Prop 139: Your Vote Matters—Unpacking What’s Inside!

By Jill Norgaard |

Proposition 139 has sparked significant debate, with many voters supporting it without fully understanding its implications. This proposal centers on abortion rights, but its actual content warrants close examination.

Recent reports claimed that Prop 139 permits women to terminate pregnancies without state interference until the stage of fetal viability. However, this interpretation is misleading. Austin Yost, the attorney representing the proposition’s advocates, clarified in court that it permits abortions both before and after fetal viability. Essentially, this means that, under Prop 139, abortions could be carried out up to the point of birth, including late-term procedures.

The media’s representation raises questions. Did they misunderstand the language, or was there an intentional omission of key details? Polling indicates that 90 percent of Arizonans oppose late-term abortion, yet Prop 139 was approved. Many reports focused narrowly on fetal viability timelines while neglecting the full scope of the measure.

Furthermore, Prop 139 removes the requirement for parental consent for minors seeking abortions, a glaring inconsistency given that minors need permission to take an aspirin at school. This omission could inadvertently enable child traffickers and perpetrators of sexual violence to exploit the system, as they could facilitate abortions without parental knowledge or consent. The oversight of parents in such significant decisions raises serious ethical concerns.

Equally troubling is the removal of medical oversight in the abortion process. The requirement for a licensed physician and an ultrasound has been eliminated. Consequently, any vaguely defined “healthcare professional” can now perform abortions without certification or hospital privileges, putting women at significant risk. Without an ultrasound, critical conditions such as ectopic pregnancies could go undetected, potentially endangering women’s lives. This is hardly a standard of care.

The decision to eliminate ultrasounds seemingly stems from statistics showing that 60% of women who see ultrasound images choose to carry their pregnancies to term. For abortion providers, this could translate into considerable financial loss, underscoring a disturbing motive behind the proposition.

Prop 139 is set to profit abortion providers significantly, especially as it diminishes the necessity for qualified medical professionals. What was passed in Arizona stands in stark contrast to the promotions suggesting this initiative is solely about women’s rights or access to medical care for miscarriages.

This discourse is far from over. As Chair of Arizona Right to Life, our organization will persist in advocating for the protection of unborn lives and the health rights of women, emphasizing that every individual has inherent value.

The Honorable Jill Norgaard served in the Arizona State House from 2014-2018. She is the former First Vice Chairman of the AZGOP and currently serves as the Chair of Arizona Right to Life.