FTA:

Rep. David Livingston (R-AZ) turned to the galleries, stuffed with a mix of pro- and anti-abortion rights protesters, and applauded his supporters, raising his fists in triumph. Majority Whip Teresa Martinez (R-AZ) mouthed "we got you" and did a thumbs up. Majority Leader Leo Biasiucci (R-AZ) grinned and accepted a handshake on his way out of the chamber.

Here's the video:

Arzizona Republicans aren't giving up without a fight:

Arizona GOP Plan to File Competing Abortion Ballot Measures to Confuse Voters: Report

Arizona Republicans are trying to manipulate voters into supporting unpopular bans

Have you heard about the man behind the 1864 Arizonia law? If not, take a listen:

Hillary Clinton slams 'cruelty towards women' of Arizona's abortion law

No time to listen to videos at the moment.

She said, "the man who wrote the law was married 4 times, one of his wives was 12 and 2 of his wives were 15."

Okay, it was a different century, but that's precisely the point.

Meet the 'pursuer of nubile young females' who helped pass Arizona's 1864 abortion law

The Arizona Supreme Court has decided the law is still relevant. So let's talk about the guy who led the body that passed it.

The time has come to reflect on the life and times--especially the times--of William Claude Jones.

Jones was a "prevaricator, a poet, a politician and the pursuer of nubile young females," according to a 1990 article published in the Journal of Arizona History, which appears to be the most comprehensive biographical report published on the life of the 19th-century rogue.

"the man who wrote the law was married 4 times"

According to the WaPo article above, he was married 5 times. He was accused of abducting his 12 year old wife and subsequently resigned his position as U.S. attorney for the New Mexico territory.

FTA above:

By now you are probably wondering why in God's name I am writing about this lecherous caricature of a man " a man whose compatriots in the 19th century recognized that he was problematic.

Here's why:

While Jones lived in Arizona, he was elected to represent Tucson in the 1st Arizona Territorial Legislative Assembly. And then, when that legislature convened in 1864, he was elected speaker of the House.

And it was that legislature--the one Jones presided over in 1864, after he had already abandoned his first wife, and married a 12-year-old and was just weeks away from marrying a 15-year-old, though still a few years away from marrying a 14-year-old--it was that legislature that passed a law reading, "Every person who shall administer or cause to be administered or taken, any medicinal substances, or shall use or cause to be used any instruments whatever, with the intention to procure the miscarriage of any woman then being with child, and shall be thereof duly convicted, shall be punished by imprisonment in the Territorial prison for a term not less than two years nor more than five years."

And it was that piece of legislation that, earlier this week, was reinstated as law of the land in Arizona. It represents a near-total ban on abortion in the state. The state's Supreme Court voted 4-2 that the 160-year-old law, put into place nearly five decades before Arizona was a state, should supersede the previous rule, which guarded the right to an abortion up to 15 weeks' gestation. The new--and by new, I mean very old--law is scheduled to go into effect in two weeks' time.

William Claude Jones sauntered into the wide expanse of a Southwestern territory more than 150 years ago, and this man's morals are now the benchmark for the reproductive rights of the 7 million people who live in rizona. Good night.

"I cannot tell you that again because i never told it to you for a first time."

No, you didn't. I was actually thinking of Bellringer and an article he posted that made that claim. I just read an excellent article on the interconnected topic of rolling back both abortion rights and women's rights, emphasis mine:

It's not a coincidence that the early anti-abortion movement in the U.S. was one headed by men, in reaction to expanding rights, freedom, and power for women--just as it is not a coincidence that today's anti-abortion movement, formed in opposition to rapid gains in women's rights during the 1960s and '70s, has seen its most significant victory thanks to the most overtly misogynistic president in modern American history, a serial philanderer, a many-times-accused sexual harasser and assailant, a man recently found liable for sexual abuse.

The history of these laws tells us quite a bit about our present, especially what motivates the most aggressive abortion opponents. Attempts to criminalize abortion have always gone hand in hand with conservative and religious views on gender roles, with abortion bans functioning as blunt instruments that force women back into our God-given place as dutiful mothers and obedient wives. And it's equally impossible to separate out efforts to legalize abortion from broader moves toward gender equality, both in the liberalization of abortion laws--efforts led by feminists around the world--and in the feminist outcome of those liberalized laws. That would be: record progress for women and girls, from more egalitarian interpersonal relationships to greater financial power to skyrocketing educational and professional achievements to much longer and healthier lives for women and the children we bear.

Those in the anti-abortion movement are relying on the letter of the law from 150 years ago not simply because it's convenient. They're leaning on century-old laws because they want to make America a certain way again, and those century-old laws both sprang from and enabled a particular kind of society. Those laws existed only because women were legally, socially, and economically second-class citizens, their rights and liberties determined by white men who enjoyed exclusive control over every lever of political power. And those laws had the effect of maintaining that same complete male domination--that is, until generations of feminists dismantled them and put a great many cracks in the system that created them.

And this, still, is the fundamental divide. Should women's rights in America go back to what they were in 1873? Feminists have spent the past 150 years painstakingly chipping away at the laws that forced our subservience. But today's anti-abortion movement, and its representatives in the Republican Party, has a different answer, one it makes clear every time it argues that women's bodies should be regulated by laws that existed before any woman had a legal say in them.

#23 Yeah, it's also not a coiincidence that conservatives want to get rid of Women's Studies Programs.

This is what too many MAGA Republicans think of women:

Trump-endorsed politician Jason Lewis: You've got a vast majority of young single women who couldn't explain to you what GDP means. You know what they care about? They care about abortion. They care about abortion and gay marriage. They care about 'The View.' They're non-thinking.

"They're non-thinking."

This attitude is why so many MAGA voters didn't bat an eye when Trump referred to Haley as "bird brain."