Thread by @JulieGunnigle

And so it begins. This may be the most important hearing for abortion rights in Arizona's history.

Tune in here: publichearings.sc.pima.gov (room 475)

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.

The AG's office framing is laughable. He is claiming (with a straight face), that we shouldn't talk about the 1864 law as a "territorial ban," passed before women had the vote.

Instead, the AG wants to hear ARS 13-3603 discussed as a 1970's era ban.

The argument is whether subsequent laws passed create the ability for licensed Arizona physicians to continue to provide abortion services.
Nearly every year since 2009, the Arizona legislature has passed laws that curtail abortion rights, but recognize that abortion is legal.

The AG cites to the recently signed 15-week ban. The ban contains a specific reference that it is not intended to repeal the territorial abortion ban.

Okay--time to hear from someone reasonable. In nearly every case of statutory interpretation, the courts are not just "allowed" but "required" to harmonize laws.

Statutory interpretation matters because so many laws allowing abortion have been passed since 1864. Do these laws not count?
Over the last 50 years, dozens of laws have been passed that allow abortion.

Let me see if I can boil Planned Parenthood's argument down: in Arizona, if you want to repeal a law, the legislature must say that the law is repealed.

Instead, the AG's argument is that the court (and not the legislature) repeal 50 years of Arizona laws allowing abortion.

PPAZ's argument about equities is most important: the Court can modify the (very old) injunction but it must harmonize all other abortion laws.

This bit is the most important because the AG (and one specific county attorney), are creating chaos with their lack of clarity.

Nice to see @PimaCountyAtty on the right side of history--joining PPAZ in saying the court must harmonize all these laws.

That part is important because the 1984 law creates steep penalties (mandatory minimum of 2 years, max of 5) for abortion.

People deserve clarity in all 15 counties as to what is legal before they face arbitrary enforcement from police and prosecutors.

Back to the AG: the argument is to lift the stay (make the territorial law enforceable) and let the legislature figure it out.

Said better:

https://twitter.com/LegallyLove/status/1560736456242446336?s=20&t=dfMjCL2bXqCvvnA_csUXHQ

The AG is arguing that there are 15 county attorneys. Each of them are on the "front lines" of abortion enforcement.
The AG is arguing that if doctors have concerns with when and how the territorial ban will be enforced, they can bring an "as applied" case in court.

I need you to understand how harmful that statement is.
If someone needs abortion care, the AG is arguing that they should seek the opinion of the county attorney (a politician) and sue if necessary.

The AG is arguing that forcing doctors and patients to sue the county attorney is the "least disruptive" way to determine the enforceability of the territorial abortion ban.

The close from Planned Parenthood pointing out these issues was perfect. Kudos to all the amazing attorneys who pour their hearts into abortion access for Arizonans.

The judge says she will rule quickly.

Now hopping over to @LegallyLove's commentary to compare notes as she can type far, far faster.

Here are my takeaways:
1) There's no reason for the AG to try to reframe the 1864 law as a 1970's law apart from political expediency. Now that we know the AG is running a PR campaign to make this unjust law seem more recent--I'll *only* refer to it as the "territorial ban."

2) The AG's approach--remove the injunction now and let some other branch of government sort out the mess--will literally kill people.

He is asking for a continuation of the chaos, arbitrary enforcement, and confusion in the law.

3) You heard it out of the AG's mouth: the enforcement of this unjust law rests in the hands of your county attorneys. There is one county attorney on the ballot in Arizona this November.

Elect the one who has said #NotNowNotEver to enforcing the territorial ban.