The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act or H.R. 21 passed the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives last week in a party line vote. The Republican delegation of Arizona voted unanimously in favor of the bill.
Two of the three Arizona Democrats in Congress voted against it, with Rep. Raúl Grijalva not voting.
The passage of the bill was hailed by both Congressional Arizona Republicans and the Trump administration. Congressman Andy Biggs, who recently announced his intent to run for Governor of Arizona, wrote in a post to X, “204 Democrats refuse to protect babies who survive an attempted murder. Republicans are pro-life, pro-woman, and pro-family.”
204 Democrats refuse to protect babies who survive an attempted murder.
Congressman Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ-08) issued a statement via X saying, “The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is a bill that supports basic human rights and the opposition of such is the support of murder. If a child survives an abortion and is denied life-saving care, they are being denied the same protection and medical care that any other newborn baby is afforded. As several of my colleagues noted today, this bill is not about abortion. This bill is about living breathing babies. Today, I voted to pass this common sense legislation to correct this egregious humanitarian crisis.”
#BREAKING: The House just passed H.R. 21, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
The White House released a statement following the bill’s passage, noting its concurrence with President Trump’s Executive Order of September 25, 2020, which stated that the policy of the United States is “to recognize the human dignity and inherent worth of every newborn or other infant child, regardless of prematurity or disability, and to ensure for each child due protection under the law.”
The White House concluded “A baby that survives an abortion and is born alive into this world should be treated just like any other baby born alive. H.R. 21 would properly amend current law to ensure that the life of one baby is not treated as being more or less valuable than another. If H.R. 21 were presented to the President in its current form, his advisors would recommend he sign it into law.” Despite the advancement of the House measure, the Senate Version of the bill was stalled when a key motion to invoke cloture, ending debate, failed. Although the GOP controls the Senate as well with 53 votes, a majority of 60 is needed to invoke cloture, requiring bipartisan support.
The push to pass the bill through both Houses of Congress was timed to coincide with the March for Life on Friday in Washington, D.C., and the 52nd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling.
Arizona’s 2023 Abortion Report, released late last month, uncovers a dark truth: abortion in our state disproportionately targets minority communities. The data reveals that Hispanic and Black women are overrepresented in the number of abortions performed, far exceeding their share of Arizona’s population.
According to the report, Hispanic people accounted for 47% of all surgical abortions in 2023, while U.S. Census data shows they make up only 32% of the state’s population. Black people represented 11% of surgical abortions despite only being 6% of the population. Meanwhile, white people, who make up 53% of Arizona’s population, accounted for 30% of surgical abortions. These numbers reflect a decade-long trend: Hispanic and Black women consistently make up a higher percentage of abortions than their population percentages would suggest. This raises serious concerns about whether the abortion industry is disproportionately targeting minority communities.
The numbers aren’t just statistics. They tell a story of communities being disproportionately affected by abortion. Historically, the abortion industry has faced criticism for its roots in eugenics and its targeting of minority neighborhoods. Arizona law (ARS 13-3603.02) prohibits abortions based on race or sex, but these statistics make it clear that the impact of abortion on minorities remains profoundly unequal. This is not freedom of choice—it’s exploitation.
The sheer volume of abortions performed is heartbreaking. In 2023, Arizona celebrated 77,881 live births. At the same time, 12,705 babies were surgically aborted, not including chemical abortions. This means 14% of the babies who should have been part of our communities last year never had the chance to live. That’s not just a statistic; it’s a profound loss of human potential and a tragic reminder of the lives slaughtered by abortion.
Adding to this tragedy, Governor Katie Hobbs has called for an end to the Arizona Abortion Report, calling it “an attack on our freedom” and claiming it should not exist. But this report is not about attacking freedom—it’s about transparency and accountability. Eliminating it would obscure the truth, making it harder to see how abortion disproportionately impacts minority communities in our state.
The abortion industry’s targeting of Hispanic and Black women is not an accident—it’s a calculated strategy rooted in exploitation and profit. The 2023 Abortion Report doesn’t just expose chilling statistics; it exposes a system that sacrifices the most vulnerable—both mothers and their unborn children—for financial gain. This isn’t freedom, and it isn’t healthcare. It’s a disturbing reminder that the abortion industry thrives by exploiting the very communities it claims to serve. How much longer will we allow this silent genocide to continue before we confront the racism at its core?
Katarina White serves as Board Member for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed, visit the Arizona Right to Life website.
Counteracting the abortion culture requires us to celebrate the gift of children, and to uplift and empower the families who choose life.
By Garrett Riley |
As Arizona grapples with the implications of Proposition 139, a new dynamic in the state’s legislative landscape is emerging. Passed in 2024, the Arizona Abortion Access Act radically expands abortion rights beyond viability, through nine months and up to birth for virtually any reason. We are looking at a future in Arizona that enshrines unrestricted and nearly unregulated abortions.
Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, and a key figure in the pro-life community, expressed concerns about the broad and ambiguous language of Prop 139. Herrod and her organization fear that such terms may overturn well-established measures like informed consent and parental consent laws, which are reasonable safeguards. These laws ensure that women fully know the implications and alternatives before making an abortion decision.
From the pro-life perspective, these measures are not merely legal hurdles but essential ethical considerations that respect both the life of the unborn child and the informed autonomy of women. Herrod’s commitment to challenging vague terms within the proposition underscores a broader dedication to engaging in the democratic process, ensuring that all voices are heard and considered.
The legal battles anticipated over Prop 139 are not solely about restricting rights but are seen as a necessary defense of life and ethical medical practices. Of course, the emphasis on legal challenges to abortion laws must stem from the science that proves life begins from conception, and human rights must be conveyed to the unborn.
Tragically, the potential for existing laws to be swept away without thorough public discussion or consideration of the implications will begin unfolding in 2025 and beyond. As Arizona navigates these complex legal and ethical waters, all pro-life voices play an essential role in representing the electorate concerned with real healthcare, medical ethics, and human rights.
The passage of Prop 139 marks a critical juncture in Arizona’s history of abortion laws. This event not only triggers legal disputes but also offers our pro-life community a chance to promote a society that deeply values human life. Our advocacy transcends legal arguments, aiming to foster a culture committed to life’s intrinsic value, and the importance of the foundational roles children and family play in a healthy society. As we engage in these efforts, the goal is to nurture a community ethos that respects life from conception to natural end, thereby influencing legislative and policy frameworks.
Counteracting the abortion culture requires us to celebrate the gift of children, and to uplift and empower the families who choose life. Arizona Life Coalition (ALC) is dedicated to changing the culture by encouraging pro-life choices through education, collaboration, and acts of charity. We believe that to be pro-life is to be pro-family. By supporting pregnant women and struggling families, we stand as a community that affirms life, strengthens families, and nurtures hope, advocating that one life saved from abortion is worth all our time, money, and efforts.
Garrett Riley is the executive director of the Arizona Life Coalition, with a mission of inspiring pro-life choices through charity, education, and unifying collaboration.
Too often, we hear that constituents and politicians vote for something and then review the content afterwards. That appears to be the case with Prop 139. So, let’s take a look at what exactly is in this proposition.
An Associated Press article in the Ahwatukee news (last month) publicized that this abortion measure allows women to terminate a pregnancy without state interference until the point of fetal viability. This is incorrect. As the proponent’s attorney, Austin Yost, stated under oath in superior court, this amendment will allow abortions before and after fetal viability. In layman’s terms, Prop 139 will allow abortion, up to birth, which includes late-term abortion.
Did the press not read and understand the language? Or did they choose not to print its true intent? Polling showed that 90 percent of Arizonans would not support abortion up to birth, and yet Prop 139 still passed. But the legacy media focused on defining fetal viability at 22 or 24 weeks while ignoring that the proposition allows for abortion up to birth.
So, what else does Prop 139 do?
The proposition takes away parental consent for a minor to have an abortion. So, let’s get this straight. Minors no longer need parental consent to have an abortion, but they need parental consent to get an aspirin at school. Are we serious? Not only that, but this will also allow child traffickers and rapists to go unchecked and find a way to avoid prosecution for their crimes. All these traffickers and rapists would have to do is take their victim to have an abortion without their parents’ involvement. How can we exclude parents from this life-changing decision?
But perhaps most chilling is that the doctor and the requirement for an ultrasound have been eliminated from the abortion procedure. That’s right. The subject matter expert — a medical doctor — is no longer required for an abortion. Any “healthcare professional,” which is vaguely defined, can perform an abortion with no certification or hospital privileges. On top of that, the elimination of the ultrasound means that there is no way to tell the gestation of the baby or if there is an ectopic pregnancy. If the “healthcare professional” cannot detect an ectopic pregnancy and initiates an abortion, the woman’s life is at risk. This is not healthcare.
But why was the ultrasound eliminated? Because 60% of women who see their baby with an ultrasound choose life. And therein lies their end game. When women choose life, it’s bad business for abortion clinics.
Thanks to Prop 139, abortion providers stand to make millions more, especially by eliminating the need to pay for doctors. This is the reality of what our state just passed, not the fake ads on television telling voters that this is about women’s rights or that if you have a miscarriage, you cannot get medical help.
But the battle is not over.
As Chair of Arizona Right to Life, our team will continue to speak the truth about abortion. We remain committed to the protection of the unborn and the health and safety of women, because every human being is valuable.
The Honorable Jill Norgaard served in the Arizona State House from 2014-2018. She is the former First Vice Chairman of the AZGOP and currently serves as the Chair of Arizona Right to Life.
Anyone could have predicted that Christians and pro-lifers would be outvoted on the abortion issue. We all know spiritual leaders are guilty of telling their people to “stay out of politics,” “be spiritual, not political,” “turn off the news,” and “God’s in control.” Okay…
As of publication, just over 1.9 million voted in favor of abortion on demand—potentially up to birth—while 1.2 million voted against Proposition 139. All we needed to do was tell 800,000 people to fill in a circle on their ballot. Wow.
Was it God who dropped the ball?
As I said on my Facebook live and most recent Substack, I believe the passage of Prop 139 is an indictment of the Church (body of Christ) in Arizona. For emphasis, I’ll restate my thoughts here:
“What are the churches doing in Arizona? If you weren’t speaking to your congregations about Proposition 139—but you’re calling yourself a minister or a ministry, you’re taking money, you’re not paying any taxes on tithes and offerings—then, what are you doing? To me, pro-life is the one issue that shows whether or not the church is effective in the state. And we’re not effective.”
I’m glad to hear at least one minister mobilized 700 of his peers in some sort of effort against Prop 139. I’m sure a faithful remnant of church leaders mentioned it in their sermons and asked their congregations to pray about it. But these efforts fell woefully short.
Again, we all know the silent ministers are bewitched by false ideologies like “separation of church and state.” The rest are afraid to offend big donors or they’re unwilling to risk that coveted 501(c)(3) status. This is idolatry. One megachurch is literally buying up all the real estate and branding everyone’s bumper, yet those of us outside the organization have no clue what they’re doing to change Arizona.
For the record, abortion is not a political issue. According to the Sixth Commandment, abortion is a moral issue. Plainly stated: abortion is murder. For those who are quick to say, “What about cases of rape, cases of incest, the life of the mother?” I will defer to this report from the Guttmacher Institute.
Screenshot is sourced from a 2019 article published by USA Today.
I’ve heard many call Arizona a “purple” state, meaning there’s a near even split of conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, who occupy this territory. Well, we’re slowly slipping into denial with this statement as dark forces are working overtime to flip this state. From a governmental perspective, Arizona is about as blue as they come with our highest-ranking leadership positions currently in the hands of leftists (note: the following is not an exhaustive list).
A call to pastors and ministry leaders:
If you want to save Arizona, please stop telling your congregations to avoid the news and politics.You have 66 Books to preach from that will help everyone discern false narratives and make wise decisions. You simply need to trust God and say what He said.
Intercession and evangelism are not in competition. Both are essential for reformation (see the Four Gospels and Acts 1-28). Prayer is absolutely necessary, but the Great Commission is not fulfilled by sitting in prayer closets and kneeling at the altar. Fellowship is important, but the Great Commission is not fulfilled by perfect church attendance or inviting people to sign membership papers.
Only a small percentage are called to full-time ministry. The rest of us are created to do far more than warm the pews and fund your “vision for the ministry.” Please stop trying to build nonprofit organizations and start building the Kingdom of God. It’s time to leave the four walls, stop over separating “the sacred from the secular,” and teach your people how to contend for righteousness in the marketplace. Persecution is our inheritance in Christ.
Fear God, not man.
Lastly, I want to correct the false ideology that says, “We can’t legislate morality.” On the contrary, politics and government are nothing more than spheres of influence whereby morality is enforced through law and order. Legislation, then, is simply morality applied to a society.
Which set of morals best serves a nation—God’s morality or man’s morality? One brings us closer to life. The other, as we can see, brings us closer to death.
So, to all Christians and pro-lifers (whether you’re a believer or not), what are we going to do about Proposition 139?
