Arizona’s leading Democrat continues to push for a constitutional amendment to allow abortion in the state.
On Tuesday, Governor Katie Hobbs took to her personal “X” account to announce that she had signed a petition to send an abortion initiative to the 2024 ballot.
Today, I joined Arizonans across the political spectrum and added my name to support the ballot measure to enshrine a right to abortion in our state’s constitution. As a domestic violence advocate, as a mother, and as governor, I will always defend Arizonans’ freedoms pic.twitter.com/eaj6K9dwTI
Hobbs said, “Today, I joined Arizonans across the political spectrum and added my name to support the ballot measure to enshrine a right to abortion in our state’s constitution. As a domestic violence advocate, as a mother, and as governor, I will always defend Arizonans’ freedoms.”
The governor then shared a link to the group’s (Arizona for Abortion Access) page to garner more awareness for increased signatures across the state.
This wasn’t the first time that Hobbs had weighed in to support the initiative. Back in August, she posted, “As a lifelong advocate for Arizonans’ reproductive freedom, I’m thrilled that we will have the opportunity to make our voices heard next November. Once and for all, we will make clear that the government should not have a say in women’s personal healthcare decisions.”
As a lifelong advocate for Arizonans’ reproductive freedom, I’m thrilled that we will have the opportunity to make our voices heard next November. Once and for all, we will make clear that the government should not have a say in women's personal healthcare decisions.…
Arizona for Abortion Access has until July 3, 2024, to gather 383,923 valid signatures to refer this initiative to the November 2024 ballot. If successful, the initiative would amend the state’s constitution to install abortion as a right in Arizona.
Earlier this year, one of Arizona’s top pro-life leaders, Cathi Herrod from the Center for Arizona Policy, came out in fierce opposition to these efforts, alerting her followers that this measure “would tear down virtually all pro-life precautions and make it nearly impossible to regulate abortion.” Herrod also explained how, if passed, the constitutional amendment would likely allow the likelihood of abortion at all stages of life in the womb, stating, “The broad exemption of ‘mental health’ of the mother after viability is widely understood, even in the courts, to mean virtually anything the abortion provider wants it to mean, including stress or anxiety. Even barbaric partial-birth abortion is legal under this exemption.”
Arizona for Abortion Access lists endorsements from the ACLU of Arizona, Affirm Sexual and Reproductive Health, Healthcare Rising Arizona, Arizona List, NARAL Arizona, and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, on its website.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The transition in Arizona’s statewide leadership party credentials continues to manifest itself in the fight to defend innocent life in the womb.
Last week, Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs announced that she had “filed an amicus brief in support of Planned Parenthood, opposing the reinstatement of a total abortion ban.” The legal filing was transmitted to the Arizona Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Mayes. The case was previously initiated under the prior Attorney General’s, Republican Mark Brnovich, administration. Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, has made no secret of her opposition to the pro-life law in dispute, despite her office named as one of the defendants.
Yesterday, I filed an amicus brief in support of Planned Parenthood, opposing the reinstatement of a total abortion ban.
I’m fighting against extremists who want to jail doctors and bring an end to reproductive freedom in Arizona.
In the Hobbs’ amicus brief, she argues that “Abortion access is critical to the health, safety, and wellbeing of Arizonans, and implicates significant liberty interests,” that “failure to harmonize the Territorial Ban with Title 36 and returning to a near-total ban on abortion raises serious questions under the Arizona Constitution,” and that “the constitutional avoidance canon further supports affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision.”
The governor highlighted her battle “against extremists who want to jail doctors and bring an end to reproductive freedom in Arizona.” She noted the stories of two women in the state “who have relied on access to abortion care,” writing, “Erika who sought reproductive healthcare after a previous pregnancy threatened her life. She now lives happily with her daughter & husband in Sedona. And Jasmine, who struggled to provide for her two children when she discovered she was pregnant. Abortion access allowed her to graduate from college & pursue full-time work.”
One of Arizona’s premier pro-life organizations, the Center for Arizona Policy, also filed its own amicus brief at the state’s Supreme Court. The Center’s President, Cathi Herrod issued a statement about the brief and the importance of the case, writing, “The brief pushes back against claims from abortion activists suggesting that because Arizona lawmakers only passed pro-life laws within the constraints of Roe, that they never wanted to further restrict abortion. That is clearly false. In anticipation of the eventual fall of Roe, the Arizona Legislature consistently showed its dedication to preserving the rights of the unborn by keeping the pre-Roe law on the books, which reflects Arizona’s strong pro-life position.”
The brief from Center for Arizona Policy argues that the “Respondents’ focus on legislative inaction is incomplete and unavailing,” that “the legislature’s express instruction to retain 13-3603 and to interpret Arizona law to protect unborn children should be respected – especially given the unique circumstances here,” and that “overlap in laws protecting unborn children is a feature, not a flaw, where legal challenges are an ever-present threat.”
The case will be before the Arizona Supreme Court in December.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The wheels are moving on the vehicle to install abortion as a state constitutional right in Arizona.
Last week, Arizona for Abortion Access announced the start of its signature gathering process in order to give state voters an opportunity to vote on this ballot measure in November 2024. Just under 400,000 valid signatures – 383,923 to be exact – are required to achieve success on this front; however, many more signatures will be needed in order to account for the invalid entries that are gathered over the upcoming year.
The deadline to submit the signatures is July 3, 2024.
According to the overview of the initiative provided to the Arizona Secretary of State, the Arizona Abortion Access Act would “amend the Arizona Constitution to establish a fundamental right to abortion that the State may not deny, restrict or interfere with [1] before the point in pregnancy when a health care provider determines that the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus without extraordinary medical measures unless justified by a compelling governmental interest (defined by the act as a law, regulation, policy, or practice enacted for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining the health of an individual seeking abortion care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine, and that does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision-making) that is achieved by the least restrictive means, or [2] after that point in pregnancy if a health care provider determines an abortion is necessary to protect the life or the physical or mental health of the pregnant individual; and under which the State may not penalize individuals or entities for assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to abortion.”
Dr. Candace Lew, the chair of Arizona for Abortion Access, issued a statement, saying, “We have written this ballot measure because Arizonans deserve the freedom to make our own decisions about pregnancy and abortion. These deeply personal decisions should be treated with compassion, dignity, and privacy, not political interference.”
One of the state’s top pro-life leaders, Cathi Herrod from the Center for Arizona Policy, quickly indicated her fierce opposition to this ballot initiative. She wrote, “Arizonans are not radical abortion supporters like those at today’s press conference, who called abortion ‘a blessing’ and praised California-style abortion policy like that in the proposed Arizona ballot measure. Abortion activists behind the proposition making abortion a fundamental right in Arizona, held a press conference today to launch their signature gathering campaign to get the initiative on the November 2024 ballot. The measure would tear down virtually all pro-life precautions and make it nearly impossible to regulate abortion.”
Herrod also explained how, if passed, this constitutional amendment would likely allow the likelihood of abortion at all stages of life in the womb, stating, “The broad exemption of ‘mental health’ of the mother after viability is widely understood, even in the courts, to mean virtually anything the abortion provider wants it to mean, including stress or anxiety. Even barbaric partial-birth abortion is legal under this exemption.”
She added, “In addition, the language prohibits virtually all safety precautions and commonsense regulations on abortion, including holding accountable the abortion provider for shoddy work or the sex trafficker who forces girls to have abortions to cover his crimes.”
Arizona for Abortion Access lists endorsements from the ACLU of Arizona, Affirm Sexual and Reproductive Health, Healthcare Rising Arizona, Arizona List, NARAL Arizona, and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona on its website.
On Wednesday, a post on the social media platform “X” appeared to show Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes signing the petition to place this amendment on the 2024 ballot.
In August, Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs also weighed in on the initiative, saying, “As a lifelong advocate for Arizonans’ reproductive freedom, I’m thrilled that we will have the opportunity to make our voices heard next November. Once and for all, we will make clear that the government should not have a say in women’s personal healthcare decisions.”
As a lifelong advocate for Arizonans’ reproductive freedom, I’m thrilled that we will have the opportunity to make our voices heard next November. Once and for all, we will make clear that the government should not have a say in women's personal healthcare decisions.…
The U.S. military is facing a dangerous recruitment crisis. It seems to me, the main contributing factor to this crisis has been the Left’s insistence on infusing politics into our military. Under President Biden’s leadership, the Pentagon has been more interested in fighting the culture war at home than equipping our service men and women in their mission of deterring war and protecting our nation.
Earlier this year, President Biden’s Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin issued a memo to use taxpayer funds for paid time off, lodging, and travel expenses for military service members and their families to receive elective abortions. A clear example of the Left’s push to prioritize a political agenda over longstanding federal policy, this memo was issued without necessary congressional approvals and in spite of the Hyde amendment, a decades-old federal law prohibiting federal funding for abortion that even President Biden himself supported during his tenure in the U.S. Senate. The simple fact is that the Defense Department has no authority to use our taxpayer dollars to facilitate abortion services—in fact, existing federal law makes doing so illegal.
In response, Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama has placed holds on the confirmation of certain military promotions to both demand Secretary Austin rescind the policy and also bring attention to the wider issue of the politicization of our military. Rather than addressing these clear problems and violations of federal law, Arizona’s own Senators have continued to play politics, repeat Democrat talking points, or avoid the issue altogether.
It is the policies of the Biden administration that are the real threat to military readiness and undercutting our national defense capabilities, and that is what Senator Tuberville’s holds are rightly pointing out.
As a former officer in the Army, I can tell you Arizona’s veterans and active-duty service members understand firsthand that politicizing the military is a problem—not a solution. Yet, our U.S. Senators in Arizona have both apparently missed that message.
In July, Senator Mark Kelly claimed blocking of certain military promotions “is doing real damage to our national security right now” and that it will “have cascading effects for years.” But Senator Kelly is fear mongering, plain and simple.
Similarly, Senator Kyrsten Sinema has indicated that she wants to find a “middle ground” between Senator Tuberville and President Biden.
When the military prioritizes social justice instead of operational readiness, uses drag queens as recruiting ambassadors, and spends 6 million man-hours pushing DEI and CRT, it’s no wonder confidence in our military has already dropped by double-digits since Joe Biden took office. Common sense would tell you that is no way to foster recruitment.
We can continue down President Biden’s destructive path of turning our military into a social experiment or we can choose a path that helps our military get back to fulfilling its mission of keeping our country safe.
I stand with Senator Tommy Tuberville.
Curtiss Leroy is a resident of Tucson, AZ, and a Heritage Action Sentinel. He is a former officer in the U.S. Army, serving in Alaska and Vietnam.
On Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a lawsuit arguing against the state’s ban on abortions solely for genetic defects.
In the case, Isaacson v. Mayes, pro-abortion doctors and groups appealed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against Arizona’s ban on abortions based on genetic defects.
The legislature passed the ban, SB 1457, back in 2021.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the ban are abortionists Paul Isaacson and Eric Reuss, along with the National Council of Jewish Women, Arizona National Organization For Women, and Arizona Medical Association.
Isaacson was a Phoenix-based abortionist with Family Planning Associates. Reuss was a Scottsdale-based OBGYN and former board member for Planned Parenthood of Arizona.
Judges Roopali Desai, Ronald Gould, and Andrew Hurwitz heard the oral arguments. While Desai and Hurwitz were engaged in the arguments with their questions, Gould hardly spoke except to request an adjustment of the livestream audio.
In March, House Speaker Ben Toma (R-LD27) and Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) stepped up to defend the ban after Attorney General Kris Mayes said she would refuse to enforce the law. Mayes is acting as the defense in the lawsuit currently.
During Monday’s oral arguments, the main question at hand was whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing. Article III of the Constitution, as held by the Supreme Court, requires plaintiffs to prove an actual or imminent alleged injury that is concrete and particularized.
Jessica Sklarsky with the Center for Reproductive Rights argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that they suffer undisputed economic harms and threat of prosecution due to the abortion ban. The district court determined that the plaintiffs failed to meet the standard set by the 2014 Supreme Court case Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, which determined that pre-enforcement challenges satisfy the Article III standard and are justiciable when a statute’s enforcement is sufficiently imminent.
Sklarksy also argued that the abortion ban qualified as a vague law, and therefore violated due process rights.
“Vague laws force those they govern to either avoid doing anything that is arguably covered by the law, or to engage in that conduct with the constant threat of arbitrary enforcement,” said Sklarsky.
Denise Harle with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), counsel on behalf of Toma and Petersen, countered that no Article III injury exists due to the lack of a credible threat of enforcement.
Harle pointed out that all 15 county attorneys have acceded their authority to Mayes, and that Mayes has disavowed enforcement of abortion law. Harle also pointed out Gov. Katie Hobbs’ executive order in June usurping all county attorneys’ authority on abortion law and conferring it to Mayes.
Hurwitz and Desai pushed back against Harle’s reference to Mayes and Hobbs’ conduct, arguing that Mayes didn’t issue a disclaimer in this case specifically detailing her intent to not enforce the law.
Hurwitz indicated that Toma and Petersen’s support of the law, as well as the private enforcement aspect of the law, indicated a credible threat of enforcement.
“Does the law really require that a credible threat be communicated? If the state of Arizona passes a statute and the two leaders of the legislature are here defending its constitutionality, isn’t that enough to show there is a credible not a certain but a credible threat of enforcement?” asked Hurwitz.
Harle disagreed, saying the potential for private enforcement constituted a hypothetical. She alluded to the arrangement by Hobbs and Mayes to not enforce abortion law.
“[T]he theoretical possibility of an injury sometime in the future is too conjectural when it’s not imminent,” said Harle.
Desai followed up by stating that the court’s decision in Tingley v. Fergusoncould apply to this case. In that case, a family counselor challenged the state of Washington’s ban on conversion therapy as a violation of free speech and religious practice. Harle responded that the existence of a law alone wasn’t sufficient for direct injury.
“Virtually anyone could look at a law, say ‘I’m not sure what that means, I’m going to do something or not do something’ [and] that would be enough for a federal court to weigh in and adjudicate the merits of that claim on a facial challenge,” said Harle.
Watch the full hearing here:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
