May 30, 2024 05:27 (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Delhi govt imposes fine on car wash amid severe water crisis | 'We are not in permanent marriage': Arvind Kejriwal on tie-up with Congress, predicts a 300-seat win for INDIA bloc | Pune Porsche accident: Hospital dean alleges political interference by legislator | TMC transferring SC, ST, OBC reservations to Muslims: PM Modi in Bengal | Mani Shankar Aiyar's '1962 Chinese invasion' comment sparks row, Congress distances itself after BJP ire
Arizona Supreme Court upholds 1864 near-total abortion ban
Abortion law
In image representative image of abortion rights/ courtesy: Unsplash

Arizona Supreme Court upholds 1864 near-total abortion ban

| @indiablooms | 10 Apr 2024, 12:53 am

The Arizona Supreme Court Tuesday upheld the 160-year-old near-total ban on abortion which means that doctors performing the procedure could be jailed for five years.

The ruling allows an 1864 law in Arizona to stand that made abortion a felony punishable by two to five years in prison for anyone who performs one or helps a woman obtain one.

It sent major political shock waves throughout the state, ensuring that the deeply divisive issue of reproductive rights will feature heavily in November when Arizona along with other states will vote for the US presidential poll.

In a statement issued almost immediately after the news broke, US President Joe Biden slammed the "cruel ban."

Citing the US Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that ended a nationwide guarantee of abortion access, Arizona's top court said the draconian local law, dating back to the US Civil War era, could stand.

Arizona was not even a separate state when the law was drafted and women in the United States at the time had no right to vote.

The law, which was codified in 1901, and again in 1913, includes an exception to save the woman’s life.

The Arizona Supreme Court said it would put its decision on hold for 14 days stating that it would send the case back to a lower court so that the court could consider “additional constitutional challenges” that haven’t yet been cleared up.

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.