laws of life essay 2022

• SIGN-UP for our WEEKLY NEWSLETTER CLICK HERE ▸

Character.org Announces Results of 2023 Laws of Life Essay Contest For Students

Jun 7, 2023

Washington, D.C. (May 24, 2023) – Character.org is pleased to announce the results of its 2023 Laws of Life essay contest. The Laws of Life essay contest encourages elementary, middle school and high school students to reflect and write about a core value that means the most to them – and why. It provides students the opportunity to write from the heart to explain their thinking to others.

This is the second year Character.org has managed this contest, having expanded the contest previously run by the Connecticut-based School for Ethical Education, whose grant to Character.org makes the Laws of Life program possible. The School for Ethical Education managed the contest in Connecticut for several years. The original Laws of Life contest began in 1997 under the management of the John Templeton Foundation.

Students from the United States and nine other countries in grades 4 – 12 participated during the 2022-2023 school year, submitting a total of 1,139 essays from 98 schools. Pennsylvania and New Jersey students submitted the majority of the U.S. essays, with 63 U.S. schools participating in the 2023 contest. Romania and Brazil accounted for 70% of the essays submitted from outside the United States, from a total of 35 schools.

All student participants will receive recognition from Character.org. Six students are being honored for writing essays which were evaluated by a team of judges and deemed “Most Compelling” Worldwide, based upon content, structure, grammar and spelling. An additional twenty students, ten each from the United States and countries outside the U.S., are being recognized for writing exemplary essays in the high school and elementary/middle school age groups. Additionally, Character.org is recognizing the work of one student from each school that participated. (A list of these honorees is attached.)

More information about the Laws of Life essay contest and this year’s student honorees is available at Character.org’s website at https://character.org/laws-of-life-contest/ . Character.org is a worldwide network that empowers people of all ages to practice and model the core values that shape our hearts, minds, and choices. Since 1993, we have created and shared character-inspired resources for families, schools, and organizations across the world. Every year we also recognize and celebrate thousands of people who are champions for character.

List of 2023 Laws Of Life Honorees  

Recent News

• 5 Wise Steps To Forming Our Character
• Do Our Kids Need A Jolt of Responsibility?
• Helping Young People Develop an “Above and Beyond” Mindset
• The Power of Networks to Cultivate Character
• The Unspoken Rules That Place Boys In A Box
• Are Compassion and Empathy Key To Our Survival?
• How Can Schools Create A Culture of Dignity?
• Who Coined The Term Ethical Fitness?
• Character E-Portfolios For All Students…Why Not?
• Exploring Character Formation: Challenges, Questions, and Insights

Consistency

It’s easy to post a list of core values on the refrigerator. It’s much more difficult for parents to be consistent. Consistency lets children know what to expect and what is expected of them. Of course, children will push boundaries  but inconsistency from parents confuses children. 

Everyone involved in your child’s development are critical to modeling and upholding core values. Parents need to work with these important role models to foster the importance of doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, and for the right reasons.

Parents need to commit to model and reinforce to their children the core values and character strengths that mean the most to them. They also need to be creative and offer meaningful experiences that illuminate how important these character strengths are to the family’s core values. 

Conversations

We know “We need to talk” freaks kids out, but too often parents avoid having conversations about character, especially as children get older. While it may not be easy to talk sometimes, we know from the research that parents who avoid talking to their children about serious matters quickly lose trust and connection.

Celebration

Parents need to find ways for their children to be active participants in their own character growth. Optimal character development occurs when children begin to make self-motivated commitments to consistently practice a core value (e.g. “I want to be the kind of person who is always honest and shows up on time.”) Parents need to celebrate these moments to shape and define individual character. 

Stay Connected!

Subscribe to our FREE weekly "Inspiring Character" newsletter that features new character development resources, useful tips, exciting interviews, and pluck-your-heartstring videos.

Let us inspire you!

Welcome to 'Inspiring Character'! 🎉 Thank you for subscribing. Get ready to explore uplifting stories and invaluable insights on character development in your inbox every week

• Author Archives: Georgia Laws of LIfe

• Templeton Foundation Awards Georgia Laws of Life a Three-Year Grant

The Georgia Laws of Life Essay Contest has received a three-year grant from the John Templeton Foundation. The $230,000 grant will enable the GLL organization to build a technology infrastructure to more effectively provide the Laws of Life character education program which recognized outstanding student writers from high schools across Georgia.

“Sir John Templeton felt that there was great personal and professional value in reflecting on those seemingly universal laws that help an individual develop a sense of purpose in life. Inspired by this vision, many countries have held Laws of Life essay contests,” said Sarah Clement, PhD, Senior Director, Character Virtue Development for the foundation. “The Georgia Rotary District’s program in particular stands out as a leading program in the United States. We are excited to continue our support for this program and look forward to reading the winning essays!”

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, schools and students will rely more heavily on technology when school reopens for the 2020-2021 school year. Students may spend less time in the school building, so teachers will stay connected via online classroom platforms. To support teachers and students, GLL looks to implement online training for teachers and their Rotary Club partners as well as online essay submission and judging. The grant will also fund development of a database of current and past student participants, teachers, and Rotary members.

 Inspired by the power of simple quotes, or Laws of Life , Sir John Templeton established the writing competition in the 1980s to encourage young people to embrace the wisdom of these sayings. For the 2019-2020 Contest, over 43,000 students from 72 high schools wrote personal narrative essays on their own Law of Life . The 48 participating Georgia Rotary Clubs awarded over $21,100 in cash prizes to seven statewide student winners and another 170 student writers at the school level. 

For more information about the Georgia Laws of Life Essay Contest, contact Executive Director, Carol Gray at 404-590-8039.

News Categories

• Essay Contest
• Uncategorized

Latest Articles

• LAWS OF LIFE ESSAY CONTEST OFFERS VITAL SEL TOOL TO SCHOOLS
• 2019-20 Statewide Winners Announced

Georgia Laws of Life Essay Contest Winners 2022

Abstract: PDF

Submit Your Essay or Video

ESSAY SUBMISSION

Essay entries for all divisions must be submitted via the Online Submission Portal . In doing so, contestants have the choice of drafting, saving, and editing essays directly in the portal, or working on their essays offline (Microsoft Word, etc.) until finished.

Either way, the final essay must be typed (or copied and pasted) directly into the Online Submission Portal. Attachments, such as Word Docs, PDFs, etc. will not be accepted. Links to Google Docs will also not be accepted.

Step-by-Step instructions are provided in the Online Submission Portal and in the instructional videos linked below. After submission, you will receive a confirmation email with a submission number for reference.

To access the Essay Submission Portal, click on the division you wish to enter. Please note that each of these portals will close at midnight on Friday, February 9, 2024 .

• Primary Division (Grades 5-6)
• Junior Division (Grades 7-9)
• Senior Division (Grades 10-12)
• College Division

Note : With the full implementation of the Online Submission Portal, we will not accept essays via email or those delivered in-person. All essays must be entered directly into the Online Submission Portal.

VIDEO SUBMISSION

Video entries must be submitted via the Online Submission Portal. Step-by-Step instructions are provided in the Online Submission Portal. After submission, you will receive a confirmation email with a submission number for reference.

• Video Division (Grades 10-12)

The Portal will close for submissions at midnight on Friday, February 9, 2024 .

Note : With the full implementation of the Online Submission Portal, we will not accept video entries via email or delivered in-person.   All videos must be uploaded directly to the Online Submission Portal. Please also note that the portal will accept videos in MP4 format only.

SUBMISSION PORTAL INSTRUCTIONS

• Laws of Life: Creating your profile instructional video
• Laws of Life: Essay/video submission instructional video

The most prestigious essay competition in The Bahamas.

Get Involved

Essay Contest 

Collegiate laws of life essay contest.

The Collegiate Laws of Life Essay Contest asks Penn State students to explore ethical values and intercultural issues, and their talent for expressing their views in writing. For our eleventh annual competition, students should respond to this prompt: 

A number of recent events have thrown into crisis the notion that the rule of law is equally applicable to all U.S. citizens. These events have exposed laws that appear to operate so differently across demographic groups as to suggest that different people live under different legal systems. In your essay, reflect on at least one of the following:

• the merits of the ideal of equality under the law
• how the ideal of equality under the law is endangered
• whether there are successor concepts that might supplant the ideal of equality under the law

Essays should be no longer than 800 words and will be judged on originality, relevance, and creativity. The contest is open to all full-time undergraduate students enrolled at any Penn State campus during the fall 2023 or spring 2024 semesters.

First Place: $500 | Second Place: $400 | Third Place: $300

Submission deadline: friday, january 26 at 11:59 p.m. est, questions  email   [email protected] ., 2024 winning essays, first place —“a tale of lions and oxen”, veronika miskowiec | ’26 international politics | paterno fellow and schreyer scholar.

It is hard to talk about equality in the eyes of the United States when the country itself never agreed on what it was. At one point, it gave one group of people complete ownership over another—that was called equality. When we were past that, it still meant the complete superiority and dominance of one race over another—that was called equality. Even beyond that, it meant the prioritization of men over women, rich over poor, educated over the uneducated—somehow, that is still equality? But how can we say that one group is greater than another when this “lesser” group is not given a fair chance?

Yes, people argue that equality is present. Black people can vote. Women can join the workforce. A lower-class individual can take out a loan and go to college. Of course, that ignores the many facets of a problem that is as prevalent as ever; voter restriction laws are still being passed, women still make 82 cents for every dollar a man makes, and the private loan providers that keep people who strive for higher education in debt for years are making millions.

I can keep going in circles and arguing that equality still exists. I can think about how it endangered, but was it truly ever safe? It is hard to admit that in a century that is defined by its progress, the people who were always on the perimeter remain in it. That being said, the institutions that were in place aiming to equal the playing field, like Affirmative Action, are being targeted (and, in the case of Affirmative Action, actually being called unconstitutional). If that is the precedent being set, what is stopping us from sliding down the daunting mountain of fairness for all that we have been trying to climb up?

Aristotle once said that “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” To me, this quote encompasses the problem the United States faces today: We are too caught up in trying to make everyone seem the same to realize that we are all different. The reality is we each grew up facing different circumstances, pressures, and obstacles.

As romantic poet William Blake wrote, “One law for the lion and for the ox is indeed oppression.” It is easy to paint a picture using a quote that critiques this universal law system that the United States has in place.  Say we are a country populated by lions and oxen. If the governing body of this country says, “Yes, we recognize that you two have different diets and have different needs, so you are free to eat what you must in order to survive.” Great. The oxen can eat the grass they need, and the lions can butcher the oxen that they need to eat in order to survive. Obviously, the oxen are being slaughtered. The government recognizes this, so they say, “Okay, from now on everyone can only eat grass.” Great. The oxen are safe to eat their grass and thrive, but now the lions eventually starve.

The truth is we do live in a society of lions and oxen.

We live in a society that says if you get arrested you can post bail to get out. For a middle- or upper-class individual with money to spare, that is not an issue. For a lower-class individual without that money, they get to stay in jail.

We live in a society that says you can take the SAT as many times as you would like. Of course, that does not account for the access to test preparation materials, tutors, and school-funded study programs that tend to be present in wealthier areas in contrast to impoverished areas that often do not even provide their students with an SAT preparation course. That is not even taking into account the fact that it costs money—that many do not have—to take the exam itself.

We live in a society that tells us that we are free to apply to any university in order to set ourselves up for the future we would like to have. Of course, how does that bear in mind the fact that wealthier areas tend to have better school districts with, again, more resources, and wealthier people have more money to spend on college applications themselves?

The truth is inequality is still prevalent, and maybe we have not climbed as far up the mountain of fairness as we thought. Maybe the laws we have in place simply conceal the inequality better than they ever have. The tale of lions and oxen should be one of caution when enacting laws that seemingly position the members of society in an unjust situation disguising it as one of equality.

Second Place —“Paradox of Then, Vigor of Now”

Creighton mitchell | ’24 economics.

The year is 1968, two years after the March on Washington and Martin Luther King Jr.’s iconic “I Have a Dream” speech. America finds itself grappling with the tumultuous currents of civil rights movements, challenges to suffrage, and anti-Vietnam War protests. The nation is on the brink, facing unprecedented levels of public discourse and diminishing morale within its borders. Scenes of African American café sit-ins and bus boycotts have become a pillar in American politics, while women are fervently seeking admission to Yale, Princeton, and Harvard. Amidst this backdrop, crosses burn in front yards, fire hoses, and K9 units are unleashed on the innocent and the esoteric ball of equality is being hit across the country. Echoing the pursuit of this enigmatic goal.

April 4th, 1968: CBS Anchor Walter Cronkite delivers a somber announcement on the evening news: “Dr. Martin Luther King, the apostle of non-violence in the civil rights movement, has been shot to death in Memphis, Tennessee.” Meanwhile, Ira Mitchell Sr. just wrapped up instrument tests at the TWA airplane hangar in Tuskegee, Oklahoma. The fading sunlight filters through the expansive garage doors. Ira, two janitors, and an assistant flight controls mechanic are gathered, drawn by the noise emanating from the offices in the back of the hangar. This diverse group shared one common feature—their melanin-rich, mahogany-colored skin. As Walter Cronkite’s resonant words echoed through the air, the mechanic uttered, “Dr. King is dead.” Ira gazed down at the ground in disbelief, his leathery, worn hands fumbling a greased cloth. A long-exhausted sigh escapes his mouth. He exits the hangar, bound for the forty-minute bus ride home to his wife and seven children. At the bus stop sits a boy, pocket watch in hand, waiting for his father to arrive. The workday is over.

April 4th, 1968: Larry Braby arrives home after teaching Biology at Pocahontas High School in rural Iowa, surrounded by the vast prairies and cornfields of what some call “God’s Country.” He parks his 1960 Ford pickup in the garage, taking a moment of ominous silence between the final high school bell and the ensuing chaos of suburban Midwest life. It is in these fleeting moments, that the weight of the 1960s subtly lingers on his mind, vivid reels surge of friends and classmates entangled in the contentious Vietnam War.

As Larry sits in his pickup, plunging further into a disquieting euphoria, the distant bark of a dog fractures the state of detachment. Three toddlers excitedly rush out, and Larry is welcomed by his wife and daughters. Yet, the ethereal weight of the era persists. Entering the house, he hears the transistor radio near the pantry cabinet, broadcasting Walter Cronkite’s words that perforate throughout. Conversation softens to a whisper, as if the world had paused, leaving only the echo of silence. There are no words. Amidst this tranquil lull, one of the young girls diverts her gaze, meeting Larry’s eyes. “Who is Martin Luther King?” she asks. Breaching the stillness, he invites her, “Come sit with me, I’ll tell you all about him.”

August 22nd, 2023: I find myself in a stale, yet sweltering classroom populated by an ocean of peers. It is the first day of Labor Economics. The professor forges ahead, initiating the routine first-day introductions with the familiar prompt, “Introduce yourself, where you are from, and share your favorite food.”  The class begins to list locations spanning the entire globe: “Seoul, South Korea; New Delhi, India; Toronto, Canada.” The spotlight brings me into focus, it is my turn. Hands damp with perspiration, I declare, “Des Moines, Iowa.” The professor dispels the anxious tension of the first day, shattering the atmosphere with a statement that captures the class and kicks open the door to the first day. “I counted 12 different nationalities amongst this class, the highest I have had in a semester.” I glance at the color of my hands, flipping them over and back, discovering subtleties I had never noticed before. A seemingly flawless blend, uniting the deepest onyx hues found in Oklahoma with the radiant glow from the expanse of stars adorning rural Iowa. I peer at the seats in front and behind me, they seem to be in similar astonishment. This is the world Larry Braby and Ira Mitchell envisioned. Class begins.

Third Place —“The Garden”

Katherine joyce | ’25 english | schreyer scholar.

Picture a garden.

Not the prim, proper, prissy type: a spilling-over, four-leaf clover, blossom takeover, idle-Sunday rover kind of place where no two flowers are the same. Roses painted the palest pinks and the cleanest whites and the brightest yellows climb up trellises hand-in-hand, leaf-in-leaf, thorn-in-thorn—their own personal Everest to conquer by summer’s end. Herbs blush under too much attention and wilt if left alone. Ivy vines silhouette the white picket fence like a scalloped edge on a lacy wedding veil. The daisies and violets and primroses, darling little innocents, rustle cheerfully with the warm breeze, glad to beautify their home in their own tiny way. Bluebirds sing jazz and opera as the sunset casts its golden spotlight through the trees. Near the pond, the proud sprigs of lavender dance to the music of croaking frogs and barking dogs. The magnolias sway and the violets play and the chrysanthemums pray and the little dandelion puffs stray, and all is lovely and well as the sun sinks and the garden falls asleep.

Can you see it now?

This is the beauty of our nation. I am a tulip, and you a cherry blossom, and your friend a zinnia, and your mother a lily. The law stretches over us like the endless summer sky, bathing us all in sunlight. Under the big blue, we flourish as we please. Despite our differences, we are one garden.

But sometimes, the sky cannot protect everyone—not even in the garden.

The flowers know when the storms are gathering, but what can they do? Shake and shiver and shimmy and shuffle as they wait for the inevitable? Not everyone is hardy. The tulips just stare at the gathering clouds, tracing their beloved petals one last time. They are delicate, never meant to last … there is no hope for them in thunder. The roses cling tightly to the trellis, and to each other, as the winds begin to howl.

And then there are the bare feet that trample the innocents—the daisies, the violets, the sweet baby primroses. Perhaps the blunder becomes a regret, or perhaps that foot finds something powerful in crushing someone so small. The forget-me-nots lower their little blue heads in mourning. They will remember, and they will cry.

And when the gardener falls in love, what then? He walks down the mossy cobblestones, humming the tune that once caused his parents to sway among the daffodils at twilight, eyes peeled for the most perfect of blooms. He cuts a few fresh roses—pale as a young woman’s blush—and vows to get rid of those pesky dandelions someday. Those aren’t real flowers, he mumbles to himself, just weeds. And he goes away humming, and the dandelions cower and hate themselves.

The environment is not one-size-fits-all, and neither is the law. Nor, I would argue, should it be. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States of America declares that “nor shall any state … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The law is there, but we as Americans have failed in carrying it out. In short, our humanity is lacking. The fault is ours.

What if the ivy wrapped itself around the tulips when the fierce winds blew? What if the bluebirds chirped until the gardener looked away from the roses and towards those that are often forgotten? What if the snapdragons hissed when predators neared the lilies? What if the gardener taught his guests to look before they step?

What if, instead of depending on the government to build walls and write legislation, we simply looked out for each other? If I am a tulip and you are a cherry blossom, you must accept that I come from the ground, and I must accept that you come from a tree. Look at the roses! The pink blossoms do not attempt to strangle the yellow ones if they reach the top of the trellis first. Their vines twist, and they become one. And someone needs to protect the innocents, for the humblest flowers are just as beautiful as the showy ones. Protect them, please.

America is a garden. Tend it.

Winning Essay Archives

“a client and his discontents”.

Michael Mitole   ’23 Finance (Schreyer Scholar)

I glance at the card in my palm—Dr. Carl Rogers, Ph.D., 1150 Silverado Street, La Jolla, California. Drawing in a breath from the cool air around me, I return even less warmth: “This better not be a waste of my time.” I arrive to his study and sit on a coarse Persian tapestry that conceals a chair well-worn and pleading to be retired. Let me put my watch on, I think to myself, because the first rule of therapy is that the first session always goes over time. Looking around, I wonder how a Milton novel, a textbook on scientific agriculture, a King James Bible, and a bust of Kierkegaard happened onto the same shelf together, but, being raised with manners, I know not to say anything.

As I begin to talk, I convince myself that Rogers will be genuinely interested in what I am going to tell him – as we often do with people in our lives, if we’re honest enough to admit it – and that my stories of figuring out who I was, loving someone for the first time, and a failed attempt at the Rhodes Scholarship will yield enough material to make the session worth our while. Michael, you’re rambling on again – maybe you should pause so he can interpret your problems back to you. And, what time is it, anyway? Have I talked for the entire session? Pausing in the middle of my soliloquy, I peer at Rogers and wait for a response. Oh no, he hasn’t even written anything down yet.

“Michael, it seems to me that you are living, subjectively, a phase of your problems, knowingly and acceptingly,” he replies. I give an empty expression. I’m sorry, but what am I supposed to do with that? Rogers lets his words hang in the air, knowing they have stirred an internal response.

Well — maybe we need to be told truths that are jarring enough to make us let go of our own conclusions. He continues: “Many people I see in my practice aren’t used to being told that. It was an idea I published in my book On Becoming a Person, after many years observing how people responded to problems.”

When we are presented with problems – personal and otherwise – do we reach too quickly for panaceas, convenient cliches, and old schematic frames? Is this what Rogers means? I decide to vocalize my thoughts: “I see, Dr. Rogers. I tend to believe that all of my problems can be solved in some systematic way. And, to be frank, I look at a lot of the world’s grander problems this way, too — the global pandemic, the devastation of war, our beleaguered planet, and economic turmoil.”

“Right, and I am sure that your experience and what you have witnessed around you reveal that problems are hardly formulaic – some are longstanding and most are too complex to fit within the lenses we impose on the world around us,” says Rogers. “So, what does it mean to you, to live?”

Searching for a response, my eyes return to Rogers’ bookshelf, where I notice Thoreau’s Walden and an anthology of poems by Keats. How apropos of the conversation… and that Keats fellow, what was that he wrote about ‘negative capability’?

How do we live meaningfully in the face of hardships and difficulties? First, we grasp that the world is a forum of problems, where things are not as they ‘ought’ to be. But, importantly, we continue doing all the things that meaningful living requires – we continue to feel, to learn, to grow, to struggle, to change, to persevere, to act, and to be courageous.

If Camus was right that “to live is not to resign ourselves,” then our living must also be done with an unwavering purpose. There are those who feel called to dream big dreams and those who feel called to be faithful with the life already set before them. No matter what destiny holds, each of us in life will face a problem of significance that makes all the ones before it into necessary preparation. When that time comes, it will be our chance to help set the world ‘righter’ than it was before. This, we might say, is the universal purpose for which we exist, our hard-wearing meaning in life—to live in service of the ‘good,’ however that duty appears.

I reply to Rogers, “I see now that to truly live, in the face of problems, is to embody a solution that is salutary in all circumstances. But to spend my life ‘fixing’ is to live enslaved by those problems, an all too narrow and futile existence.” Rogers nods his head in tacit agreement, looking away from me.

I follow his eyes: Where is he looking? Oh goodness, the time.

“An Ode to Time, a Friend”

Arushi Grover   ’23 English (Paterno Fellow and Schreyer Scholar)

A player enters onstage. They stand, center-stage, in a spotlight. They wait.

In this moment in time, the forces of the haunting past, the tense present, and imminent future converge to the pleading question: how does one go on? We live in a time of intense political polarization, both in America and increasingly throughout the world; reaching across the aisle seems more and more like an idyllic fantasy of the past, and instead of achieving progress, it seems like our society and democracy is regressing. We live in a time of great reckoning, coming to terms with how past oppression has caused current inequalities, along lines of gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, disability, class, nationality, and more; haunted by the past, we try to learn to play the hand we’re dealt and create equality for the future…on top of what feels like a house of cards. And the future seems imminent, as climate scientists warn that we are on a trajectory that will cause global temperatures to increase, seas to rise, a surefire climate catastrophe that will harm those most vulnerable populations who have caused the least carbon emissions. Suffering defines our past, present, and future, the current moment an endless and evolving challenge.

Dare I suggest that time may be, not our foe, but our friend, in such circumstances? Regard Time, a wingèd, angelic figure that presides and brandishes a scythe. For our experience on this Earth is defined by Time: a beginning, a birth; the middle, a duration of experience; and the end, a death. She hovers, ever-present, a metronomic gaze as we haunt this world. We, as humans, may mourn the eternality that could never be due to our mortal frames, but think, perhaps, that the ephemerality of life is what makes the lows ever-so-devastating, but also the highs ever-so-pleasant. Knowing that this will end, we can experience joy and pleasure for the euphoria that they are. Ephemerality is what gives us meaning; that end is a gift that allows us to cherish the moment. For our finite experience, should the universe envy us for our feeling the operatic breadth of human emotion—the pains and devastation, the joys and pleasure?

For the challenges and hardships we face, we can find meaning in the nature of our existence; the universe may have Time, but we have experience, too. As individuals in this world, let us consider our strength to be our individuality, our unique and discrete experiences—something to take pleasure in and something to expand our understanding. Appreciating individuality means listening to individuals, not just ourselves but our communities, and especially to previously unheard and unsung voices. We must appreciate the diversity of individual experience.

The inequalities of the past mean that we have the chance to make the future better than the past, better than the present moment—a challenge, but a gratifying problem to solve for individuals and humankind. Preparing to counter the effects of climate change can seem like a daunting and unwinnable task, but we can comfort ourselves knowing that every inch of progress right now will be a mile of progress for future generations. And in a moment when political progress seems like it’s headed backwards, let us ricochet in appreciating how far we’ve come, to where we are or were, and beyond. For all the challenges that come with Time passing and repeating, we can find a silver lining and some meaning in befriending the figure of Time—both internal, personal meaning, and external, real-world reflections of validation.

Tick. Tick. Tick. Can you hear it? Flowers bloom and trees sport verdant leaves that metamorphosize to a blaze and fall in decay. Can you see it? In water, a current pulls and pulls and pulls. Can you feel it? If Time is a friend, can we not collaborate and make a meaningful relationship for us both? Maybe life is a book, and we get to control the pace, how quickly the pages turn, how soon the conflict resolves. Maybe life is a film, and we can pause the piece, rewind, and replay when things get hard. Or maybe life is a play, and we arrive with strangers to share time and space for a moment, before dissipating.

In some ways, there is cause to be optimistic for the future. And in some ways, there is no cause—not cause for pessimism, but simply an absence of cause. In these moments of reasoning, it is choice that defines our actions and mindset—both the choice to choose what we want for ourselves and the choices that affect others in a complex world and web of interdependence.

Onstage, the player bends their head, then straightens and steps off the stage. They sit in the first row of the audience. The lights dim to a blackout.

“We Exist in a Society”

Taran Samarth ’23 Philosophy, Political Science, Sociology and Mathematics (Paterno Fellow and Schreyer Scholar)

Contemporary politics dances upon one principal question: do we live in a society? Before there were absurdist Joker memes asserting “we live in a society,” there was Margaret Thatcher saying the opposite: “there is no such thing [as society].” Thatcher and Reagan’s worldview that there are only individuals and families living under markets—leaving little place for interconnection and community—once dominated Western politics. And then came the coronavirus crisis to remind us that if there was no value in redistributing wealth and power with our neighbors through the government that constitutes our collective will, at least we could redistribute some virions.

The pandemic was a reminder that, at the core of human existence, we are interlinked—that infections spread person-to-person, that our health depends on others, and that the survival of our medical facilities required all of us to do our part. Intensifying climate disasters and oppressive violence suggest the same: we live in a society where colossal, pressing crises structure our lives, and the solutions will require individuals to act in concert with others, not alone.

The urgency of these crises and the scale of their needed solutions demand that we collectively do two things: we embrace society, and we embrace taking sides. Too often, we fear staking bold claims. To demand police abolition in a world that enforces racist violence through the state is “too radical.” To seek an economic reconstruction that centers sustainability and collective, not individual, wealth is “too polarizing.” Our allergy to supporting transformative, large-scale solutions leave us emphasizing “nuance” without substance or trying to confine ourselves to “gray areas” where bold ideas are watered down into mere Band-Aids. Or, worse, we tell ourselves that crises—like some former Penn State officials said about sexual and gender-based violence—are just “vexing” and “intractable,” as if they are too complicated to merit our focused attention and effort.

The crises we face are complicated—they are massive, they are hard, and we are bound, at times, to fail. But we cannot refuse to back bold ideas while the window for action that can meaningfully prevent harm dwindles. As we stare down the barrel of existential crisis after crisis, the existentialists are a guide to making meaning in 21st-century life. Our lives are defined by our freedom to constantly choose—I choose to speak; you choose to listen (or not). How we choose to greet and meet every moment fills our world with value and our lives with meaning. Faced with myriad crises, will we let our lives be defined by paralysis? Or will we courageously choose sides and define ourselves as actors that dared to try—dared to affirm our freedom and choose?

But, as Simone de Beauvoir says in Pyrrhus and Cinéas, “[humankind] is not alone in the world.” As intensifying global polarization and authoritarianism indicate, we cannot choose sides haphazardly or without attention to the identical freedom of billions of others. These choices and our actions demand thought and care—particularly for the most marginalized and vulnerable. Whatever choice I alone make in confronting a crisis will be meaningless without others willing to orient their freedom and choices toward the same projects. Disagreement is inevitable—even healthy—but the toxic polarization we face today keeps us frozen in the face of crisis because we choose not to persuade or communicate. We take sides—and we refuse to seek others to join us. We leave our lives meaningless, and crisis creeps ever closer to Armageddon.

As historian Gabriel Winant wrote in the throes of the pandemic, meeting the urgency and challenges posed by crisis requires “the building of relationships and trust across the forms of social difference.” To reach across dinner tables, borders, and backgrounds and build these relationships is to forge the bonds that alone have the power to bring the choices we make, sides we take, and solutions that follow into the world. As Winant quotes Holocaust historian Timothy Snyder from his text on fighting the crisis of tyranny, you must dare to “put your body in unfamiliar places with unfamiliar people.”

The urgency posed by a planet unequipped to withstand climate shifts in the coming decade and respond to structural inequities that will sharply allocate harm to the already-wounded means that we cannot risk inaction. For one person to imbue their life with meaning amidst extraordinary social problems, the urgency of crisis demands that they opt to take sides and try to effect change in the world. But they can only do so effectively if they dare to make those bold choices in partnership with others willing the same. That is, we can only make meaning in our lives and our world if we choose to embrace and act upon that one fundamental truth: we live in a society.

“Finding Meaning in the Pursuit of Survival”

Charles Cote ’23 Supply Chain and Information System (Schreyer Scholar)

• Academics Overview
• Departments

Student Services

• Honors Education

Beyond the Classroom

• Admissions Overview
• Schedule a Visit

Liberal Arts Experiences

Diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging.

• Academic Integrity
• Academic Recovery
• Dean’s List
• Commencement
• Funding Overview
• Academic Scholarships
• Enrichment Funding
• Emergency Funding
• Schwartz Fellows Program
• Beyond the Classroom Overview
• Education Abroad
• Internships

Professional Development

• Student Organizations
• Professional Development Overview
• Alumni Mentor Program
• Assess Your Strengths
• Applying for Jobs
• Interviewing
• Negotiating Offers
• Liberal Arts Career Week
• Liberal Arts Virtual Recruiting Week
• Student Services Overview
• Academic Advising
• Career Enrichment Network
• Chaiken Center for Student Success
• Paterno Fellows Program
• Find a Program

Career Diversity

• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging Overview
• Graduate Alliance for Diversity and Inclusion

Upcoming Events

Cas undergraduate showcase, black experiences in the wider atlantic: approaches, methods, and the archive sixteenth–twenty-first centuries, african studies global virtual forum: decoloniality and southern epistemologies—sarah bunin benor, department of political science lecture series presents: xu xu at princeton, global asias cyber chat, political science ir brownbag: the academic job market, applied linguistics roundtable, mindfulness mondays, policy profile: heather bupp, the refugee system, the refugee system: a sociological approach, “storytelling and folktales from around the globe”, spanish club meetings, review and reset: five-day study plan, department of political science lecture series presents: guy grossman, trending pages.

• Future Students
• Degree Programs

Georgia Laws of Life Essay Contest Winners 2022

Abstract: PDF

April 13, 2024

Extended Search

Laws of Life essay winners announced

Premium Content is available to subscribers only. Please login  here  to access content or go   here   to purchase a subscription.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

How to Claim Your Part of a $45 Million Walmart Settlement

A class-action lawsuit accusing the retail giant of inflating prices of certain weighed foods and produce resulted in a settlement. Customers may be eligible for a payment of up to $500.

By Emmett Lindner

Some Walmart customers may be entitled to claim up to $500 as part of a $45 million settlement that the retail giant is paying to resolve a class-action lawsuit, according to a settlement administrator’s website .

The lawsuit, filed on Oct. 19, 2022, claimed that Walmart overcharged shoppers for in-store purchases of certain weighted grocery items, including poultry and pork, and for bagged citrus. The lawsuit accuses the company of “unfair and deceptive business practices” that resulted in higher costs than what were advertised, according to court documents .

The lawsuit alleges that Walmart falsely inflated product weight, mislabeled products and overcharged for clearance products sold by weight.

The retail giant has denied the allegations, but it agreed to the settlement. “We believe a settlement is in the best interest of both parties,” a Walmart spokeswoman said in a statement.

Think you’re eligible? Here’s what to know:

Walmart is accused of overcharging for some weighted items.

The lawsuit claims that Walmart overcharged for certain items. Prices for weighted products, including meat, poultry, pork and seafood, sometimes differed between the item labels and the labels on the shelves, and customers were charged for the higher prices at checkout, according to the settlement.

Other grocery descriptions are said to have been distorted, too. Some bagged citrus products, including navel oranges, organic oranges, organic grapefruit and tangerines, were labeled with a weight that was lower than what appeared on the shelf tags, and customers were charged for a heavier weight of the products than what they took home.

The lawsuit also included some weighted goods that were near expiration, and displayed a price that was lower than what appeared on the register.

How do I find out if I’m eligible for a payment?

Any customers who shopped in a store at a Walmart retail location in the United States and Puerto Rico between Oct. 19, 2018, and Jan. 19, 2024, and purchased the included weighted goods or bagged citrus can apply for a settlement payment through the administrator’s website or by mail.

The deadline to submit any claim is June 5, 2024.

How do I apply, and how much should I expect?

To apply, either fill out the online form on the administrator’s website , or download a form to print and send by mail to an address provided on the form. The form requires claimants to submit contact information, describe the type and number of items purchased, and select a payment option, and gives them the opportunity to upload receipts.

The amount that claimants receive, if approved, can vary. With proof of purchase, shoppers can take home up to 2 percent of the total amount they paid for weighted goods and bagged citrus, with a cap of $500.

I don’t keep grocery receipts from five years ago …

Fear not, you may still receive a little cash, though less than the $500 cap. If you submit a claim without documentation, you can receive between $10 and $25 , depending on the number of relevant items purchased.

When will I find out if I’m approved?

The final approval hearing is scheduled for June 12, 2024. If you qualify for a payment, money will be transferred to you electronically, or by check if requested. The deadline to object or comment on the settlement is May 22, 2024.

Emmett Lindner writes about breaking and trending news. He has written about international protests, climate change and social media influencers. More about Emmett Lindner

Explore Our Business Coverage

Dive deeper into the people, issues and trends shaping the world of business..

Stopping a Huge Cyberattack: A Microsoft engineer noticed something was off on a piece of software he worked on. He soon discovered someone was probably trying to gain access to computers all over the world .

Hoping for an A.I. Productivity Boost:  Economists doubt that A.I. is already visible in productivity data . Big companies, however, talk often about adopting it to improve efficiency.

Cashing In on Graffiti:  Brands, developers and even officials are embracing the global appeal of street art , but the boom comes with questions about preserving a neighborhood’s cultural cachet.

‘Twitter Menace’ or True Believer?: The deep-pocketed tech investor Garry Tan says he wants to save San Francisco. But his pugnacious online habits are making him enemies .

A C.E.O.’s Bold Claims:  Amira Yahyaoui, a human rights activist, promoted the success of her student aid start-up, Mos. Some of her statements do not add up .

Arizona Supreme Court rules a near-total abortion ban from 1864 is enforceable

PHOENIX — The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a 160-year-old near-total abortion ban still on the books in the state is enforceable, a bombshell decision that adds the state to the growing lists of places where abortion care is effectively banned.

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. 

The law — which was codified in 1901, and again in 1913 — outlaws abortion from the moment of conception but includes an exception to save the woman’s life.

That Civil War-era law — enacted a half-century before Arizona even gained statehood — was never repealed and an appellate court ruled last year that it could remain on the books as long as it was “harmonized” with a 2022 law, leading to substantial confusion in Arizona regarding exactly when during a pregnancy abortion was outlawed.

The decision — which could shutter abortion clinics in the state — effectively undoes a lower court’s ruling that stated that a more recent 15-week ban from March 2022 superseded the 1864 law.

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

Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, said moments after the ruling that she would not enforce the law.

“Let me be completely clear, as long as I am Attorney General, no woman or doctor will be prosecuted under this draconian law in this state,” Mayes said in a statement, adding that the decision was “unconscionable” and “an affront to freedom.”

Democrats all the way up to President Joe Biden also blasted the ruling.

“Millions of Arizonans will soon live under an even more extreme and dangerous abortion ban, which fails to protect women even when their health is at risk or in tragic cases of rape or incest,” Biden said in a statement. He called the ban “cruel” and “a result of the extreme agenda of Republican elected officials who are committed to ripping away women’s freedom” and vowed to “continue to fight to protect reproductive rights.”

Vice President Kamala Harris announced shortly after the ruling that she would travel to Arizona on Friday “to continue her leadership in the fight for reproductive freedoms."

Responding to questions from NBC News about the Arizona ruling, a spokesperson for Donald Trump's campaign referred only to the former president's comments on Monday that abortion restrictions should be left to states.

“President Trump could not have been more clear. These are decisions for people of each state to make," Trump campaign national press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs called for the GOP-controlled Legislature, which is currently in session, to repeal the 1864 ban, though there was no immediate indication that Republican lawmakers in either chamber would take up such an effort.

"We are 14 days away from this extreme ban coming back to life," Hobbs, a Democrat, said at a press conference. "It must be repealed immediately."

While Hobbs said she was "sure" reproductive rights advocates would appeal the ruling in the 14-day window they were given, she also suggested that the best avenue to counter the ruling would be for voters to support abortion rights on the November ballot. A separate, ongoing suit would allow for abortion providers to continue providing services through the 15th week of pregnancy for another 45 days.

"It is more urgent than ever that Arizonans have the opportunity to vote to enshrine the right to abortion in our constitution this November. I’m confident that Arizonans will support this ballot measure, and I’m going to continue doing everything in my power to make sure it is successful," Hobbs said.

In a 4-2 ruling, the court’s majority concluded that the 15-week ban “does not create a right to, or otherwise provide independent statutory authority for, an abortion that repeals or restricts” the Civil War-era ban “but rather is predicated entirely on the existence of a federal constitutional right to an abortion since disclaimed” by the 2022 Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

“Absent the federal constitutional abortion right, and because” the 2022 law "does not independently authorize abortion, there is no provision in federal or state law prohibiting” the 1864 ban.

They added that the ban “is now enforceable.”

Tuesday’s ruling is the latest chapter in a decadeslong saga of litigation in the battleground state over abortion rights. 

Reproductive rights groups had sued to overturn the 19th century law in 1971. But when the Roe decision came down in 1973, a lower state court ruled against those groups and placed an injunction on the 1864 ban that remained in effect until the Dobbs decision.

In March 2022, Republican lawmakers in the state enacted the 15-week trigger ban, which, months later — after the Dobbs decision — snapped into effect. The law makes exceptions for medical emergencies but not for rape or incest. 

Litigation resumed after that decision as lawmakers on both sides of the issue sought clarity on whether to enforce the 1864 near-total ban or the 2022 15-week ban.

A state appellate court initially ruled that both the 1864 and 2022 laws could eventually be “harmonized,” but also said that the 15-week ban superseded the near-total abortion ban and put on hold large parts of the older law.

The decision also sent shockwaves through the reproductive rights community in Arizona and nationally.

Angela Florez, the president of Planned Parenthood Arizona, one of the state's remaining abortion care providers, said her group would now only be able to provide abortion care through the 15th week of pregnancy — and only "for a very short period of time."

The issue, however, could soon be in the hands of voters.

Abortion rights groups in the state are likely to succeed in their goal of putting a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would create a “fundamental right” to receive abortion care up until fetal viability, or about the 24th week of pregnancy.

If voters approved the ballot measure, it would effectively undo the 1864 ban that now remains law in the state. It would bar the state from restricting abortion care in situations where the health or life of the pregnant person is at risk after the point of viability, according to the treating health care professional.

That ballot effort is one of at least 11 across the country that seek to put the issue directly in the hands of voters — a move that has the potential to significantly boost turnout for Democratic candidates emphasizing the issue. 

In 2024, that could factor heavily into the outcome of both the presidential and U.S. Senate races in Arizona. Biden, whose campaign is leaning heavily into reproductive rights, won the state by just over 10,000 votes four years ago. And the Senate race features a tough battle to fill the seat held by the retiring independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, most likely between Democrat Ruben Gallego and Republican Kari Lake. 

During her unsuccessful 2022 run for governor in Arizona, Lake said she supported the 1864 law, calling it “ a great law that’s already on the books .” But Lake now says she opposes the 1864 law , as well as a federal abortion ban, while also acknowledging that her own views regarding state policy conflict with some voters’ preferences.

In a statement following the decision, Lake said she opposed the ruling, adding that "it is abundantly clear that the pre-statehood law is out of step with Arizonans." She called on state lawmakers to "come up with an immediate common sense solution that Arizonans can support."

"Ultimately, Arizona voters will make the decision on the ballot come November," she added. 

Gallego, who is backed by several reproductive rights groups, has said he supports the ballot measure. As a member of the U.S. House, he is among the co-sponsors of the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would create federal abortion protections.

In a video posted to X after the ruling, Gallego said he would, with reproductive rights supporters, "fight all the way to November so we can get abortion rights back for women in Arizona."

Other Republicans in the state who’d previously expressed robust support for Roe being overturned joined Lake in condemning the ruling. Reps. Juan Ciscomani and David Schweikert , who both face tough re-elections this fall, both called on state lawmakers to address the issue “immediately.”

The ruling Tuesday — the second in a swing state on the issue in as many weeks — further highlights the already prominent role abortion rights will play in Arizona and across the country.

Last week, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a 15-week ban on abortion in the state, which effectively meant that a six-week abortion ban, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the woman, that Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law last year will take effect. The state's high court also allowed a proposed amendment that would enshrine abortion protections in the state constitution to appear on the November ballot.

Tuesday's decision, while jarring to reproductive rights groups, wasn’t entirely unexpected. All seven justices on the Arizona Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors, and during opening arguments in December, they aggressively, but civilly, quizzed attorneys on both sides about the fact that the 15-week ban enacted last year did not feature any language making clear whether it was designed to repeal or replace the 1864 ban.

Only six justices participated in Tuesday’s decision, however, after Justice Bill Montgomery — who previously accused Planned Parenthood of practicing “generational genocide” — recused himself. (The court’s chief justice did not appoint another judge to take the spot, which is an option under Arizona law.)

The abortion landscape in Arizona has been uniquely confusing since Roe v. Wade was overturned. 

While the 1864 law had been on hold after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe decision, then-Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, successfully sued in 2022 to have that injunction lifted following the overturning of Roe, putting the ban back into effect — though a higher court put that ruling on hold. 

But after Mayes succeeded Brnovich as attorney general, she announced that she would not enforce the 1864 ban.

That led to suits from anti-abortion groups seeking enforcement of the ban, which ultimately led to the case making its way up to the state Supreme Court.

Adam Edelman is a political reporter for NBC News.

Alex Tabet is a 2024 NBC News campaign embed.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

The Arizona Supreme Court allows a near-total abortion ban to take effect soon

Katherine Davis-Young

After the Arizona Supreme Court allowed for near-total abortion ban, a group of abortion-rights protesters gathered outside the Arizona state Capitol in Phoenix on April 9, 2024. Katherine Davis-Young/KJZZ hide caption

After the Arizona Supreme Court allowed for near-total abortion ban, a group of abortion-rights protesters gathered outside the Arizona state Capitol in Phoenix on April 9, 2024.

PHOENIX - Abortions will soon be outlawed in Arizona except in cases where a pregnant person's life is at risk. The state Supreme Court has ruled Arizona should follow a restrictive abortion law dating back to the 1860s.

Since Dec. 2022, Arizona doctors have been allowed to provide abortions up to 15 weeks into a pregnancy, based on a lower court's interpretation of state laws. But the state Supreme Court now says Arizona should follow a law banning abortions in almost all cases . It makes no exceptions for rape or incest and makes performing an abortion punishable by two to five years in prison.

Florida's abortion fight is headed to voters after court allows for a 6-week ban

In the ruling, justices wrote that they will stay enforcement for 14 days , possibly longer, allowing abortions to continue during that time. Planned Parenthood Arizona, the state's largest abortion provider, says it plans to continue providing abortions as long as allowed.

An effort is already underway to put a measure on 2024 ballots that would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.

Democratic President Joe Biden criticized Arizona's ban in a statement, calling on Congress to pass federal abortion protections.

"Millions of Arizonans will soon live under an even more extreme and dangerous abortion ban, which fails to protect women even when their health is at risk or in tragic cases of rape or incest," he said. "This ruling is a result of the extreme agenda of Republican elected officials who are committed to ripping away women's freedom."

Vice President Kamala Harris is scheduled to travel to Tucson on Friday for an event focusing on "reproductive freedom." It's Harris' second trip to Arizona this year to push for expanding abortion access.

Abortion across the country

The decision comes a little more than a week after the Florida Supreme Court decided to allow that state's week's 6-week ban to take effect May 1, and a day following former President Donald Trump's announcement that abortion should be left up to the states , angering some of his supporters ahead of 2024 election.

Trump declines to back nationwide abortion ban, says it should be left to the states

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade nearly two years ago and handed abortion decisions back to states resulting in a patchwork of laws across the country.

Fourteen states ban abortion with very limited exceptions , according to the Guttmacher Institute, a group that supports abortion rights. Another 15 states protect abortion rights in various ways, according to Guttmacher.

This November, there are efforts in about a dozen states, including the one in Arizona, to add a question to voters' ballots supporting abortion rights.

Correction April 9, 2024

An earlier version of this story said that Arizona would not be able to enforce the state Supreme Court decision for 45 days. In fact, enforcement is stayed for 14 days, possibly longer.

Abortion in Arizona set to be illegal in nearly all circumstances, state high court rules

Leer en Español

The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a 160-year-old law that bans abortions and punishes doctors who provide them, saying the ban that existed before Arizona became a state can be enforced going forward.

The ruling indicated the ban cannot be retroactively enforced, and the court stayed enforcement for 14 days.

But the shocking ruling quickly caused political earthquakes.

"There really is no way to sugarcoat it, today is a dark day for Arizona," said Angela Florez, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Arizona.

The pre-statehood law mandates two to five years in prison for anyone aiding an abortion, except if the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. A law from the same era requiring at least a year in prison for a woman seeking an abortion was repealed in 2021 .

Arizona politics: Vice President Kamala Harris returning to Arizona for abortion-related campaign event

Enforcement of the ban could mean the end of legal abortions in Arizona, which reproductive rights activists warn means Arizona women can expect potential health complications.

In the wake of the ruling, some providers said they will continue offering abortions up to 15 weeks of pregnancy at least for a time — likely through May — because of an existing court ruling in another case. And, abortion rights advocates see a backstop in the state's top Democrats, who have taken steps to thwart any enforcement of the ban.

Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs issued an executive order last year giving all power to enforce abortion laws to the state attorney general instead of county prosecutors. Attorney General Kris Mayes, also a Democrat, has vowed not to prosecute any abortion case, and she reaffirmed that position Tuesday.

“No woman or doctor will be prosecuted under this law as long as I am attorney general," Mayes said. "Not by me, nor by any county attorney serving in our state, not on my watch.”  

Mayes and Hobbs' stance relies on an untested legal argument, and could be challenged by one of the state's county attorneys .

'Abortions ... are illegal,' court says

The decision was 4-2, with Justices John R. Lopez IV, Clint Bolick, James P. Beene and Kathryn H. King  in the majority. Lopez wrote the majority opinion, while Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer penned a dissent. Chief Justice Robert M. Brutinel joined Timmer. The court's seventh justice, William G. Montgomery, recused himself from the case.

All of Arizona's justices were appointed by Republican governors.

"Physicians are now on notice that all abortions, except those necessary to save a woman’s life, are illegal ... and that additional criminal and regulatory sanctions may apply to abortions performed after fifteen weeks’ gestation," the ruling reads.

The majority ruled that a law passed by the Arizona Legislature in 2022, which prohibited abortions after 15 weeks, did not repeal the pre-statehood law nor create a right to abortion. The majority relied on language in the bill that enacted that law, which said it did not " repeal, by implication or otherwise " the pre-statehood ban.

The court concluded "the legislature made its intent known," in part through "an unwavering intent since 1864 to proscribe elective abortions." And the court said the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which left no constitutional right to an abortion, made Arizona's ban enforceable.

"The legislature has demonstrated its consistent design to restrict elective abortion to the degree permitted" prior to Roe being overturned, the opinion says.

“Life is a human right, and today’s decision allows the state to respect that right and fully protect life again — just as the Legislature intended,” said Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Jake Warner, who argued the case before the court in favor of the pre-statehood ban.

Timmer, in her dissent, wrote that the 2022 law prohibiting most abortions after 15 weeks was meant to create an exception to the pre-statehood law and was not contingent on Roe v. Wade.

She objected to the majority using the bill language to interpret the Legislature's intent, saying she would not "engage in the guesswork" they did and that it was "implausible to conclude the legislature planted within the (bill) a bombshell of reverting to a near–total ban on abortion."

"The statute says what it means and means what it says: The state will prosecute physicians for performing abortions after the fetus reaches fifteen weeks in age unless a medical emergency requires the procedure. The state will not prosecute physicians for performing abortions before the fetus reaches fifteen weeks in age. These abortions are lawful. There is no room for misunderstanding."

One effect of the ruling could be more support for a ballot measure in the works for this year to put abortion access into the Arizona Constitution. Advocates say they've already got more than 500,000 signatures , well above the threshold of 383,923 signatures needed by an early July deadline.

“We were expecting the worst and hoping for the best, but we have to keep moving forward," said Chris Love, a spokesperson for the ballot measure known as Arizona for Abortion Access. "We have an opportunity to change things at the ballot in November.”  

The state Supreme Court's ruling puts a stark choice before voters: Choose the new reproductive rights measure or watch abortion policy turn back to the 19th century.

That black-and-white choice, as well as an anticipated increase in turnout by Democrats because of the ballot measure, could also affect races in the state Legislature or other offices.

Hobbs said Tuesday the ruling left Arizona with "one of the most extreme abortion bans in the country,” and she called on the GOP-led Legislature to immediately repeal the 1864 ban.

“The Republicans at the Legislature have time and again refused to act to protect our freedoms,” Hobbs said, as she stood with more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers. Hobbs had pledged to spend six figures to unseat those Republican lawmakers, who are all on the ballot this year.

When does the ruling go into effect?

The highly anticipated ruling came as a shock to many abortion rights advocates in a state where abortion access has been uncertain ever since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and abortion rights, in 2022. Because of Arizona's two laws, clinics provided abortions off and on for a time, subject to the decisions of courts along the way.

A new element of uncertainty emerged Tuesday even after the ruling from the state's top court, as various involved groups offered differing timelines for when enforcement could begin.

Warner said he believed county attorneys could pursue cases when the court's stay expires in 14 days.

But Planned Parenthood Arizona and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona said the law cannot be enforced for 45 days after the court issues a final mandate, which has not yet happened. That view was also shared by some abortion opponents, including GOP legislative leaders and the Center for Arizona Policy, who said they believe enforcement cannot occur until later.

That's because of a separate court decision from Maricopa County, in which the state's former attorney general, Republican Mark Brnovich, agreed not to enforce the 1864 law until 45 days after the current case had been resolved . That agreement came in October 2022.

Cathi Herrod, president of the conservative Center for Arizona Policy, praised the court's decision.

"The Arizona Supreme Court reached the appropriate legal conclusion," she said in a statement. "Today’s outcome acknowledges the sanctity of all human life and spares women the physical and emotional harms of abortion. ... Today’s decision preserves a system designed to be blind to all but the law, and in doing so, it upholds the right of life for all Arizonans."

Planned Parenthood Arizona: Abortions up to 15 weeks will remain legal for a limited time, Arizona providers say

US Supreme Court ruling paved way for return of 1864 law

The abortion ban first codified in Arizona law in 1864 has been sitting on the books for 160 years.

First appearing in the 1864 Howell Code, a book of laws compiled by Arizona's First Territorial Legislature, the state's abortion ban was similar to those in many states. It was enforced vigorously in Arizona until the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

In 1971, Planned Parenthood of Tucson sued the state to overturn the old ban. The group lost the case in 1973 when the state Court of Appeals ruled against it. But the U.S. Supreme Court issued its historic Roe v. Wade decision the same year, causing the state Court of Appeals to issue an injunction against the pre-statehood ban.

For almost 50 years, legal abortions were considered a fact of American life, until the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling in June 2022 that removed the Roe protections.

The ruling by the new, more conservative U.S. Supreme Court spurred Arizona Republican politicians to ask the courts to lift the injunction from 1973 and allow police and prosecut o rs to enforce the 1864 law. The new court action had the effect of renewing Planned Parenthood's 1971 legal fight.

The Arizona Supreme Court recognized all that was unsettled in implementing its 14-day stay before the 1864 law can be enforced. That window allows any legal challenges that were started in 1971, but essentially put on hold because of Roe v. Wade, to be pursued again now, over 50 years later.

Mayes said her office was weighing its response. The state's top court sent the case back to the original Superior Court, in Pima County, to consider the possibility of further action.

“My office is, as we speak, discussing what our next steps are, whether that is appealing this decision to the United States Supreme Court, whether that is taking ... the constitutional questions that remain, back down to the Superior Court," Mayes said.

Republic reporters Mary Jo Pitzl, Reagan Priest and Stephanie Innes contributed to this article.

Reach reporter Stacey Barchenger at   [email protected]  or 480-416-5669 . Reach the reporter at [email protected]  or 480-276-3237. Follow him on X @raystern .