, I never expected Howell to become a posthumous standard-bearer for the modern American right. If he’s known at all, it’s as an agent of Abraham Lincoln’s campaign to stamp out slavery in the Southwest and secure Union control of the region.
That story began in the spring of 1861, when a band of migrants from neighboring Texas seized power in southern New Mexico. Proclaiming their affinity for the slave-holding South, they broke from the Union and threw their allegiance behind the newly formed Confederacy. They named their new rebel territory “Arizona.”
Several months later, the Confederacy launched its first invasion of the war — into the Southwest. The rebel invaders routed U.S. troops in several battles, secured military control over Arizona and seized Santa Fe, New Mexico’s capital. Then they planned to march on the gold fields of California.
They never made it. In the spring of 1862, Union troops sabotaged the Confederates’ supplies and finally sent them scrambling back to Texas.
Congress then divided the region into a western half (Arizona) and an eastern half (New Mexico), splitting the erstwhile Confederate Arizona Territory. To strengthen the Union’s tenuous hold, Lincoln poured federal troops and agents into the region. One of them was Howell, newly appointed as an associate justice of Arizona’s territorial Supreme Court.
A veteran jurist and former Michigan legislator, Howell got to work on a new code of laws for Arizona. The final document, now known as the Howell Code, ran to nearly 500 pages. One of its primary purposes was to ensure that slavery would never again take root in Arizona.
Buried within it was the now-infamous abortion ban. The provision was no outlier. In fact, it was copied from California’s legal code, one of many such laws passed by states and territories in the 1860s and ’70s.
From the colonial era into the early 19th century, abortions had been commonly administered and rarely criminalized. Benjamin Franklin even included a recipe for an abortifacient in a math textbook, of all places. Abortions before “quickening” — within roughly the first four or five months of pregnancy — were considered “the purview of women” rather than the law, according to the historian Sarah Handley-Cousins. Even the Catholic Church “implicitly accepted” abortions before quickening, the historian Leslie J. Reagan has noted.
The Howell Code, then, marked a departure from a more permissive approach to abortion. Even so, the antiabortion laws of the mid-19th century were generally born of a sincere concern for women’s health that is absent from today’s legislation. Tellingly, Arizona’s original antiabortion clause appeared within a provision on poisoning. The underlying premise was that abortions posed health risks to women, who were seen as victims and not held legally liable for the medical procedures performed on them.
Howell himself had a woman’s health on his mind at the time. Shortly after drafting the code, he rushed back to Michigan to be at the bedside of his ill wife. She survived, and Howell remained in Michigan, never seeing his code put into practice.
The judge had previously defended women’s right to property in their own name rather than subsumed under her husband’s. He also advocated free public schools and opposed capital punishment (though executions were allowed for certain crimes under the Howell Code).
Howell is no progressive poster child by today’s standards. He was in many ways a man of his time. And his code, written hastily in his provisional courtroom — an adobe shack adjoining a horse corral — reflected some of the prevailing prejudices of the early American frontier, imposing numerous restrictions on people who weren’t white.
But Howell is nevertheless an awkward antecedent for today’s antiabortion movement. If Arizona’s 21st century Supreme Court justices wish to exhume an obscure 19th century predecessor from the recesses of history, that’s their prerogative. But they should understand that even he is misaligned with their extreme politics.
Kevin Waite is an associate professor of history at Durham University and the author of “West of Slavery: The Southern Dream of a Transcontinental Empire.”
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The U.S. military announced another deadly strike against a vessel that it alleges was involved in “narco-trafficking” efforts.
“On April 19, at the direction of #SOUTHCOM commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations,” U.S. Southern Command indicated in a post on X.
“Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Caribbean and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations,” the post continued.
US MILITARY KILLS 2 SUSPECTED CARTEL OPERATIVES IN LATEST EASTERN PACIFIC LETHAL STRIKE, SOUTHCOM SAYS
The U.S. military announced that it killed three “narco-terrorists” in a strike in the Caribbean on Sunday, April 19, 2026. (@Soutcom via X)
SOUTHCOM indicated that the attack killed three men.
“Three male narco-terrorists were killed during this action. No U.S. military forces were harmed,” the post noted.
President Donald Trump’s administration has carried out dozens of deadly strikes against vessels of alleged “narco-terrorists.”
US MILITARY CONDUCTS MORE DEADLY STRIKES AGAINST VESSELS OF ALLEGED ‘NARCO-TERRORISTS’
Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Francis L. Donovan, nominee for commander of U.S. Southern Command, testifies during his Senate confirmatino hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 15, 2026. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
In a completely different part of the world, amid ongoing tensions between America and Iran, the U.S. attacked an Iranian-flagged cargo ship on April 19.
“Guided-missile destroyer USS Spruance (DDG 111) intercepted M/V Touska as it transited the north Arabian Sea at 17 knots enroute to Bandar Abbas, Iran. American forces issued multiple warnings and informed the Iranian-flagged vessel it was in violation of the U.S. blockade,” U.S. Central Command noted.
US SEIZES IRANIAN SHIP AFTER OPENING FIRE; PAKISTAN TALKS IN DOUBT
President Donald Trump on the South Lawn of the White House before boarding Marine One in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, April 16, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Sipa/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“After Touska’s crew failed to comply with repeated warnings over a six-hour period, Spruance directed the vessel to evacuate its engine room. Spruance disabled Touska’s propulsion by firing several rounds from the destroyer’s 5-inch MK 45 Gun into Touska’s engine room. U.S. Marines from the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit later boarded the non-compliant vessel, which remains in U.S. custody,” CENTCOM noted.
SACRAMENTO — A month after a public uproar over a mama bear being euthanized after swiping at a resident in Monrovia, state lawmakers are considering mandating the use of nonlethal ways to help allow wildlife and humans to coexist.
Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) said she believes the bear’s death, and the state’s decision to kill four wolves last year that were preying on cattle, raised public concern.
“That made everybody realize we have to do better here,” she told The Times on Thursday. “We need to recognize the importance of seeing ourselves, humans, as part of a larger ecosystem that includes animals and plants and our world and trying to protect it.”
Senate Bill 1135, introduced by Blakespear, would direct the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to create the Wildlife Coexistence Program, which would provide public education, offer technical assistance and maintain a statewide incident reporting system. It would help communities deploy nonlethal devices to deter predators, like barriers or noise and light machines.
At a legislative hearing on Tuesday, Blakespear told the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water that a three-year state initiative offering similar services was seeing positive results — until it was discontinued two years ago after funding ran dry. She said it was time to implement a permanent program.
“Human population growth, habitat loss and the growth of industry across California inevitably leads to interaction between humans and wildlife,” Blakespear told legislators. “No two animal species are the same and each has unique behavior patterns and territories. SB 1135 recognizes these differences and gives communities the tools to prevent conflict and respond when it occurs.”
The bill would also rename a state program that reimburses ranchers who lose livestock to wolves, calling it the Wolf-Livestock Coexistence and Compensation Program. It would require ranchers seeking compensation to show they were using nonlethal deterrents approved by the department.
Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) stressed that life in rural areas is different than living in a city. She said some families and cattle ranchers have a genuine fear of predators.
“When these baby calves drop on the ground and then two wolves start ripping them apart, it’s not the prettiest thing you’ve ever witnessed,” said Grove, who abstained from voting on the measure. “These wolves are not puppies.”
More than 30 organizations are supporting the legislation, including the National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, California State Assn. of Counties, Animal Legal Defense Fund and Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife.
The California Farm Bureau and the California Cattlemen’s Assn. are in opposition due to concerns over funding.
Last month, Blakespear sent a letter to the chair of the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review requesting $48.8 million to implement the legislation, with $25 million earmarked for addressing wolf encounters. Half of the money for wolf conflicts would go toward deterrents; the remainder would compensate ranchers for their losses.
Kirk Wilbur, vice president of government affairs cattlemen’s association, said the organization is concerned about that division of funding — especially if funding is reduced.
Wilbur told legislators Tuesday that the organization supports some aspects of the bill and was having productive conversations with Blakespear to address their concerns.
The bill ultimately passed the committee with a 5-to-1 vote and now heads to the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
Human wildlife conflicts have made headlines in California recently, with a bear refusing to leave a basement for weeks in Altadena and a mama bear dubbed Blondie crossing paths last month with a woman walking her dog in Monrovia.
Blondie swiped the woman’s leg, and was subsequently euthanized by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Her two cubs were sent to the San Diego Humane Society’s Ramona Wildlife Center. The bear’s death upset many in the community, as thousands had signed a petition calling for other solutions, like relocation.
Deadly wildlife attacks on humans, however, are rare in California.
There have been six reported human fatalities from mountain lions since 1890, according to the state Fish and Wildlife Department. The agency recorded one human fatality from a coyote in 1981 and another fatality from a black bear in 2023. The department has no recorded human fatalities from gray wolves.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Justice Department is turning to former Trump attorney Joeseph diGenova to spearhead a probe into ex-CIA Director John Brennan and others over the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, as the department reshuffles leadership of the sprawling inquiry.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has tapped diGenova to serve as counsel overseeing the matter, according to a New York Times report, putting a former Trump attorney in a key role in the high-profile probe. A federal grand jury seated in Miami has been impaneled since late last year.
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
DOJ ACTIVELY PREPARING TO ISSUE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS RELATING TO JOHN BRENNAN INVESTIGATION: SOURCES
Joseph diGenova represented President Donald Trump during special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images)
DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., who represented Trump during special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, has repeatedly accused Brennan of misconduct tied to the origins of the Russia probe—allegations that have not resulted in criminal charges.
He also said in a 2018 appearance on Fox News that Brennan colluded with the FBI and DOJ to frame Trump.
The origins of the Russia investigation have been the subject of ongoing scrutiny by Trump allies, who have argued that intelligence and law enforcement officials improperly launched the probe.
BRENNAN INDICTMENT COULD COME WITHIN ‘WEEKS’ AS PROSECUTORS REQUEST OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTS
Joseph diGenova has previously said that ex-CIA chief John Brennan colluded with the FBI and DOJ to frame Trump. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images)
DiGenova’s appointment follows the ouster of Maria Medetis Long, a national security prosecutor in the South Florida U.S. attorney’s office. She had been overseeing the inquiry, including a false statements probe related to Brennan and broader conspiracy-related investigations.
As the investigation continues, federal investigators have issued subpoenas seeking information related to intelligence assessments of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
John Brennan has denied any wrongdoing related to the Russia investigation. (William B. Plowman/NBC/NBC NewsWire via Getty Images; Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Brennan has previously denied wrongdoing related to the Russia investigation and has defended the intelligence community’s assessment that Moscow interfered in the 2016 election.
-
San Diego, CA3 minutes agoThe Best Things to Do in San Diego: May 2026 | San Diego Magazine
-
Milwaukee, WI9 minutes agoMarvin Bynum named to BizTimes Milwaukee’s Notable Leaders in Law | Marquette Today
-
Atlanta, GA15 minutes agoAtlanta man convicted of abusing minors while stationed abroad
-
Minneapolis, MN21 minutes agoMan convicted of murdering Mariah Samuels set for sentencing Monday after skipping previous court date
-
Indianapolis, IN27 minutes agoLouisville native set to make debut in Indianapolis 500
-
Pittsburg, PA33 minutes agoPittsburgh’s new 2026 budget is approved, with nearly $30 million in realigned expenses
-
Augusta, GA39 minutes agoGolden Harvest hosting 15th Annual Georgia Legal Food Frenzy
-
Washington, D.C45 minutes ago
Duffy touts air traffic controller applications amid push to recruit gamers
