Arizona abortion ban: The courts are rolling back the law to when women couldn’t vote.
When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wadein 2022, just months shy of the landmark abortion case’s 50thbirthday, millions of Americans were stunned that the highest court in the land had just set our rights back half a century.
What we didn’t realize: Half a century is nothing. Less than two years after Roefell, the conservative movement is taking women back not just 50 years. It’s rewinding the clock more than 150years.
Case in point: Arizona’s abortion law, which is now in place statewide and which was passed 160 years ago, in 1864—when the Civil War was raging, before nearly a third of what are now the 50 U.S. states formally existed, and when women didn’t have the right to vote. Arizona itself wouldn’t be admitted to the Union for almost another half-century, having been recognized as an American territory only the year before.
That archaic 1864 law makes nearly all abortions a felony and threatens to lock up any abortion provider for a term of two to five years. The day after the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that this archaic law could go into effect, Arizona Democrats tried to repeal it. Arizona Republicans in both legislative chambers blocked those repeal efforts, while Arizona anti-abortion advocates have fought to keep abortion rights off the ballot.
When the 1864 abortion law was passed, the territory’s Legislature was led by a pedophile who married, then divorced and sometimes impregnated (in and out of marriage), a series of children, girls who today would be in middle and early high school and largely too young to get their driver’s licenses, according to reporting from the Washington Post’s Monica Hesse. This was legal because, across the U.S., parents were allowed to marry off their young daughters, and the age of sexual consent was largely prepubescent, typically at 10 or 12. In Delaware, it was 7. The same document outlawing abortion in Arizona also outlawed interracial marriage and allowed for the indentured servitude of Native American children. There’s a whole section on electric telegraphs.
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementAll of these laws were written by men. When Arizona passed its abortion law, not a single woman had yet been elected to any state legislature anywhere in the nation, and women would not hold any such role for several more decades. This was an era in which women were largely under the control of their husbands, and they generally had little right to possess property, control their own wages, and even lay claim to their own children. Black women were often still literal property. Courts in several U.S. states spent the better part of the 19thcentury ruling that husbands were legally entitled to beat their wives.
The Arizona abortion ban followed centuries in which abortion was treated mainly as a woman’s concern, and was permitted until “quickening,” or the moment a pregnant woman could feel the fetus start to move. (This was also the Catholic Church’s position for hundreds of years, by the way.) But by the mid-19thcentury, women were gaining unprecedented rights and freedoms. This did not sit well with the patriarchal and the powerful, including the all-white-male American Medical Association, which had just formed in 1847. Reproductive health care was largely the purview of midwives and other female practitioners, posing a problem for the male doctors who wanted a monopoly on the profession. The leader of the anti-abortion crusade, physician Horatio Robinson Storer, wrote, “Medical men are the physical guardians of women and their offspring” and, as such, have a duty to criminalize abortion. He lamented that birthrates were decreasing, with foreigners (Catholics especially) outbreeding white Protestants; asserted that women, who didn’t even seem to feel guilty about abortions, must pay a serious criminal price; and believed that women who were getting pregnant too frequently had only themselves to blame and were often those who chose to “forego the duty and privilege of nursing, a law entailed upon them by nature, and seldom neglected without disastrous results.”
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementAccording to Storer, who wrote to legislatures across the nation urging them to outlaw abortion, a woman’s “holiest duty” was “to bring forth living children,” a responsibility that was routinely interrupted by “female physiciansand midwives” (emphasis his), who claimed expertise “in rivalry of the male physician” and whose work Storer opposed, alongside anything else outside a woman’s “proper and God-given sphere.” As for claims that women sought terminations because nonstop pregnancies were difficult and dangerous, or because they could not afford or did not want additional children, he objected to such arguments “which would justify abortion as necessary for the mother’s own good” as “a selfish plea.”
Storer lauded the Catholic Church’s position that a fetus was of greater import than a pregnant woman, and he admired the insistence on saving a fetus’s life even if it meant that the woman died. He eventually converted to Catholicism, in large part because of the church’s position on abortion.
AdvertisementAlmost a decade after Arizona’s abortion ban, and as physicians including Storer were making sure similar bans were put into place across the U.S., Congress passed the Comstock Act—that was in 1873, exactly 100 years before the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wadeand legalized abortion nationwide. The Comstock laws prohibited the mailing of “obscene” materials, including contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs or devices, sex toys, and anything the most extreme prudes of the era might deem pornographic. (The architects and supporters of this legislation did indeed try to forbid, in their words, “every filthy book, pamphlet, picture, paper, letter, writing, print, or other publication of an indecent character,” which at one point included even anatomy textbooks.) Anthony Comstock, the chief prude for whom the act is named, was an enthusiastic book-banner and suffragist-opposer.
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementThe Comstock Act is back now too: It’s one of the laws the anti-abortion movement is hoping to use to ban the abortion-inducing drug mifepristone. Leaders of the anti-abortion movement have been exceedingly clear that they plan to try to revive the Comstock Act in order to ban abortion nationwide, and possibly contraception as well.
Related From Slate
Jill Filipovic
The Political Divide Between Men and Women Is Getting Wild. One Party Is Primed to Take Advantage.
Read MoreIt’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.
AdvertisementThe 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 andthe children we bear.
AdvertisementPopular in News & Politics
- The Lawyer Defending Idaho’s Abortion Ban Irritated the One Justice He Needed on His Side
- You Don’t Want to Know How It’s Going Between Trump’s Lawyers and the Judge Presiding Over His Criminal Case
- We’ve Been Entertaining an Illusion About the Supreme Court. It’s Finally Been Shattered.
- Prosecutors Are Finally Revealing Their Strategy Against Trump
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.
Tweet Share Share Comment-
NASA's new plan keeps Starliner astronauts in space until 2025Seoul plans shortening COVIDActivision Blizzard president leaves company to head the Bored Ape Yacht ClubHow fat people were portrayed on screen in 2022Arshad Nadeem receives HilalHeineken pushes metaverse 'beer' in DecentralandUN projects North Korea's food situation to worsen this year真诚服务暖人心 企业致谢送锦旗Apple to start manufacturing iPhone Pro in India, report claimsThe 10 Most Anticipated PC Games of 2016
下一篇:CrowdStrike outage is still causing hundreds of flight cancellations daily
- ·Pope says England are not 'one
- ·Former athlete from 'Physical:100' indicted for sexual assault
- ·筑牢脱贫奔康新路 鼓足振兴发展底气
- ·雨城区法院召开审判质效工作推进会
- ·Best smartphone deal: Google Pixel 8a on sale for $449 at Amazon
- ·Fourth DRS zone to make F1 Australian GP fastest ever
- ·Two troubling trends in Korean med school admissions
- ·为困难人员提供帮助 我市开展2020年“寒冬送温暖”活动
- ·'Black Myth: Wukong' PS5 review in progress: A potential masterpiece
- ·Seoul struggles to find 'creative solutions' for Mount Geumgang resort
- ·'No favours' for Bayern at Gladbach
- ·14 of the best, most influential K
- ·Scientists detect water sloshing on Mars. There could be a lot.
- ·乡村旅游展现广阔前景
- ·Heineken pushes metaverse 'beer' in Decentraland
- ·North Korea tests missile as allies stage joint drills
- ·We Bought the Cheapest DDR5 RAM Modules We Could Find, Are They Any Good?
- ·Five kinds of puppyhood in Korea
- ·Fourth DRS zone to make F1 Australian GP fastest ever
- ·茂南人均GDP首超花都,仁化增速全省第三|数读广东统计年鉴2023
- ·'Hyundai Way': Auto giant's W121tr plan aims to seize mobility market lead
- ·Seoul struggles to find 'creative solutions' for Mount Geumgang resort
- ·Et tu, Spotify? The 13 best tweets from Wrapped week
- ·Qatari bid for Man Utd poses questions over PSG's future
- ·The Apple iPod: Pocket Music Before That Phone
- ·Instafest app: How to get your personalised Spotify music festival lineup
- ·NYT Strands hints, answers for August 29
- ·Fauci blasts new Trump ad, says it takes his comments “out of context.”
- ·Elon Musk's private jet now being tracked by a new dedicated subreddit, r/ElonJetTracker
- ·Amy Coney Barrett and Roe v. Wade: how she will rule.
- ·Republicans on abortion
- ·Europeans urge strict sanctions enforcement on North Korea
- ·One Kazakhstani who fled airport arrested
- ·National security adviser rumored to be replaced
- ·Spate of defections show Kim Jong
- ·戏曲进校园 经典共传承