abortion access
Opponents Sue to Halt Abortion Rights Measure, Argue It’s ‘Too Confusing’ for Voters
An anti-abortion group has filed a lawsuit to prevent a voter decision on amending the Arizona Constitution to protect abortion rights, arguing the ballot measure is confusing and misleading. Arizona Right to Life initiated a legal challenge on Wednesday against the Arizona Abortion Access Act in Maricopa County Superior Court.
The nonprofit, part of a “Decline to Sign” campaign, tried to deter Arizonans from supporting the initiative aimed at qualifying for the November election. Despite their efforts, supporters of the abortion rights proposal submitted more than twice the required signatures earlier this month.
Arizona Right to Life contends that the initiative’s content confuses and misleads voters. Courts can block measures deemed intentionally fraudulent or misleading from appearing on the ballot. The Arizona Abortion Access Act aims to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution up to fetal viability, generally around 24 weeks of gestation. It also allows exceptions beyond that period if a healthcare provider deems it necessary for the patient’s life, physical, or mental health.
Furthermore, any state laws restricting or interfering with this right would be nullified unless they serve a “compelling governmental interest.” This interest must aim to improve or maintain the health of the person seeking an abortion. Anti-abortion opponents argue the measure misrepresents its premise, claiming the exceptions allowed are too broad and give too much discretion to abortion providers.
“The Amendment purports to allow regulation of late-term abortions but then guts that proffer with a huge loophole for ‘good faith’ abortionist judgements about the malleable scope of ‘health,’” reads the legal brief. The complaint also criticizes the mental health exception for its lack of definition, arguing it leaves too much to interpretation and could mislead voters.
Opponents have pointed to the mental health exception as overly permissive, claiming it could enable abortions up to due dates. However, supporters argue the exception is necessary for providing women the flexibility to access needed healthcare. The anti-abortion group also claims the “compelling governmental interest” clause is too vague, potentially misleading voters about the state’s ability to regulate abortion.
Attorneys argue this language severely limits regulation options, making laws almost nonexistent. “This language erases all other compelling governmental interests except making the abortion safer for women,” states the challenge. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, left abortion regulation up to individual states.
Arizona Right to Life further argues the measure’s requirement that compelling interest does not infringe on personal decision-making effectively nullifies any state effort to regulate the procedure. The group suggests this facilitates abortions for any reason, by any method, until birth.
The group claims these potential issues were not clarified in the initiative’s language, leading to fraudulent voter support. Therefore, they urge the court to invalidate the signature sheets and block the initiative from the November ballot. “Because the initiative’s language creates a danger of confusion and misrepresents its effect, it should be removed from the ballot,” the brief argues.
Additionally, they accuse nearly 200 petition circulators of filing legally deficient forms and misrepresenting the initiative. If proven, this could invalidate the signatures they collected. Cheryl Bruce, campaign manager for Arizona for Abortion Access, dismissed the lawsuit as a desperate attempt to undermine the initiative’s significant support. She describes their complaints as deceptive efforts to silence the will of over 820,000 Arizona voters.
“Despite these bogus attacks by anti-abortion extremists, we are prepared for such attempts to shut down direct democracy. We remain committed to winning in November and restoring abortion access in Arizona once and for all,” said Bruce.
Historically, abortion rights have been a winning issue, even in traditionally conservative states. In 2022, Kansas voters defeated a GOP bid to remove abortion protections. Ohio also rejected an anti-abortion initiative and supported enshrining abortion rights in their constitution in 2023. Advocates expect similar success in Arizona this year.