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?
The right to an abortion will now be enshrined in the Arizona Constitution after voters approved a radical ballot measure on Tuesday night.
Proposition 139 passed in the Grand Canyon State, receiving over 61% of the vote as of Thursday night. It will create a “fundamental right” for abortion up to “fetal viability” and allows a baby’s life to be ended potentially up until birth.
Arizona for Abortion Access released a short statement on its social media platform after the outcome became clear, stating, “We did it! Arizona has overwhelmingly voted to protect abortion access! We proved, yet again, that Arizona is a state that values freedom and individual rights. Thank you to the thousands of voters, volunteers, and donors – this victory belongs to you.”
Pastor Eric Jones, who helped organize a large coalition of local faith leaders against Prop 139, bemoaned the result of the campaign in a statement posted to his Facebook account. Jones wrote, “While I mourn and lament over the passage of Prop 139, there remains a silver lining as over 700 Arizona Christian pastors crossed denominational and doctrinal lines to unite over this biblical issue and take a stand for the sanctity of human life. Our unity and willingness to stand together pleases the Lord. “How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity (Psalm 133:1)! And so, let us not grow weary in doing good and let us pray without ceasing. God, have mercy on us.”
Cathi Herrod, another pro-life advocate against this ballot measure, issued a warning about the effects of this amendment on her state, saying, “Arizona will come to regret passing Prop 139 – when girls and women lose their doctors and safeguards, when parents get shut out, when a staggering number of unborn lives end before they even begin, and when voters realize they have been lied to by proponents who would say anything to pass their extreme abortion amendment.”
Herrod added, “I suspect abortion activists know, and that is why they deceitfully lied to voters, telling them there was a ban – when there was no ban – and shamefully telling them women cannot get treatment for miscarriages without passing the proposition. Again, false. But Prop 139 was never about protecting women; it has always been about unregulated and unlimited abortion.”
For several decades, Arizona had been one of the most pro-life states in the country – largely thanks to Republican legislators, governors, and effective activists. Because of the constitutional amendment being passed by voters, a simple majority of the members of the state legislature would not be able to reform any of the policies enacted by the measure.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The Arizona Abortion Access Campaign has engaged in a widespread misinformation campaign, suggesting that if Proposition 139 fails, women in Arizona could lose access to vital miscarriage care. Nothing could be further from the truth. Current Arizona law already makes clear distinctions between abortion procedures and care for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies, as outlined in ARS 36-2151.
According to the law, miscarriage management is not considered an abortion. ARS 36-2151 specifically excludes from the definition of abortion any procedures used to “terminate an ectopic pregnancy or to remove a dead fetus.” Dr. Anthony Levatino, a practicing OB-GYN and attorney, explains this distinction: “Miscarriage care is protected as it is explicitly excluded from the definition of abortion; abortion does not include birth control devices to terminate an ectopic pregnancy or to remove a dead fetus.’”
In light of these misrepresentations, Arizona Right to Life and the It Goes Too Far Campaign held a joint press conference to highlight the myths versus truths embedded within the language of Prop 139. Several medical doctors addressed the confusion stirred by the Arizona Abortion Access Campaign, clarifying that Arizona’s current laws ensure women will continue to receive necessary and compassionate care for miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy—care that is already protected and is unaffected by whether Prop 139 passes or fails.
While some in the abortion lobby have attempted to blur these distinctions, our laws are clear. The current statutes guarantee that women experiencing miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy will have access to the appropriate medical treatments, regardless of the fate of Prop 139. The push for Prop 139 is less about women’s health and more about expanding abortion access through all nine months, using fear and misleading information to drive support.
In voting on Proposition 139, Arizonans should see past the Arizona Abortion Access Campaign’s expensive attempts to mislead voters. With millions of dollars poured into a campaign designed to blur the truth, it’s clear their goal is not to protect women’s health, but to open the door to a broader revenue stream. Current Arizona law already safeguards critical medical care for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies. This push for Prop 139 is simply a gateway to unrestricted abortion access, using fear to pave the way. Arizona voters deserve the truth—not a profit-driven agenda.
Arizona’s Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs is insisting that the Prop 139 amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would state, “Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion,” would not include minors. However, prominent critics of the Proposition, such as Cindy Dahlgren, communications director for Center for Arizona Policy Action, says different. Dahlgren told reporters, “It would clearly be argued that ‘every individual’ includes minors.”
In the text of the Proposition, the new amendment would read:
“Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion, and the state shall not enact, adopt or enforce any law, regulation, policy or practice that does any of the following:
Denies, restricts or interferes with that right before fetal viability unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means.
Denies, restricts or interferes with an abortion after fetal viability that, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional, is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.
Penalizes any individual or entity for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the individual’s right to abortion as provided in this section.”
The legal definition of “individual” is key to this argument:
According to A.R.S. 18-551, under Arizona law, an “individual” is defined as, “a resident of this state who has a principal mailing address in this state as reflected in the records of the person conducting business in this state.”
Under A.R.S. 43-104, “‘Individual’ means a natural person.”
Under family law in Arizona, A.R.S. 25-1202 also clearly establishes that the definition of “individual” applies to minors through the inverse: “’Child’ means an individual, whether over or under the age of majority.”
As reported by the Arizona Capitol Times, Hobbs claimed that even if the amendment to the Arizona Constitution were to overturn current abortion laws requiring parental consent, that minors would still be unable to obtain an abortion without that consent.
“Health care providers would be subject to the same provisions relating to minors as they are under any other circumstance,” Hobbs told the outlet.
However, current Arizona law under A.R.S. 44-132 doesn’t seem to bear that conclusion out. The law in question states clearly:
“The consent of the parent, or parents, of such a person is not necessary in order to authorize hospital, medical and surgical care.”
The Arizona Capitol Times noted that Attorney General Kris Mayes, another Democrat advocate for the sweeping pro-abortion law, told reporters that this major legal distinction would likely need to be settled in court. “If Prop 139 passes, my office will conduct an analysis on its impact to other statutes,” Mayes explained.
“As with most newly passed referendums, litigation may be necessary to determine the specific impact on state law,” she added. “Ultimately, the courts may have to decide how any new constitutional provisions interact with current laws.”
The Arizona Capitol Times also observed that there is existing legal language in statute that addresses a judicial path for a minor to seek abortion without parental consent if she proves to a judge she is “sufficiently mature and capable of giving informed consent.” And while not a majority of the abortions performed involve minors, these cases do present a significant portion, about 12% of the total cited in 2022: 37 out of 250.
The outlet also spoke with Attorney Andrew Gaona, representing Arizona for Abortion Access, who told reporters that the measure would create “a fundamental right to abortion and sets forth the standard that existing and future laws regulating abortion must satisfy.” He also claimed that the new law wouldn’t be definitive on the question of minors.
“How that standard will apply to the more than 40 existing abortion-related statutes if a party chooses to challenge some or all of them will be determined by Arizona courts,” he said.
Bethany Miller, an attorney representing the Center for Arizona Policy told the Arizona Capitol Times that the distinction between Prop 139 and other amendments pertaining to individual rights comes down to the wording. “The Arizona right to bear arms is not ‘fundamental,’” she said, citing a 1994 ruling that declared the right to bear arms a qualified rather than absolute right. “In other words, Arizonans do not have the right to bear arms in any time or any way.”
“By contrast,” she warned, “Prop. 139’s fundamental right is likely to be interpreted as a near absolute right.”
As an OB/GYN with over a decade of experience treating patients with high-risk pregnancies and complications, I have seen firsthand how complex and vulnerable caring for these women can be. While political activists claim that Proposition 139 will improve healthcare in Arizona, nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve never encountered a proposal more dangerous for women’s health.
Supporters of Prop. 139 claim that it’s a necessary step to safeguard abortion access, but in reality, this measure dismantles critical health and safety standards, exposing women—particularly young women—to grave harm. Arizona is just one of 10 states considering such a measure, and the adoption of these constitutional amendments would send shockwaves across the country, paving the way for a radical erosion of reproductive health standards that could influence national policy.
Arizona law already allows abortions up to 15 weeks, with exceptions for later abortions in medical emergencies — a policy supported by 90% of the state’s residents. Prop. 139, however, goes far beyond guaranteeing access.
Consider this. Under Prop. 139, regulations that protect women during abortion procedures would be outlawed. Imagine a teenager seeking an abortion—shouldn’t her physician be required to explain the potential risks and ensure she understands her options? Under this amendment, such a requirement would become illegal. Mandatory ultrasounds to detect dangerous conditions like ectopic pregnancies? Illegal. Parental consent for minors? Also illegal. Requiring that a licensed physician perform the procedure? Illegal.
This isn’t speculation… it’s in the text of the proposition. Prop. 139 prevents any law or regulation that could be interpreted as a “barrier” to abortion. Even commonsense regulations such as regular inspections of facilities, or a waiting period before undergoing an abortion, would be cast aside. These precautions are simply designed to protect women’s lives and well-being. Worse yet, and perhaps most concerningly, the amendment is deliberately vague in its definition of who can perform abortions, labeling them simply as “health care professionals” without specifying their qualifications. This could allow unlicensed and unqualified individuals to perform the procedure.
The consequences would be devastating, and not just for Arizona. We’ve already seen states across the country adopt radical amendments like this one, and in Michigan, good laws that enhance healthcare for pregnant patients have been stripped away. What happens in one state often ripples into others, influencing policy debates and shaping future legislation at the national level.
This isn’t a return to reproductive rights; it’s a step back into the unsafe, unregulated, and dangerous world of back-alley abortions— but this time, with legal protection. The risk of botched procedures, infections, infertility, and even death would rise dramatically. Women will pay the price.
As a physician, I’ve treated women who were led to believe that abortion was a quick solution to their problems, only to experience lasting trauma—both physically and emotionally. These women deserved better medical care and better counseling that Prop. 139 simply will not provide.
And the danger doesn’t stop there. This amendment would likely lead to an increase in abortions performed later in pregnancy, where the risks to a woman’s health grow exponentially. According to research from the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, a woman’s risk of death increases by 38% each week after eight weeks of pregnancy.
Prop. 139’s proponents argue they want to make abortion “safe and easy,” but the reality is the opposite. Removing essential safety standards does not make abortion safe; it makes it deadly for women. Stripping away regulatory oversight doesn’t expand women’s rights—it puts their lives in jeopardy.
This fight extends beyond Arizona’s borders. If Prop. 139 passes, it will encourage other states to gut health and safety standards under the guise of expanding access. We cannot allow this dangerous and reckless model to keep gaining traction. Women across the nation deserve better – and the buck stops with us, the physicians entrusted to provide them with excellent healthcare.
As physicians, we are committed to doing no harm. But Prop. 139 would prevent us from upholding that oath. It would rob doctors of the ability to protect their patients and deliver quality, informed care. And in the end, more women will be hurt—physically, emotionally, and sometimes fatally.
The women of Arizona — and the women of America — deserve a future where reproductive care is safe, informed, and compassionate. For the sake of women’s health, we must reject Prop 139.
Dr. Erica Kreller is a board-certified OB/GYN practicing in Gilbert, Arizona. She is also a founding member of Arizona Physicians Against Prop 139.
