Abortion Opponents Plead with AZ Supreme Court to Block Abortion Rights Measure from Ballot

An anti-abortion organization is advancing a lawsuit to prevent an abortion rights initiative from being included on Arizona’s ballot this year, despite the case being dismissed earlier this week as unfounded by a trial court.

Arizona Right to Life attempted to persuade Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Melissa Iyer Julian to invalidate all signature petitions for the Arizona Abortion Access Act, which would automatically disqualify the initiative. The initiative, which has collected more than double the required voter signatures, is expected to be on the ballot in November, pending further court decisions.

The anti-abortion group claims that the campaign behind the initiative misled signatories with an incomplete 200-word summary that omitted details on how the proposal would impact current laws. Judge Julian sided with proponents of the abortion rights proposal, highlighting that past rulings concluded petition summaries need only describe an initiative’s “principal provisions,” not its context within existing laws.

Julian wrote, “Concern about the impact this initiative may have on existing abortion regulations is not a ground to compel the initiative’s removal from the ballot. The proper place to argue about the potential impact of an initiative is in the political arena, in speeches, newspaper articles, advertisements, and other forums,” referencing a 1987 Arizona Supreme Court decision.

Jill Norgaard, a spokeswoman for Arizona Right to Life, indicated the group’s intent to appeal to the state Supreme Court. “We will be presenting the facts that the abortion access act’s crafted verbiage actually allows abortion up to birth,” she said in an emailed statement, expressing confidence in presenting these facts to the Supreme Court.

The group’s core complaint revolves around the initiative’s 200-word description, asserting it fails to clarify that abortions could occur beyond fetal viability. This claim is often inflated and misleading as the majority of abortions occur within the first trimester, specifically at or before 13 weeks of gestation. Abortions past 21 weeks are exceedingly rare and generally result from medical emergencies or severe fetal anomalies.

The Arizona Abortion Access Act aims to enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution, prohibiting any laws or policies restricting that right up to fetal viability, around 24 weeks, and beyond if necessary for the mother’s health. If approved, it would override Arizona’s current 15-week gestational ban.

Dawn Penich, a spokeswoman for the pro-abortion rights campaign, condemned the appeal, accusing Arizona Right to Life of persisting with already dismissed arguments. “This appeal shows yet again that they are willing to do and say anything—no matter how desperate or dishonest—to deprive Arizonans of their right to direct democracy,” she stated. Penich expressed hope that the Arizona Supreme Court would deliver a fair review and allow voters to decide.

The lawsuit challenging the campaign’s petition summary is not the only legal battle. In a separate case, eight GOP legislators have requested the Arizona Supreme Court to review whether the term “unborn human being” in the initiative’s description sent to voters is impartial. These lawmakers were previously defeated in a lower court and have since appealed.

The situation intensified when anti-abortion Justice Bill Montgomery refused to recuse himself from the case. Campaign attorneys argued his past statements indicated bias against Planned Parenthood. Montgomery denied the request, stating Planned Parenthood is not directly involved in the lawsuit, though the organization is a major donor to the initiative.