Arizona’s Controversial Pro-Abortion Ballot Measure Sparks Intense Debate

This November, Arizonans will vote on a proposed constitutional amendment that would establish a fundamental right to abortion. Advocates assert that there has been significant public support for placing this amendment on the ballot. However, a closer examination reveals the implications of this proposal.

To grasp the proposal’s significance, one must first consider Arizona’s current abortion regulations. Under existing laws, abortions are permitted for any reason up to 15 weeks of pregnancy. Beyond that point, abortions are allowed only if the mother’s life or health is at risk. In 2021, after the state’s 15-week law was enacted, only 5.9% of abortions occurred after this period, indicating that most elective procedures remain accessible.

This raises the question: why pursue a constitutional amendment in a state where abortion is already relatively accessible? Proponents argue that lawmakers intent on restricting access necessitate further protections. Nevertheless, recent legislative changes challenge this notion; Arizona eliminated an archaic 1864 law that broadly prohibited abortion, suggesting a reluctance among lawmakers to impose stringent restrictions.

Critics of the amendment point out that it would extend far beyond merely reinstating the abortion rights prior to the Supreme Court’s dismantling of Roe v. Wade. That previous standard allowed for certain regulations as long as they did not place an “undue burden” on a woman’s choice. In contrast, the proposed amendment asserts that government must not “enact, adopt, or enforce” any law that limits the right to abortion unless it demonstrates an imperative state interest and adopts the least restrictive approach. This language raises concerns regarding the extent of regulation possible under such a framework.

Interestingly, the proposed measure lacks any stipulation regarding what constitutes an “undue” interference. As such, even moderate limitations could face intense scrutiny, regardless of whether they actually impede access to abortion services for Arizona women.

If enacted, this standard might not only challenge the current 15-week limit but could also jeopardize various existing laws governing abortion in Arizona. For example, regulations requiring surgical abortions to be performed solely by licensed physicians or mandating informed consent prior to the procedure could be perceived as excessively restrictive.

This potential for legal challenges is not hypothetical; similar amendments in Michigan and Ohio have already prompted lawsuits regarding abortion regulations.

Ultimately, the forthcoming ballot measure represents a stark departure from Arizona’s current abortion framework. Current laws strike a balance, allowing abortions while permitting the legislature to implement reasonable regulations aimed at women’s health and safety. The Supreme Court’s decision to return the matter to the states empowered voters and their representatives to navigate these complex issues.

In light of these considerations, Arizona voters should carefully weigh the repercussions of enshrining a constitutional amendment that may lead to greater inconsistency and potential risks surrounding abortion access and safety.

Julia Payne Koon serves as legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom and its Center for Life.