Lawmaker Takes Action Against Abortion Ballot Victory with New Legislation

A Tucson lawmaker has introduced a proposal aimed at modifying the constitutional right to abortion in Arizona. Republican Rep. Rachel Keshel’s measure, HCR 2056, seeks to allow the legislature the authority to deny or restrict this right under certain conditions.

While the existing constitutional amendment, approved by voters in November, affirms a “fundamental right to abortion,” Keshel’s proposal includes provisions that could significantly alter this framework. It specifies that lawmakers could restrict abortion rights if these measures are deemed “rationally related to a legitimate state interest,” a term that Keshel expands to include “respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development.”

This approach contrasts sharply with Proposition 139, which restricts legislative action prior to fetal viability—roughly 22 to 24 weeks—unless the legislation serves a compelling state interest related to the health of the individual seeking an abortion. Notably, the language in Proposition 139 emphasized that any restrictions must not infringe on an individual’s autonomous decision-making.

Critics argue that Keshel’s proposal undermines the protections established by voters just four months prior. By removing the emphasis on a woman’s autonomy, the new measure broadens the legal basis for legislative intervention in abortion rights, including a potential ban on “particularly gruesome or barbaric medical procedures,” even though no specific definitions are provided.

Keshel has not explicitly confirmed whether surgical abortions would face new limitations. However, she openly questioned the nature of some surgical procedures, contributing to the perception that more restrictions could arise under her proposed changes.

Beyond abortion procedures, the measure also permits lawmakers to enact restrictions in the name of “mitigation of fetal pain” and explicitly states a constitutional authority to prevent discrimination based on race, sex, or disability in abortion cases. This last point aligns with existing legislation that criminalizes abortion sought due to the fetus’s sex or genetic abnormalities.

Despite fierce opposition from reproductive rights groups, including the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood, Keshel asserted that voters were misled about the implications of Proposition 139 when it was passed. She claims that crucial details regarding post-viability abortions were obscured from public discourse.

Currently, the legal status of several pre-existing abortion laws, including a 15-week limit, hangs in the balance as courts determine their enforceability. Planned Parenthood has preemptively sought legal clarity, asserting that Proposition 139 invalidates the earlier restrictions.

As lawmakers continue to navigate these shifting legal landscapes and the push for new restrictions, questions remain about the future of reproductive rights in Arizona and the broader implications for health care decisions. Advocacy groups are calling for legislative focus on repealing outdated restrictions rather than adding to them.