Unfortunately for our community, this is little more than a political stunt that contradicts my opponent’s previous stances during her appointed tenure and comes just over 40 days away from the general election. THREAD 👇 azcentral.com/story/news/loc…
When she was appointed on October 3, 2019, she was silent on this issue.
When the Arizona Legislature convened on January 13, 2020 she was silent on this issue.
When HB 2760 was introduced to fund body-worn cameras by law enforcement in Arizona on February 4, 2020 she was silent on this issue.
But a day later, she voiced her support for SB 1070 copycat legislation that was tabled for being too extreme. abc15.com/news/state/hcr…
When the Arizona legislators requested a special session on June 2, 2020 specifically to address reforms including body-worn cameras, she was silent on this issue.
On September 23, 2020 — over 11 months into her appointed tenure — she decided to voice her support for this issue and write a letter to lawmakers while the Arizona legislature has been adjourned for the last 4 months.
Actual integrity in this office means doing the right things for the right reasons every time, not just when it is politically expedient.
If you want to see what commitment to real criminal justice reform looks like visit 👇
The first issues are largely procedural. Because of the age of this case (first filed in 1971), many of the original parties are deceased (passed beyond the jurisdiction of the court) and many of the doctors are no longer in practice.
Okay--here come the important arguments.
The AG is trying to argue that because the Supreme Court overruled Roe, the very old Arizona abortion law comes back in force.
In SB1457, the legislature created an “interpretive rule” that a “person” includes a fertilized egg at any stage of gestation.
This sets up scenario where child neglect and homicide statutes apply to patients and doctors who access abortion.
The plaintiffs are arguing that this provision is vague—in part because it invites arbitrary enforcement and in part because it’s unclear how this interacts with other laws.
The County Attorney or District Attorney election just became the most important race on your ballot in 2022.
Here's why 🧵
The Supreme Court has voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in the face of decades of legal precedent and roll back the rights of millions in America.
Arizona is one of 23 states that will now use the criminal law and Supreme Court decision to ban abortion.
As a result of this decision, doctors’ offices will be treated as crime scenes, and reproductive decisions will be invasively monitored by prosecutors and police.
The Arizona District Court is hearing oral arguments on SB1457 RIGHT NOW. Follow @ncjwarizona and this thread to hear how it's going.
Kicking off and it's a hot bench (that means that the judge has a lot of questions).
Of note at the outset, the judge has adopted the language of the Plaintiffs that this is a "Reason Ban" and not a "Non-discrimination Provision" as the Attorney General argues.
At issue is the prohibition against physicians providing abortions to people who are carrying fetuses with genetic abnormalities.
I was a student at the University of Notre Dame Law School while Amy Coney Barrett was a professor.
While she had a reputation for collegiality and excellence in the classroom, the biggest lesson she taught me was that a person could be kind and civil while embracing an ideology that regards some individuals worthy of fewer rights and less freedom.
Make no mistake about it: Judge Amy Coney Barrett is an extremist pick. Her record on reproductive rights, coverage for preexisting conditions, LGBTQ+ rights, and the dignity of work is abysmal.