Right to Life Urges AZ Supreme Court to Halt Abortion Rights Initiative from Ballot

An anti-abortion organization, Arizona Right to Life, is attempting to persuade the Arizona Supreme Court to prevent voters from deciding in November whether to amend the state constitution to include a right to abortion. The group’s earlier lawsuit was dismissed by a trial court judge on August 6, leading to an immediate appeal to the higher court.

The appeal claims that the campaign for the Arizona Abortion Access Act misled voters regarding the petition summary. Arizona Right to Life argues that the 200-word summary presented to signers contained misleading information that calls into question the validity of their signatures.

Despite these claims, the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office confirmed that Arizona for Abortion Access collected over 820,000 signatures, with approximately 578,000 validated—significantly surpassing the required 384,000 to qualify for the ballot. If passed, the Abortion Access Act would ensure a woman’s right to an abortion up until the point of fetal viability, approximately 24 weeks into pregnancy. Exceptions would exist for situations where a health care provider deems it necessary to protect a patient’s life or health.

In the appeal, Jennifer Wright, an attorney for Arizona Right to Life, highlighted a perceived inconsistency in terminology, claiming that the summary’s use of “health care provider” undermines the authority that the act grants to “treating health care providers.” This, she argues, misleads signers about who would determine the necessity of an abortion beyond the viability threshold.

During the trial court proceedings, Judge Melissa Iyer Julian sided against Arizona Right to Life, ruling that “reasonable people” understand that decisions regarding medical diagnosis and treatment are typically made by the medical provider responsible for the care of the patient.

Wright also contended that the inclusion of a mental or physical health exception could lead to unrestricted access to abortion until birth. Judge Julian refuted this claim, stating that fears regarding the act’s potential impacts on current abortion legislation should be addressed in the political arena, not through legal challenges.

Currently, Arizona is governed by a 15-week gestational ban which would likely become obsolete if the Abortion Access Act is enacted. The proposed amendment contains a provision that no law or regulation should interfere with the right to receive an abortion before or after fetal viability.

The anti-abortion group argues that this provision effectively nullifies existing regulations, suggesting it might allow abortions to be conducted by unlicensed individuals based on a woman’s autonomous decision-making.

Arizona Right to Life also expressed concerns that this could enable abortions performed for troubling reasons, such as eugenics or racism. “At a minimum, this means the State can do nothing to stop the abortion,” Wright wrote.

Dawn Penich, speaking for Arizona for Abortion Access, criticized the anti-abortion group’s appeal, asserting it reflects a willingness to undermine voter rights. She expressed hope for a fair review by the Arizona Supreme Court, emphasizing the commitment to restoring abortion rights free from governmental limitations.

In related matters, Supreme Court Justice Bill Montgomery has faced scrutiny over potential bias due to his past statements against Planned Parenthood. He has refused to recuse himself from cases related to abortion rights, asserting that his strong feelings do not impact his impartiality.