by Daniel Stefanski | Sep 16, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
A growing number of Arizona pastors are joining together to stand in opposition to a ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to allow abortion on demand.
This month, Pastor Eric Jones of Evident Life Church in Gilbert, announced that there were almost 700 faith leaders who signed the Declaration of Arizona Pastors in Defense of Voiceless Children and Vulnerable Women.
In July, Jones wrote, “Last August, after hearing about the horrific ‘Arizona Abortion Access Act’ (now called Prop 139) which would legalize abortion for all nine months, I felt the Lord calling me to do something. This declaration and the growing coalition of Arizona pastors is the result.”
The Declaration reads as follows:
“To save the lives of innocent children, to protect the health of women, to help people avoid a terrible regret, and to show love to our neighbors, we, as Christian pastors in Arizona, declare the following:
- Whereas every human life is valuable because every human life, born and pre-born, is wonderfully made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; Psalm 139:13-14).
- Whereas abortion is the ending of an innocent human life, and results in danger and hurt towards women (Exodus 21:22-25; Genesis 9:6).
- Whereas the church is here to compassionately serve and support vulnerable women (1 John 3:18, Psalm 82:3-4).
- Whereas abortion is not a political issue, but a biblical and moral one (Mark 12:17).
- Whereas effort is underway to change the Arizona Constitution to allow children to be aborted during all nine months of development in the womb.
The undersigned Arizona pastors urge every person to refuse to provide a signature to put the ‘Arizona Abortion Access Act’ (Prop 139) on the ballot and should also vote against the Act, or any similar measure, if it appears on the ballot (Proverbs 6:16-17, Ephesians 5:11).”
According to the Declaration’s website, the purpose of this document and statewide effort is “designed to unify Arizona Christian pastors around the sanctity of human life while providing a clear voice against the proposed ‘Arizona Abortion Access Act’ (Prop 139).” The website shares that, per an analysis from an attorney, “the amendment is written so broadly that it allows unlimited abortion up to birth, removes most safety standards, eliminates the required qualified medical doctor, gives broad leeway to who can provide abortions, shuts out moms and dads when their minor daughter needs them most, shields sex offenders who force their victims to get abortions to cover their crimes, opens the door to taxpayer funded abortions, [and] threatens conscience protections for healthcare workers.”
Arizona voters will get an opportunity to decide the fate of the Abortion Access Act in November’s General Election.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Katarina White | Sep 9, 2024 | Opinion
By Katarina White |
Throughout history, we have witnessed the horrors that unfold when societies dehumanize entire groups of people. In the era of slavery, Black people were considered less than human—mere property to be bought, sold, and exploited. During the Holocaust, Jews were labeled as “subhuman” and systematically exterminated. Today, we look back on these atrocities with disbelief and sorrow, wondering how such inhumanity could have ever been justified. And yet, in our current era, we face a similar moral crisis with abortion—a modern-day holocaust where the humanity of unborn children is denied, and their lives can be murdered right up to the moment of birth.
Proposition 139 is not just another policy debate—it is a question of life and death. If passed, this proposition would permit the killing of unborn children until birth. The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled that the term “unborn human being” will remain in the ballot language for this proposition. This decision challenges us to face the uncomfortable truth: the lives at stake are not mere “fetuses” or “clumps of cells” but human beings in their most vulnerable form.
The Arizona Abortion Access Campaign, which claims to stand for “truth,” has fought fiercely to exclude the term “unborn human being” from the language of Proposition 139. Why? Because they understand that words matter—words shape perceptions. If voters are confronted with the reality that abortion involves the killing of an unborn human being, they might see through the euphemisms of “reproductive rights” and “women’s health” to the brutal truth.
Yet, the scientific truth is clear. According to Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed., 1998), “Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” From conception, a developing life in the womb carries its own unique DNA—a distinct genetic blueprint that is undeniably human. To deny this is to deny biological reality in favor of a narrative that serves a political agenda.
Consider the parallels. In both slavery and the Holocaust, those in power used language and rhetoric to strip away the humanity of their victims. Slaves were considered property, not people. Jews were referred to as “vermin.” These labels made it easier to carry out heinous acts without facing the moral consequences. Today, the abortion industry reduces the unborn to “fetuses,” distancing from the murderous act of abortion and its reality—the ending of a human life.
Despite this, Dawn Penich, a spokesperson for Arizona for Abortion Access, argued that the court’s decision to use the term “unborn human being” would prevent voters from understanding the ballot in a “fair, neutral, and accurate way,” claiming they would be “subjected to biased, politically-charged words developed not by experts but by anti-abortion special interests to manipulate voters and spread misinformation.” But isn’t it more manipulative to hide the biological reality of what abortion truly involves?
The irony is staggering.
The Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to allow the term “unborn human being” on the ballot forces us to confront what is truly at stake. This is not just a matter of “reproductive rights”—this is about whether we, as a society, will sanction the destruction of human life up to the point of birth.
History has taught us the catastrophic consequences of dehumanization. In every era, from slavery to the Holocaust, society’s refusal to recognize the humanity of its victims has led to unspeakable horrors. Today, abortion stands as the latest chapter in this tragic story—a chapter that will be judged by future generations. Will we turn a blind eye, or will we stand for the truth that every human life, born or unborn, deserves recognition and protection?
As Arizona voters head to the polls in November, they must decide whether they will be complicit in this modern-day holocaust or whether they will choose to defend the most fundamental of all human rights: the right to life. The fight over language is a fight over truth, and truth, once revealed, compels us to act. Let us not be found on the wrong side of history.
Katarina White serves as Board Member for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed, visit the Arizona Right to Life website.
by Katarina White | Aug 26, 2024 | Opinion
By Katarina White |
The Screwtape Letters is a satirical novel written by C.S. Lewis in which a senior demon advises his nephew on how to lead humans astray. It exposes moral issues by presenting them from evil’s perspective, and it made me think. I wonder how Uncle Screwtape would reveal the distorted reasoning behind actions like supporting abortion through Proposition 139.
My Dear Wormwood,
I am thrilled to see our schemes in Arizona advancing so well. This November, the humans will vote on Proposition 139, the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment—a constitutional amendment that would enshrine the slaughter of infants up until the point of birth. What a splendid victory this could be for our cause!
For years, we’ve worked to twist their concept of “freedom” into a license for destruction, and what better vehicle than “choice”? The language of this amendment is, dare I say, masterful—dressed up in words like “rights” and “autonomy” that tickle the human mind and make them believe true freedom lies in rejecting any duty toward the most vulnerable. How easily they are led to view abortion not as ending a life, but as an empowering act of independence. Wrap it all in euphemisms, and they’ll never notice the blood on their hands.
But do not underestimate our opposition. Those meddlesome pro-lifers, especially Arizona Right to Life, remain a thorn in our side. They are determined to educate the public on what this amendment truly means and why it must be stopped. They speak of “defending life” and “protecting the innocent,” and they’re working hard to reach as many people as possible with their message. If they manage to expose the truth behind our cleverly disguised rhetoric, they could sway enough voters against us.
We must counter this by portraying them as extremists—out of touch with today’s values and opposed to women’s rights and personal liberty. Our allies in the Arizona Abortion Access Campaign have been skillful in steering attention away from uncomfortable topics like late-term abortions or the erosion of parental consent. Instead, they’ve focused on narratives of compassion and healthcare.
However, we must stay vigilant. Arizona Right to Life is relentless in its efforts to inform voters of the amendment’s dangers. They are spreading the word through educational campaigns, determined to expose the amendment’s potential for unfettered abortion access. We must work tirelessly to drown out their message, keeping the focus on appealing catchphrases and steering the conversation away from the harsh reality of what’s at stake.
In the end, the humans will think they are securing a “right,” when in truth, they will be codifying a monstrous wrong. Our task is to keep them in the dark until it’s too late.
Your affectionate uncle,
Screwtape
Katarina White serves as Board Member for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed, visit the Arizona Right to Life website.
by Staff Reporter | Jul 29, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Maricopa Superior Court ruled against the Arizona legislature’s use of “unborn human being” as a valid nonpartisan descriptor for an informational pamphlet to be given to voters.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Whitten ruled in a brief, five-page ruling for Arizona For Abortion Access v. Toma that the phrase “unborn human being” wasn’t an “impartial analysis” of the ballot proposal making abortion a constitutional right: the Arizona Abortion Access Act (Proposition 139).
The Legislative Council submits all impartial analyses of each ballot proposal in order for the secretary of state to create the publicity pamphlet that all voters receive. The council wrote the following as their analysis of the ballot proposal to make abortion a constitutional right:
“Current state law prohibits a physician from performing an abortion if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being is more than 15 weeks, except when a pregnant woman’s medical condition necessitates an immediate abortion to avert the pregnant woman’s death or for which a delay creates a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”
Whitten ordered the Legislative Council to strike the phrase “unborn human being” from its description of the Arizona Abortion Access Act, and to instead swap it for a “neutral term.”
Citing court precedent, Whitten said that the Legislative Council’s analysis, while not inaccurate or partial, was still used in a context resulting in “a misleading tendency,” accomplished by using “provocative phrasing [that] belie[s] neutrality and impermissibly advocate[s] against the measure.”
“The term ‘unborn human being’ is packed with emotional and partisan meaning, both for those who oppose abortion and for those who endorse a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion,” said Whitten.
Whitten also stated the House GOP leadership argument that the phrase “unborn human being” came from current law was irrelevant to the question of neutrality.
“The court is not persuaded that every word chosen by the legislature in every statute it enacts is intended to be neutral in character,” wrote Whitten. “There is no requirement that the legislature chose its words in such a way, and plenty of evidence that they sometimes do not.”
The Arizona Abortion Access Act would create a fundamental right to abortion up until birth, should any involved health care professional determine an abortion “necessary” to protect the mother’s life or health. The proposition, if approved, would also preemptively ban lawmakers from imposing punishments on those who provide assistance in obtaining abortions.
The organization behind the proposition, Arizona for Abortion Access, said in a statement that they anticipate an appeal from the GOP lawmakers behind the denied Legislative Council language.
“Though we expect and are prepared for an appeal, this is important progress toward giving Arizona voters the power to make an informed decision in support of protecting our reproductive freedoms once and for all,” stated the organization.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Jul 24, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Come November, Arizona voters may decide whether to establish abortion at any stage of pregnancy as a fundamental right in the state constitution.
The assigned ballot number, Proposition 139, declares that voting in favor of the initiative would create a fundamental right to abortion, thereby limiting the state’s ability to interfere with all abortions — mainly those pregnancies predating the generally accepted standard for viability, around 24 weeks.
However, that doesn’t mean that abortions won’t be covered by the state constitution after viability. The proposition declares that abortions will be permissible after viability should any involved health care professional determine them “necessary” to protect the mother’s life or health.
The proposition would also preemptively ban lawmakers from imposing any criminal sanctions or other punishments on anyone who assists another in obtaining an abortion.
“A ‘yes’ vote shall have the effect of creating a fundamental right to abortion under Arizona’s constitution. The State will not be able to interfere with this fundamental right before fetal viability, unless it has a compelling reason and does so in the least restrictive way possible. Fetal viability means the point in the pregnancy when, in the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus. Throughout the pregnancy, both before and after fetal viability, the State will not be able to interfere with the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional that an abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant individual. The State will not be able to penalize any person for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the right to an abortion.”
The secretary of state’s office is still reviewing signatures for the initiative.
Earlier this month, the PAC behind the initiative, Arizona For Abortion Access, sued the Arizona Legislative Council for using the term “unborn human being” rather than “unborn fetus” in their official analysis of the proposition distributed to voters in a publicity pamphlet.
An attorney for the PAC told lawmakers during their hearing on the subject that “unborn human being” was a partisan phrase, rather than their preferred term of “fetus.”
Arizona For Abortion Access, the political action committee behind the ballot initiative, has pulled in nearly $23.2 million for their cause.
The PAC’s biggest donors are mainly out-of-state entities: over $13.4 million altogether from The Fairness Project, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, Advocacy Action Fund, the ACLU Foundation, Open Society Action Fund, Think Big America, The Green Advocacy, Movement Voter PAC and Project, Our Children Our Future, Clean and Prosperous America, and Moms Fed Up.
Several in-state entities rich with out-of-state cash flow put about $5.8 million toward the initiative: Arizonans Fed Up With Failing Health, ACLU of Arizona, Reproductive Freedom for All Arizona, Healthcare Rising Arizona, and the UFCW Local 99 PAC.
A number of wealthy, out-of-state billionaires have donated funds:
- Phoebe Gates, daughter of Bill Gates and Stanford University student, $750,000;
- Liz Simons, daughter of hedge fund billionaire James Simons, $250,000;
- Gaye Pigott, a Washington descendant of one of America’s richest families, the Pigott family, $75,000;
- Eric Laufer, a New York engineer, $65,000;
- Giovanna Randall, president and head designer of New York luxury bridal company Honor NYC $65,000;
- Barbara Simons, a retiree of San Francisco, California $51,000;
- Barton Faber, former Canto executive, a California-based software company (reported as living in Hawaii, but formerly from Arizona), $50,000;
- Ning Mosberger-Tang, a Colorado photographer, gave $50,000;
- Steven Spielberg, famed Hollywood director, and his Hollywood actress wife, Kate Capshaw, gave $100,000;
- Sheli Rosenberg, a retired Illinois executive of Equity Group Investments, gave $50,000;
- Gregory Serrurier, retired California cofounder of Redwood Grove Capital, $50,000;
- Eric Uhrhane, a Californian software engineer and angel investor, gave $50,000;
- Laura H. Lauder, a California philanthropist, gave $25,000;
- Georgia Taylor Michelson, Californian and wife to Zimmer Biomet board member Michael Michelson, gave $25,000;
- Marcia Grand, a California donor, gave $25,000;
- Sal Al-Rashid, a New York investor, gave $25,000;
- Elizabeth Brown, a California farmer, gave $25,000;
- Robin Donohoe, a Georgia venture capitalist, gave $25,000
Several wealthy in-state donors also gave. Among them were Juanita Fitzer Francis, who gave $200,000 — a former nurse with University of Arizona College of Medicine and Phoenix Children’s Hospital, and board member of the Arizona State University Foundation and University of Illinois Foundation. Francis also presides over the Francis Family Foundation.
There was also David and Louise Reese, who gave about $200,000 together. They operate the David E. Reese Family Foundation, a private grantmaking foundation in Paradise Valley. David formerly ran banking institutions across Arizona, Ohio, and New York.
And then there’s Sedona’s Donalyn Mikles, who gave $100,000. Mikles has been a top donor for the Democratic Party and Gov. Katie Hobbs in recent years. Mikles has served as a director of the Kling Family Foundation, a private philanthropic California nonprofit.
Donald Levin, a DRL Enterprises executive in Phoenix, gave $50,000. Paul Lipton, a Tucson hydroponics supply company founder, gave $25,000. Likewise, Robert Bertrand, a Paradise Valley retired executive of Concord Servicing, gave $25,000.
They’ve spent nearly $13.5 million so far, around $11 million on signature gathering. The second-largest expenditure was on advertising, generally, amounting to over $500,000, and polling came at a cost of over $100,000.
Staff salaries for other organizations also topped the list: staffing for Healthcare Rising, Reproductive Freedom for All Arizona, The Fairness Project, and the ACLU altogether amounted to over $400,000.
Their cash balance sits at just over $9.7 million.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
