ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥

First by one side — the four-member majority that ruled ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥â€™s 1864’s ban on abortion must take precedence as state law.

Then by the other side — the two dissenting members arguing that a 2022 law made that ban obsolete.

Looking strictly at the law, not at the outcome, it strikes this layman as a coin flip. There’s compelling reasoning on both sides.

What we should do about it, though — that’s not a coin flip at all. We should repeal as a starting point.

But getting there is the problem.

It’s become a high-stakes national political issue, with Vice President Kamala Harris coming into town Friday and former . The outcome of the 2024 presidential election could potentially hinge on how this issue plays out in ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥.

As much as Democrats hate the outcome of the ruling — the fact that abortion may be banned again in ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ within two weeks — they are enjoying the political benefits. Dems are leaning into the outrage, fundraising, doing national interviews, winning support.

Meanwhile, many Republicans are playing defense, even flip-flopping on this key cultural issue to stay in line with Trump and the electorate. They know the political peril the decision puts them in, since their party birthed this ban opposed by most ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ns.

In ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Friday, Harris blamed Trump for the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Supreme Court’s ruling, noting that he appointed the court majority that overturned Roe v. Wade, giving the states leeway to make their own abortion laws — or, in this case, inherit them.

Trump, in turn, has blamed ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥â€™s Supreme Court, saying that the ruling goes too far and that the Legislature and governor need to fix the problem. (But Friday, in a press conference at his Florida home, Trump boasted, and added, “The states are working very brilliantly. It’s working the way it’s supposed to.â€�)

Trump, ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ GOP had roles

The truth is, it really is more Trump’s problem and the problem of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Republicans of the 2022 session, than it is the state Supreme Court’s.

The key to the decision is that when the Legislature’s Republican majority limited abortion rights to up to 15 weeks of gestation, they stated in the law that they were not repealing the 1864 ban, which existed in ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Revised Statutes as .

This decision, made in the months before the Dobbs decision came down, overturning Roe, was strategic. Sen. Nancy Barto, the prime sponsor of the 2022 bill, told me about it via email in September 2022: “It should be clear from the plain language in the bill that the intent of the legislation was to provide as much protection for preborn children as possible and in the event that the SCOTUS overturned Roe, that ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥â€™s pre-1973 law would still be in place and pre-eminent.â€�

From reading the ruling and interviewing a University of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ law professor with a good grasp of it, I think the court may well have gotten the decision right, specifically because it was the Legislature’s intent.

The majority, led by Justice John Lopez IV, noted that to uphold the 15-week ban would ignore the spirit of the bill: “In context, was not a legislative attempt to preserve a right to abortion in ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥; instead, it was a significant legislative restriction on elective abortion.â€�

The dissenters resolved the conflict by saying the two laws must be harmonized: “Sections 13-3603 and 36-2322(B) can and should be interpreted harmoniously to permit their joint enforcement until the Legislature or the people, through the initiative process, say otherwise.�

To be sure I wasn’t missing something obvious in the ruling, I consulted . He found the dissent more compelling than the majority opinion.

“How does one reconcile the laws that two very different bodies passed?â€� Griffin asked. “The one that makes most logical sense is to understand the 2022 provision as just limiting the reach of the 1864 one and saying that as of this year, this decade in the 2020s, this is what ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ns have chosen through their elected legislators.â€�

However, he went on, “On its face the majority opinion has rhyme and reason to it. It has an argument. Looking at the two side-by-side, on the law, putting aside any other view, I find the argument of the dissent to be more persuasive and compelling.�

Some GOP responses hypocritical

The Republican response to the ruling has in some cases been dubious or hypocritical. , the former Twitter: “I signed the 15-week law as Governor because it is thoughtful conservative policy, and an approach to this very sensitive issue that ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ns can actually agree on. The ruling today is not the outcome I would have preferred.â€�

Ducey, of course, should have known this ban was a strong possibility. Not only was the preservation of the abortion ban in the bill, but he appointed the entire four-member majority who made Tuesday’s ruling.

Kari Lake, who is running for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate, suddenly .

Rep. Juan Ciscomani fudged his position during the 2022 campaign, saying he would follow state law but not saying what precise abortion law he preferred. , and he prefers the 15-week limit.

It was a relative few Republicans who defended the ban and hailed the ruling. Among them were reps. Rachel Jones and Cory McGarr, ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥-area Republicans who represent Legislative District 17 and are part of the . Their position puts them at rare odds with their figurehead, Trump.

Their seatmate, Sen. Justine Wadsack, did not make her position clear. All three could be vulnerable in November’s election.

Toma in key position

Another of the Republicans committed to the ban is , and that could make repealing it difficult. Under House rules, the Speaker can stop a bill from getting to the floor, even if the governor calls a special session on the topic. There’s no clear way past him if he holds his position.

Rep. Stephanie Stahl-Hamilton, a ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Democrat, introduced a bill to repeal the 1864 abortion ban last year and this, now called , but it still hasn’t had a hearing, even though there was a flurry of activity around it on Wednesday.

“We don’t know what the way forward is, but we know we have 14 days to get there,� Stahl-Hamilton told me, referring to the two-week stay the court put on their decision.

If no repeal passes, the only way to stop the ban from taking effect will be to stall through continued legal action. The court invited the plaintiffs to challenge the constitutionality of the ban, and it would be surprising if they didn’t accept the invitation.

Other than that, it’s a question of waiting till November. That’s when we’ll be voting on at least one ballot issue related to reproductive rights — the initiative that would enshrine in the state constitution the right to an abortion up until the time of fetal viability outside the womb. It’s possible Republicans in the Legislature will put another, more restrictive measure on the ballot, too.

Some abortion-rights supporters are also talking about voting out the two justices who are up for election this voter and voted for last week’s ruling. Clint Bolick and Kathryn King are both Ducey appointees.

They are part of a court packed by Ducey thanks to Legislation expanding the court, unnecessarily, in 2016. I would vote against them to undo that wrong — Ducey’s court-packing — but I wouldn’t vote against them because of this ruling. To me, the ruling was defensible, and it’s up to us to overcome it.