Judge Dismisses Bid to Halt Arizona Abortion Referendum

A court has dismissed an attempt by Arizona Right to Life to block an abortion rights initiative in the state. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Melissa Iyer Julian ruled on Monday that the initiative’s description accurately conveyed its key provisions, allowing it to remain on the ballot for the general statewide election.

The judge stated that concerns about the initiative’s impact on current laws should be debated in the political arena, emphasizing that no legal ground existed to prevent voters from considering it. Arizona Right to Life had argued that the 200-word summary shown to potential petition signers was unlawfully misleading but failed to convince the court.

This is the second significant legal setback for opponents of the abortion rights initiative. Last month, a different judge ordered certain GOP lawmakers to remove the term “unborn human being” from materials describing the act, requiring them to use more neutral language. This decision is currently being appealed.

Attorneys for Arizona Right to Life claimed that the initiative’s summary omitted crucial words, misleading the public about the act’s broad implications. However, the judge found these arguments unsubstantiated and noted that the political process was the appropriate venue for such debates.

The Arizona Abortion Access Act seeks to enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution, protecting access up to fetal viability, generally around 24 weeks. It also allows abortions beyond this period if a healthcare provider deems them necessary to preserve the woman’s life or health.

The anti-abortion organization also contended that terms like “health care provider” were misleading compared to the actual text, but Julian ruled that these differences were insignificant and did not render the summary inaccurate.

Another argument from Arizona Right to Life, that the summary misled by omitting the term “good faith judgment,” was also dismissed by Julian. She emphasized that most people understand that medical professionals rely on their training and ethics to make informed decisions.

Arizona’s current 15-week gestational ban could be nullified if the initiative passes, along with other laws that restrict abortion. However, the judge noted previous rulings that summaries need not explain all potential effects of a measure to be valid.

Julian wrote that it is premature to determine whether specific laws would conflict with the Arizona Abortion Access Act since it is yet to be enacted. She reiterated that voters should first decide on the initiative’s merit.

Dawn Penich, a spokesperson for the Arizona for Abortion Access Campaign, described the lawsuit as baseless and politically motivated. She expressed confidence that the initiative would prevail if an appeal is pursued, and ultimately succeed at the ballot box in November.

Arizona Right to Life has not responded to requests for comments on the ruling or whether they plan to appeal the decision.