Bill Montgomery Asserts Neutrality on Abortion, Refuses to Step Down

An Arizona Supreme Court Justice is at the center of controversy as he refuses to step down from a case determining how abortion is described in state voting information. Justice Bill Montgomery, previously known for his strong anti-abortion statements, insists he can remain impartial in a lawsuit over whether the phrase “unborn human being” should be included in a voter pamphlet.

Montgomery’s decision follows calls from supporters of the Arizona Abortion Access Act for his recusal. They argue his past comments, labeling abortion as “genocide,” compromise his impartiality. Montgomery responded, emphasizing his responsibility to conduct his duties with “honor and integrity.” He believes personal opinions should not impact judicial decisions.

Lawyers backing the initiative question his ability to be fair. They point to his history of vehement anti-abortion rhetoric. “It’s unrealistic to believe a judge with such public opinions can be impartial in this matter,” they argue. These concerns are heightened by Montgomery’s vocal criticism of Planned Parenthood, which he has accused of committing atrocities.

Last year, amid debates about reviving an 1864 near-total abortion ban, Montgomery eventually recused himself from a related case. His prior withdrawal followed public and legal pressure, despite initial resistance. Now, however, he asserts this case is distinct, involving new parties and different issues, thereby justifying his continued participation.

The current lawsuit addresses the legality of including “unborn human being” in a voter information pamphlet. This phrase, chosen by a legislative panel of anti-abortion Republicans, is challenged as biased and emotionally charged. Arizona law requires impartiality in such summaries. Montgomery dismissed concerns of compromised fairness, claiming no direct involvement of Planned Parenthood in this specific case.

Critics note Montgomery has not clarified what compelled his past recusal. They argue his anti-abortion language undermines his objectivity, mirroring terminology found in the contested pamphlet. Montgomery rebuffs these points as speculative. His stance appears even more contentious given Justice Clint Bolick’s recent recusal, whose wife supported the contentious phrase.

Montgomery’s decision is final and unappealable. Arizona for Abortion Access Campaign’s spokeswoman Dawn Penich expressed disappointment, highlighting a recent lower court victory removing “unborn human being” from the summary for its partisan overtones. Penich maintains that Montgomery’s refusal to recuse himself casts doubt on judicial integrity.

The Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct advises recusal in cases of potential bias, a guideline Penich believes Montgomery has overlooked. She cited his inflammatory past statements against reproductive healthcare as evidence of his inability to remain neutral.

As this legal battle unfolds, the spotlight remains on Montgomery’s actions and their alignment with judicial conduct expectations. Critics and supporters alike are watching closely as the debate over abortion rights in Arizona takes a judicial turn.