DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Abortion issue will be on the Nov. Ballot

Unfortunately, power is already consolidated. Red vs Blue is just a convenient facade for the entities pulling the strings to distract the masses with. A minority hegemony of the rich already exists. We've just got ridiculous red and blue puppets for people to get worked up over while those behind the curtain are forgotten about. Trump is a rather distracting puppet. Lots there to rally against.

Yup, I think you nailed it pretty well Clem.

Trump's conflicting abortion stances are coming back to haunt him — and his party

Democrats are making sure Trump pays for Roe v. Wade's dismantling, one state at a time.

April 11, 2024, 5:00 AM EDT
By Natasha Korecki and Adam Edelman
link

On Monday, Donald Trump declared that abortion decisions should be left to the states, a statement he made to tamp down a fervor about his lack of clarity over how he'd handle the issue as president.

It did the opposite.

In the past three days, the former president has energized scores of Democrats across the country, elevated the marquee issue of his opponent’s campaign, potentially put a key battleground state at risk and drawn fire from onetime allies in his own party.

Trump’s dizzying stances on abortion this week — on Monday embracing states' rights and on Wednesday distancing himself from a state-based outcome — demonstrate the messaging impossibilities that are ahead for him as he moves into the general election and tries to shed the impact of Roe v. Wade's fall.

Trump made a transparently political decision Monday, moving against a part of his party and not speaking in support of a national abortion ban. In his video statement, he noted that electoral politics influenced his thinking, lamenting GOP losses since Roe was reversed.

If Trump thought he was taking the more politically palatable route, he was stung one day later by an Arizona Supreme Court decision that triggered an 1864 law saying anyone who performs the procedure or helps a woman access an abortion could face felony charges and up to five years in prison.

Since the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn the landmark abortion case, Republicans have failed to find a way to neutralize the issue.

On one hand, embracing nationwide restrictions on abortion drives the potential for down-ballot Republican losses. On the other, embracing states' rights forces Trump to own the most extreme measures in those states.

States' rights — up to a point
On Wednesday, Trump told reporters he would not sign a national abortion ban as president. Then, signaling he is still muddling through messaging, Trump late Wednesday released two videos about the issue on his Truth Social media platform.

"We brought it back to the states, and now lots of things are happening, and lots of good things are happening," Trump said in one video.

In another, he accused Democrats of trying to distract from immigration and the economy.

"The only issue they think they have is on abortion, and now all I say is the states are handling it and it’s totally killed that issue," he said.

But one of the problems as Trump tries to combat a Democratic messaging juggernaut accusing him of being responsible for every state decision and of threatening a federal abortion ban is that at one time or another, he has supported both.

Trump has bobbed and weaved on abortion for the entirety of his political career. In 1999, he proclaimed that as a lifelong New Yorker, he was “pro-choice,” even saying he would support “partial-birth abortion.” That flipped by the time he ran for president as a Republican in 2015, though he initially still praised Planned Parenthood. By the time he took office in 2017, he was vowing to appoint judges to overturn Roe v. Wade.

At the same time, as president, he urged Congress to pass a 20-week abortion ban.

“I call upon the Senate to pass this important law and send it to my desk for signing,” Trump said as he addressed the anti-abortion-rights March for Life in Washington, D.C. He made the statement after the House had already advanced the measure, which he applauded in real time.

But on Monday, he said he supported states' rights. Two days later, after a frenzy erupted over Arizona's court ruling, which was a direct result of Roe's fall, he said the court had gone too far.

His campaign later told NBC News that Trump believes decisions should be made at the electoral or legislative levels in the states — not by the courts.

“President Trump could not have been more clear. These decisions should be left to the states to ‘determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both,’” Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said.

But hours after Trump's remarks Wednesday, Arizona Republicans blocked a legislative attempt by Democrats to quickly repeal the law. The Republican House speaker said Democrats were trying to rush it.

Trump, meanwhile, has proudly taken credit for the Supreme Court’s knocking down Roe v. Wade, because he nominated the three conservative justices who made it possible.

It is at least the third time — the others were in Alabama, where a ruling calling embryos children caused in vitro fertilization to come to a halt, and Florida, where a court is allowing a six-week abortion ban to move forward — that Trump had spoken against local laws or rulings that have emerged since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

“From a purely political perspective, both the Alabama and Arizona Supreme Court decisions should be considered in-kind donations to Democratic super PACs,” said Matthew Bartlett, a Republican strategist. “It has thrust the issue, in stark terms, upon the Republican electorate and those running."

Bartlett said that Republicans from Trump on down are trying to “flip-flop, moderate or change into a position that is looking more like the American public” but that it could take more than one election cycle before the party finds its footing.

Democrats go on offense
With Trump’s “leave it to the states” tactic now facing blowback after the Arizona ruling, it is again clear than Republicans continue to lack an effective way to counter messaging from Democrats attacking them on abortion rights.

“This is the first presidential election where abortion will be front and center,” Republican strategist Alex Conant said. “This is just not an issue where Republicans are likely to win.”
Meanwhile, Democrats have been able to effortlessly unearth years — decades, in some cases — of comments that Republicans in key races have made that make it all too easy to paint a broad swath of GOP candidates as hypocritical or unprincipled or anti-woman.

"Voters don’t believe brand new information, but they really believe when you tell them something they already know or think is true," said a Democratic operative working on a key battleground congressional race. "And that’s exactly what’s happening in the case of abortion. Democrats are saying: ‘Republicans do not want you to have this right. They have been saying that your entire life; you should believe them.’ And voters believe that.

"Republicans are saying, ‘We changed our minds; you should have some rights. Don’t look at what I’ve said five years ago,’ and voters rightly know that that’s bulls---," the person added.

The issue has become a centerpiece of President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign and one of the few areas in which early polling finds him ahead of Trump.

Christina Amestoy, a spokeswoman for the group Think Big America — Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s nonprofit group working in battlegrounds like Arizona to help support abortion-related ballot measures for the fall — said the timing of Trump’s statement Monday only further linked him to the court decision.

“Just 24 hours after he said it, we got to see exactly what Trump is supporting by leaving it up to the states,” Amestoy said. “Arizona just rolled back the clock on women’s rights 160 years to a time when doctors didn’t even know to wash their hands.”

The challenge for Trump and the party is that, regardless of how Republicans handle their individual contests, another controversial state ruling will inevitably pop up that everyone is asked to then take sides on.

“It’s clear the anti-abortion movement wasn’t stopping at abortion — they’re coming after IVF, they’re coming after contraception, they’re coming after women,” she said, demonstrating how Democrats intend to message on the issue between now and November.

GOP backlash to Trump's position
In recent months, Trump publicly and privately flirted with coming out with a public statement supporting a national abortion ban, listening to a segment of his party that was pushing for such a measure. He suffered backlash Monday after he failed to address the topic. And by Wednesday, he said he would not sign such a ban.

Former Vice President Mike Pence called Trump’s video Monday “a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him in 2016 and 2020.”

In his 4½-minute video, Trump claimed that there was public consensus about the high court’s dismantling of Roe even though polling consistently indicates that a majority of Americans favor those federal protections.

"My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation, or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land,” Trump said in the video.

By Wednesday, Trump was saying the Arizona court’s ruling went too far, but he downplayed the significance, saying that “it’ll be straightened out” and that the “will of the people" will prevail.

“I’m sure that the governor and everybody else are going to bring it back into reason, and that will be taken care of, I think, very quickly,” he said.

Trump also suggested Florida is likely to vote to overturn its new abortion law in November.

“It’s the will of the people. So Florida is probably going to change. Arizona is going to definitely change. Everybody wants that to happen,” he said.

Not long after his remarks, the anti-abortion-rights group Susan B. Anthony List, with which Trump had aligned himself, slammed the same ballot efforts in those states — citing the same “will of the people” phrasing Trump used.

“The proposed ballot initiatives in Florida and Arizona have been written by the far Left and if enacted would allow for painful late-term abortions in the fifth, sixth, seventh month of pregnancy and beyond,” SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement. “They would wipe away all pro-life laws put in place by the legislature, reflective of the will of the people. These initiatives are fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars of left-wing money designed to deceive voters about their true intent. Pro-life candidates and officials must oppose them.”

GOP's no-win scenarios on repeat
In the nearly two years since Roe fell, abortion rights have won every single race in which they have appeared directly on the ballot.

That hot streak has extended to numerous Democrats — in races for the Senate, governor, state Supreme Courts and others — who made their support of abortion rights (and their opponents’ opposition to them) central features of their campaigns.

It also gave way to a growing number of Republicans who encouraged the party’s candidates to talk more about the issue and back something specific. But even in races in which Republicans went on offense with a deliberate policy approach to the issue, they lost — a data point over which Republican strategists still worry and Democratic operatives still salivate.

In Virginia’s November elections, for example, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin persuaded a large slate of Republican candidates in the legislative races to coalesce behind his proposal for a ban on abortion after 15 weeks — which included exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the woman — as part of his effort to gain Republican control of both chambers of the Legislature.

Strategists and politics watchers, sensitive to the party’s broad struggles on abortion, saw the proposal as an important and hopeful test message for Republicans looking for a more nuanced reproductive rights policy and message — one they hoped could appeal to moderates and independents — in the post-Roe era.

But that failed, too. Democrats walked away with control of both chambers — an outcome that further cemented the notion that Republicans cannot win on the issue even if they run on a non-extreme and thoughtful proposal.

Land of the free. Unless you were black between 1776 and 1964, or a woman in 2024.

I have your back.

We aren’t talking about differing economic philosophies. This is baseline hypocrisy of tUSA.

It is an extension of hate that has grown since the civil war. Hate, intolerance, and oppression have become the hallmark of the Republican Party. No, I won’t sit idly by anymore.

History has shown what tUSA stands for, we are going to win again. Why? Because we have virtue on our side.

Your post appears to be a solid example of the hypocrisy you complain about.

Hate, intolerance, and oppression have become the Hallmark of America. "Everyone" thinks virtue is on their side. You're little different than the Republicans. You just hate different things. You seem just as intolerant of them as they seem of you. Both seem to try to oppress the other.

It's damned depressing to watch and rather bloody exhausting.

Virtue. Pfffft. Conform to our paltry vision of how things should be or we'll "beat"/defeat you ("we're going to win.") smh. Hypocrisy. Ha, that's a laugh. Hypocrites complaining about hypocrites complaining about hypocrites is the American way now.

History is written by the victors. Most of them were hypocrites, too.

Have you noticed how the Right always wants to stomp out voting on abortion! they know they'll lose virtually every time.

Americans are against anything that stops a woman from having a choice. The morons, well meaning as they might be, haven't yet realized this simple fact.

They will lose every time if it's an un-rigged election. By un-rigged I mean not gerry mandered.

It's kinda been proven over and over again is just the last two years.

I'd love to see term limits on SCOTUS as well. Let's put that on the ballot in November,, I bet it wins.

I don't see many people on the right declaring victory. (On the boards)

I see quite a few people on the left posting like it's a done deal. "We will win because virtue is on our side."

To me, the virtue signalling on both sides is rather odious.

Honestly, I'm kind of surprised that abortion has so much support. Not on a moral level, but due to all the potential revenue lost. Kids are expensive. I'm surprised more corporations aren't trying to stack the deck against it to grow the markets for their products. But, then, I'm a cynic with a BBA.

I believe there are two points here that need to be addressed. First, just because you feel that a woman has a right to choose doesn't mean you support abortion. In my personal life, as far as my personal choice and feelings on the topic, I'm anti abortion. But where I differ from many is I don't believe I have the right to force my beliefs on the rest of the nation. I don't have to pay to raise their children. I don't want to advocate a heroin addict to be forced into having a child. I don't want to force a child who isn't even old enough to be in high school to have a baby. I also don't see the vast majority of these people railing against abortion waiting in line to adopt a child. So allowing people to make their own choice doesn't mean you support the choice they decide to make. But as you can see, under certain circumstances I would.

I'm not sure corporations aren't helping stack the deck against it. I would have to take a look at where and which candidates they donate to.

Choices are a good thing. Teaching children the actual and full history of this nation is a good thing. Teaching them to be respectful of others who are different than themselves and that they have the same rights as they do is a good thing. Allowing them to read books that talk about the experiences of people different than themselves in order to help them better understand those people is a good thing.

I understand there are parents who object to their children knowing and learning these things. And that's fine. They should be able to have the choice to opt their children out of these things. What they shouldn't be able to do is take away the choice for all the other parents who want their children to be taught these things.

That's where and why they keep running into problems. They not only wish to have control over their life, they want to have control over everyone elses.

Unless that woman hasn't been born yet. Some woman's rights activists are fine with no choices for her.

Where the line should be is seen from varying perspectives.

Can abortion be a female expression of an attempt at "patriarchy"/to exert control?

How many men support abortion because they don't want to have to pull out, wear a rubber, abstain, or have a vasectomy? Or because they don't want to be stuck paying child support? Do (some) men really want women to have a choice or do the men themselves want the choice available knowing they can influence a woman's decision?

I'm not against the possibility of abortion. The laissez-faire/minimalization attitude some seem to have towards it is disheartening, though.

Some people seem to want all of the rights and none of the responsibilities. Max out those credit cards and hope someone forgives the debt.

Now, I'm not saying all people have these views towards abortion. More just saying that there are potential dark sides that shouldn't be completely disregarded and/or glossed over.

I agree with you for the most part here.

My trepidation is more with the presentation of the choices. Yes, more choices can be a good thing. Yet bad choices aren't good things. I'm not against abortion as the less bad option. I am against presenting it as a good option. (Much like politicians)

As for that last line, that is one of the tricky parts with the abortion discussion. When does the clump of cells become someone else? Some people are prone to anthropomorphism and have the "need" to defend those that can't defend themselves.

You do realize that in order to take that choice from some self perceived "dark side" you would be taking that right to choose from everyone else as well, correct?

I'm not for taking away the choice. I am for having people acknowledge all aspects of the choice.

And I believe the point you're making can't be discounted. As with anything there will be a faction that will abuse it. I'm certainly glad to hear you say you don't believe that's enough to take away the choice. As I stated there is abuse and people using nefarious reasons to abuse almost everything one can think of. It seems as though we agree that's not enough to take away the choice for the vast majority of women who don't.

"I don't see many people on the right declaring victory. (On the boards)"

You must win in order to declare victory

The facts simply don't support that they win much.

"I see quite a few people on the left posting like it's a done deal. "We will win because virtue is on our side.""

So far, it has been. Ohio, Kansas to name a few. The right fought like hell to get those votes off the ballot. The left won the right to have those votes, and then the won the votes.

AS for the virtue thing, I've never said any thing like that. I don't remember anyone having said that. But maybe they have and I missed it. That's possible.

For me it comes down to common sense. People don't like it when you take things away from them. Things they've counted on for 50 years. You do that and you will pay a price

Nothing to do with Virtue. It's just being right!

Meanwhile in 1864 Arizona, a girl must be 10 years old to marry. Pretty sure the clergy and evangelicals didn’t protest that.

Pretty sure a 10 year old girl in 1864 Arizona had more common sense than half the people on this board. Just saying.

mac brought up the right declaring victory. BuckDawg1946 brought up virtue.

Is it being right or believing you're right? There's a difference between the two. It's much easier to think the latter than to be the former. It also depends on how one defines "right." It can be a matter of perspective.

It does feel a bit like we're talking about different things. You're talking about specific measure (abortion) votes. I was more referring to the upcoming elections as far as offices. It can be hard to keep track of who is talking about what.

Ohio congressional GOPers would be fine with that as long as she doesn’t have abortion access. SMFH, never been ashamed of where I from until the Trump era of MAGA lunacy. Trifling Plebs who think they’re on a blues-brothers-esque crusade for god, wrecking the damn country.

I agree with you that people have different perspectives. Where it gets complicated is that often times their perspective or their belief of what the truth is gets based on what they "think and believe" the facts are. Often times the message they are receiving are not the facts. There are only one set of facts. Perspectives not based in facts create much of the predicament we see ourselves in now.

Former Marine sentenced to 9 years in prison in firebombing of California Planned Parenthood clinic

A former marine who used a Molotov cocktail to firebomb a Planned Parenthood clinic in Costa Mesa, California, was sentenced to nine years in prison Monday, according to the Justice Department.

Chance Brannon — along with his co-defendant Tibet Ergul — attacked the Planned Parenthood clinic and conspired to plot attacks with Ergul and co-defendant Xavier Batten, including a potential attack on a power grid, in “furtherance of a race war,” the Justice Department said in a news release. Brannon was an active-duty member of the Marines when the attack took place in March 2022.

“The defendant’s assault on the Costa Mesa Clinic was designed to terrorize patients seeking reproductive healthcare and the people who provide it. Such violence has no place in the national discourse on reproductive health,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said in the release.

Brannon, 24, pleaded guilty in November 2023 to one count of conspiracy, one count of malicious destruction of property by fire and explosives, one count of possession of an unregistered destructive device, and one count of intentionally damaging a reproductive health services facility in violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, the release said.

In addition to the nine-year sentence, Brannon was also ordered to pay $1,000 in restitution, the release said.

CNN has reached out to Brannon’s attorney for comment.

“Brannon’s deep-rooted hatred and extremist views inspired him to target individuals or groups who did not conform to his neo-Nazi worldview and, in one case, led him to carry out a violent attack which could have killed innocent people,” Acting Assistant Director in Charge Mehtab Syed of the FBI Los Angeles Field Office said in a statement.

Ergul, 22, and Batten, 21, pleaded guilty to their charges related to the case earlier this year and will be sentenced on May 15 and May 30, respectively, the release said. CNN has reached out to their attorneys for comment.

Brannon first considered attacking other targets like the San Diego office for the Anti-Defamation League, but he decided on the Planned Parenthood clinic “to scare pregnant women, deter doctors and staff from providing abortion services, and encourage similar violent acts,” according to the release.

He and Ergul planned a second attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic in June 2022 following the overturning of Roe v. Wade that month but abandoned the plan because of law enforcement in the area, the Justice Department said.

The Planned Parenthood in Costa Mesa provides reproductive health services, including abortion-related services, and was forced to cancel dozens of appointments after the incident. No one was injured in the attack, Planned Parenthood said at the time.

The National Abortion Federation, a professional association for abortion providers, reported a “sharp increase” in violence at abortion clinics in 2022.

Prosecutors allege that Brannon was motivated by neo-Nazi ideology and discussed “cleans[ing]” the US of particular ethnic groups, according to the release. Brannon in 2022 kept plans for an attack on a Southern California Edison substation in a thumb drive “disguised as a military-style necklace bearing the motto for the Marine Corps,” according to the release.

There were 25 “actual physical attacks” in 2022 reported on power facilities across the US and one report of “sabotage,” according to statistics available from the Department of Energy, CNN reported last year. The FBI warned in a 2022 bulletin of threats by extremist groups to “create civil disorder and inspire further violence.”

During the summer of 2023, Brannon and Ergul also researched how to attack Dodger Stadium during an LGBTQ+ pride event using a remote-detonated device but were arrested two days before it was set to take place, according to court documents cited by the Justice Department. Days before being arrested, Brannon had also begun planning to rob Jewish people living in the Hollywood Hills, according to the release.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/15/politics/planned-parenthood-attack-former-marine-sentenced/index.html

Shout out to all women, we still have your back.

No you dont. You want men to compete in their sports.

And pee all over your toilet seat.

In fairness, I never do that, even on rough nights. I’m 40 and don’t play any sports. Now the rim in the dark is another story…

Bro, waay waay TMI!!

Lemme save you some time. From now on just post:

DERF!


IT WILL MEAN THE SAME AND SAVE YOU KEYSTROKES.

j/c

Arizona House votes to overturn 1864 abortion ban, paving way to leave 15-week limit in place

The Arizona House of Representatives voted Wednesday to overturn the state’s 160-year-old abortion ban, setting the stage for a repeal that would leave the state’s 15-week restriction on the procedure in place.

The vote comes after two failed attempts by lawmakers in the Republican-controlled state House to bring the bill to the floor last week, as Democrats sought to strike down the ban after the state Supreme Court revived it earlier this month.

Three Republicans voted with all 29 Democrats Wednesday to advance the legislation. The state Senate is expected to pass the repeal measure in early May. And Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs is expected to sign the bill if lawmakers advance it to her desk.

“This has been a long time coming,” said Athena Salman, the executive director of Arizona campaigns for Reproductive Freedom for All, formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America.

In its April 9 ruling, the Arizona Supreme Court said that the state must adhere to the 1864 law that bars all abortions except in cases when “necessary” to save a pregnant woman’s life. The law also carries a prison sentence of two to five years for abortion providers.

Wednesday’s vote is a boon to reproductive rights advocates and some Republican candidates, including former President Donald Trump, who have tried to distance themselves from the court ruling.

Within the Arizona House, however, the repeal measure drew angry remarks from several Republicans.

“I am disgusted today,” state Rep. Rachel Jones said. “Life is one of the tenants of our Republican platform. To see people go back on that value is egregious to me.”

Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma, who said he opposes all abortions except to save a pregnant woman’s life, said lawmakers had rushed into repealing the ban.

State Rep. Matt Gress, one of the Republicans who voted with Democrats, said the ban – which was first introduced when Arizona was still a US territory – didn’t reflect the values of most Arizona voters. Repealing it should have been a simple proposition, he said.

“I think it was more difficult than it needed to be,” Gress told CNN.

As the session ended, state House leadership removed Gress from the chamber’s Appropriations Committee, a move that was seen as punishment for bucking the party. Gress said it was “unfortunate and potentially unprecedented,” but he didn’t regret his vote.

“I campaigned against the territorial ban and made it very clear to my voters that I don’t support it,” said Gress, who represents a Phoenix-area district.

Hobbs told CNN’s Abby Phillip Wednesday night she was “relieved” by the repeal’s passage in the state House.

“There have been untold levels of chaos and fear across the state since this Supreme Court decision. So now the Senate needs to vote to send this repeal to my desk, so we can get rid of this 1864 ban once and for all,” the Democratic governor said on “NewsNight.”

If a repeal vote fails in the state Senate, the 1864 law could take effect as early as June 8, making Arizona one of more than a dozen states that bans abortion at virtually all stages of pregnancy with few exceptions.

If it succeeds, Arizona’s 15-week restriction on abortions will continue to be state law. However, officials warned that the territorial ban could be briefly enforceable because nonemergency bills passed in Arizona don’t take effect until 90 days after the Legislature adjourns.

In neighboring California, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom praised a state bill that would allow Arizona medical professionals to perform abortions for Arizona patients in California through the end of the year, arguing that it could help Arizonans even if the 1864 ban is repealed.

“With its urgency clause, SB 233 would fill a critical gap for care during a meaningful period of time before an Arizona repeal could be implemented,” a news release from the governor’s office said. “Swift action helps combat the confusion and chilling effect this back-and-forth creates.”

The Civil War-era abortion ban, which dates to before statehood, was codified in 1901. It remained in effect until 1973, when it was blocked by a court injunction after Roe v. Wade created a federal constitutional right to an abortion.

In March 2022, months before the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Republican Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law the state’s 15-week ban, which has no exceptions for rape or incest. That legislation stated explicitly that it did not overrule the 1864 law.

Democrats have made clear that they still plan to emphasize abortion policy heading into the general election. Arizona Republicans hold one-seat majorities in the state House and Senate, and the state will be a US Senate and presidential battleground this fall.

Sam Paisley, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which works to elect Democrats to statehouse seats, called Wednesday’s vote a “clear victory for Arizona House Democrats” but pointed out that the 15-week restriction would still exist after a repeal.

“The only way to protect reproductive freedoms is to elect Democrats to the legislature to repeal this (15-week) ban too,” Paisley said in a statement.

Abortion rights advocates are currently working to place a constitutional amendment proposal on the state’s November ballot that would protect abortion access up to fetal viability, which doctors believe is around 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. Arizona for Abortion Access, the group backing the amendment, has gathered more than 500,000 signatures. Advocates must submit 384,000 valid signatures by July 3 to make the general election ballot.

Prior to the Arizona House vote, the chamber’s rules committee voted along party lines to approve the late introduction of three House resolutions, largely believed to be Republican-backed ballot measures designed to compete with the abortion rights amendment.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/24/politics/arizona-house-abortion-law/index.html