Abortion Rights Advocates Argue Judge Bill Montgomery’s Bias in Ballot Measure Case

Backers of Arizona’s abortion rights ballot measure are urging state Supreme Court Justice Bill Montgomery to recuse himself from a pivotal case. The case will decide if the phrase “unborn human being” is used in a voter information pamphlet. Concerns arose due to Montgomery’s past comments accusing Planned Parenthood of committing “genocide.”

“Like anyone going before any Arizona court, we are entitled to a fair and impartial hearing. The only way to ensure that can happen is for Justice Montgomery to recuse himself. By doing so, he will protect the integrity of the court in public opinion and allow Arizona voters to feel confident that their right to direct democracy is intact,” said Dawn Penich, spokeswoman for the Arizona for Abortion Access campaign.

Lawyers for the campaign filed a motion requesting Montgomery’s recusal from the lawsuit concerning the impartiality of the phrase “unborn human being.” They cited Montgomery’s involvement in anti-Planned Parenthood protests and his past derogatory statements as evidence of his bias.

The Arizona Abortion Access Act aims to establish abortion as a constitutional right in the state. If passed, it would nullify the current 15-week gestational ban, restoring access up to fetal viability, which is between 23 and 24 weeks. The measure also permits abortions beyond this point if medically necessary for a woman’s health.

Calls for Montgomery’s recusal follow Justice Clint Bolick’s withdrawal from the same case due to a conflict of interest involving his wife, state Sen. Shawnna Bolick, a supporter of the contested phrase. This isn’t Montgomery’s first recusal request. Last year, he withdrew from a lawsuit involving a near-total abortion ban after his controversial statements resurfaced.

Montgomery initially refused to recuse himself but later stepped down, citing “additional information.” Attorneys now argue his opposition to Planned Parenthood and anti-abortion rhetoric disqualify him from impartiality in the current case. They contend that Montgomery’s documented use of terms similar to the contentious phrase undermines his neutrality.

Opponents of the term “unborn human being” argue it mirrors the biased phrase “unborn child,” often used by anti-abortion groups. Organizations such as the Center for Arizona Policy and Alliance Defending Freedom have repeatedly used these terms in their campaigns and legal battles.

According to the campaign, Montgomery’s recusal would align with the Judicial Code of Conduct, which mandates withdrawal when a judge’s impartiality is reasonably in question. They emphasize that Montgomery’s previous decision to recuse himself should apply here as well, considering the similar context involving Planned Parenthood.

“As a citizen, Justice Montgomery is of course free to have these views about pro-abortion rights advocates,” attorneys wrote. “But asking the public to believe that a judicial officer who said such things publicly will be able to fairly adjudicate a case involving whether the phrase ‘unborn human being’ is impartial strains credulity.”

Alberto Rodriguez, spokesman for the state Supreme Court, declined to comment on Montgomery’s potential recusal, stating that the Court does not comment on pending cases.