Justice Montgomery Declares Neutrality on Abortion, Refuses to Step Down from Initiative Case

An Arizona Supreme Court Justice, Bill Montgomery, has refused to recuse himself from a pivotal case regarding the description of “unborn human being” in the state’s abortion rights initiative pamphlet. Despite previous controversies surrounding his anti-abortion remarks, Montgomery emphasized that his duty and integrity as a judge take precedence.

The case centers on the language included in the Arizona Abortion Access Act’s summary, which is sent to all voters for the upcoming election. Advocates of the act requested Montgomery’s recusal, arguing that his history of anti-abortion statements reflects a lack of impartiality. “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,” they stated.

Last year, Montgomery faced backlash for his comments labeling Planned Parenthood as committing “genocide” and “killing children.” He eventually recused himself from a related case. Currently, attorneys argue that his past sentiments undermine his ability to objectively rule on the new lawsuit.

The new lawsuit challenges the decision by a legislative panel, dominated by anti-abortion Republicans, to include the term “unborn human being” in the voter pamphlet. They assert that the summary should remain impartial, as mandated by Arizona law.

In his defense, Montgomery pointed out that previous case law allows judges to have strong opinions without being deemed biased. He also differentiated this case from previous ones, claiming that different parties and issues are involved. “This matter involves different parties and different issues,” he wrote. He further stressed that recusal decisions should be grounded in external evidence, not past decisions.

Justice Clint Bolick of the state Supreme Court voluntarily recused himself from the case, given that his wife is among the Republican lawmakers who supported the contentious phrase. However, Montgomery’s decision stands unchallenged.

Dawn Penich, spokesperson for the Arizona for Abortion Access Campaign, expressed disappointment in Montgomery’s stance but remains confident about their chances of winning at the higher court. A Maricopa County Superior Court judge recently ruled that the term “unborn human being” must be removed, as it carries too much emotional and partisan significance.

Penich criticized Montgomery for not denying his inflammatory past remarks, highlighting that his assurance of impartiality was insufficient. “We think the Code of Judicial Conduct requires more than that and are disappointed, but we will stay vigilant and hold him to his promise to be impartial,” she added.

The Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct mandates judges to recuse themselves when their impartiality might be reasonably questioned, particularly if they hold a bias against a case party.