On July 3rd, the Arizona Abortion Access Campaign submitted petitions with the aim of amending the Arizona State Constitution to permit abortions up until the moment of birth. This chilling proposal would prevent the state from intervening in abortions “after fetal viability,” based on the “judgment” of a “healthcare professional.” Since the petition campaign began last September, it has been shrouded in controversy and deceit, while they attempted to gather 383,923 signatures to place this evil amendment on Arizona’s ballot this November.
As someone who wholeheartedly believes in the sanctity of life, I felt it was critical to be present as the submission process began. The first thing I witnessed was a truck carrying 240 boxes being unloaded and rolled into the Secretary of State’s office. The irony of police dogs sniffing the truck for bombs was not lost on me—considering the horrifying reality that the very proponents of this amendment are advocating for painful late-term abortions.
Over the past week, I closely monitored the Secretary of State’s meticulous process of unstapling, scanning, and reviewing the petitions. A 5% sample will then be sent to the county recorder’s office in each county to verify the authenticity of the signatures.
But let’s not be fooled. The Arizona Abortion Access Campaign is a masterclass in deception. During my time observing the unpacking of boxes, I was astounded to see several boxes unsealed only to reveal that they were completely empty. Not a single petition was inside!
This grotesque stunt at the Capitol, performed in front of the media, was a blatant act of deceit—an attempt to manipulate the public into believing they had garnered overwhelming support. The reality is far more sinister. The 240 boxes quickly shrank to fewer than 70 boxes once the cameras were turned off, contradicting their claim of having amassed “800,000 signatures.”
But it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. The Arizona Abortion Access Campaign’s facade of overwhelming support has always been nothing but a dangerous illusion. And their deceitful tactics reveal the sad reality of a campaign more focused on manipulation than genuine advocacy. But I would expect nothing less from a group determined to kill babies up until the moment of birth in a disturbing assault on the most vulnerable among us.
Now, we all have a duty to fight against this. And Arizona Right to Life is leading the charge to stop this ballot measure.
Katarina White serves as Board Member for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed, visit the Arizona Right to Life website.
Arizonans will likely soon be faced with the proposition of enshrining abortion into their state’s constitution.
Last week, Arizonans for Abortion Access dropped off 823,685 signatures with the Secretary of State, putting their measure one step closer to qualifying for the ballot in the November General Election.
The group stated, “Today, we made history submitting 823,685 signatures toward an amendment enshrining the right to access abortion in the Arizona Constitution. That number represents one out of every five Arizona voters, more than double the number of signatures required. When passed by voters in November, the Arizona Abortion Access Act will enshrine a right to abortion in the constitution and prevent the state from passing laws that restrict access to abortion before fetal viability or after that point to protect the health and life of the patient.”
Today, we made history submitting 823,685 signatures toward an amendment enshrining the right to access abortion in the Arizona Constitution. That number represents one out of every five Arizona voters, more than double the number of signatures required. pic.twitter.com/ECnFAv4bSg
— Arizona for Abortion Access (@azforaccess) July 3, 2024
Arizona for Abortion Access shared on its “X” account that “signatures were gathered by more than 7,000 volunteers across all 15 Arizona counties in support of the amendment. On trailheads, in coffee shops, book stores and public events, signature-gatherers were overwhelmed by support in all demographic groups.”
Signatures were gathered by more than 7,000 volunteers across all 15 Arizona counties in support of the amendment. On trailheads, in coffee shops, book stores & public events, signature-gatherers were overwhelmed by support in all demographic groups. pic.twitter.com/uwgoK0p6CM
— Arizona for Abortion Access (@azforaccess) July 3, 2024
Arizona for Abortion Access had until July 3, 2024, to gather 383,923 valid signatures to refer this initiative to the November 2024 ballot. If the signatures survive any legal challenges that might arise in the coming weeks, the initiative would amend the state’s constitution to install abortion as a right in Arizona if voters approve of the measure.
Last 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 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.
When the Supreme Court was debating the landmark Dobbs abortion case, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer shouted threats (“you will reap the whirlwind…”) at them from the courthouse steps. Thus, the last doubt was obliterated that the unquestioned authority of the Court was under serious attack.
An independent judiciary is the key to maintaining our constitutional republic. It is the reckoning mechanism which keeps us on track, muting the potential excesses of popular democracy. Americans once understood this and valued our judiciary, even when it sometimes worked against their individual interests.
But the times, they are a’changin. Americans have now divided into warring classes who believe that in the pursuit of power and short-term goals, a conscientious judiciary is often in the way.
At least until recently, school children were taught that our founders, in order to dilute the power of centralized government, created three branches. The legislative makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judiciary ensures that laws are enforced in accordance with statutes and the Constitution.
In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt clashed with the Supreme Court when their rulings thwarted his plans to assert federal control over wide swaths of the American economy. The Justices could not find in the Constitution’s list of enumerated powers any which authorized the New Deal legislative barrage.
They were right, but Roosevelt’s response was to propose “packing the court,” expanding the number of Justices, and increasing his power. Roosevelt’s view of the court as an obstacle rather than a necessary guard rail shocked many Americans of the day. The plan eventually failed, although most of the New Deal was enacted anyway.
Yet the status of the judiciary branch in our federal system is showing deterioration today. Leftist ideologues conduct protests of court decisions in front of Justices’ residences when they render unpopular decisions. That’s clearly contrary to federal law yet they suffer no repercussions. The Biden Department of Justice simply ignores them.
Justices are personally harassed by activists. Angry partisans confront them and their families in restaurants and public spaces. The Justices, particularly those of the pro-Constitution persuasion, are faced with spurious charges of ethical violations and demands for recusal. That’s especially ironic in the case of Justice Clarence Thomas, who has a well-deserved reputation for willingness to vote against his own political positions.
The Arizona Supreme Court also passed down a controversial abortion decision, ruling that the Arizona legislature, following the reversal of Roe, had effectively reinstated a restrictive Civil War era law. In response, a special interest group known as “Vote Them Out” is attempting to remove justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King for failing to support their pro-abortion policy agenda.
In Arizona, Supreme Court Justices and most lower court judges are not elected but appointed and then undergo periodic retention elections which are intended to weed out incompetent or corrupt judges. Although few judges are not retained, the system works to depoliticize the judicial selection process and give voters input into keeping judges.
It is this retention system itself which Vote Them Out is attacking by forcing Bolick and King to, in effect, run for their own seats in a political style campaign. There are no credible arguments that either Justice is incompetent or corrupt or that they didn’t provide constitutional authority for their rulings. The issue, again, is simply that their decision was unpopular, at least with Vote Them Out.
As Justice Bolick pointed out in an Arizona Republic op-ed, judges in a merit system are handicapped in a politics-based election. They can’t personally raise funds or seek endorsements. They have strict ethical limits on what they can discuss. Their opponents have no such restraints.
It’s telling that justices at all levels are commonly referred to as “liberal” or “conservative.” Such political labels should only matter if justices are policymakers, which they are not. The critical descriptor which matters for justices is “pro-Constitution” versus “pro-some interest group’s opinion.”
Americans seem to have little regard for the values and institutions which are the foundations of our own national greatness. Our independent judiciary distinguishes us from corrupt autocracies everywhere and throughout time. We disrespect it at our own peril.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
In February 2023, pro-life activist Maison DesChamps, known to many as the “Pro-Life Spiderman,” free-climbed the Chase Tower in Phoenix, Arizona—no ropes or extensions, just his hands and a bag of chalk. His mission was to bring attention to the grave evil of abortion and advocate for women facing crisis pregnancies. Many, like Maison, understand it as a moral atrocity, a modern-day holocaust. Not only does abortion take innocent lives, but it also leaves lasting emotional scars on women who undergo the procedure.
Maison’s daring climb, reaching the peak of the tallest building in Arizona, was a heartfelt plea for life and a call to action for humanity. His aim was to expose the brutal truth about abortion, shedding light on the horrific dismemberment of unborn infants—a grim reality often shrouded in secrecy and deceit.
In addition to his activism, DesChamps founded the nonprofit organization Anti-Abortion-Front, dedicated to rescuing those “being led away to death” and holding back those “staggering toward slaughter” (Proverbs 24:11).
In stark contrast to DesChamps’ fight against abortion, the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment could soon be up for a vote. The final decision on whether it will appear on the November 2024 ballot will be made on July 3rd, after it is determined if the campaign has collected enough signatures. This initiative seeks to enshrine the right to abortion until birth in the Arizona State Constitution. This amounts to the legalized murder of children who could otherwise survive outside the womb.
DesChamps’ actions challenge the public to realize the truth—that murder is murder regardless of how old a human is. But the difference between his punishment for a peaceful protest and the potential legalization of late-term abortion highlights a profound hypocrisy, and it prompts a critical reflection on justice and morality in a country that is supposed to be the freest in the world.
Despite the peaceful nature of his protest, authorities charged DesChamps with trespassing. As of Tuesday, June 4, Maison was admitted into a Maricopa County jail, where he is expected to spend the next week. Supporters argue that his imprisonment is a gross injustice, as his actions were driven by a deep sense of compassion and a desire to advocate for those who cannot speak for themselves.
Maison DesChamps now faces significant legal fees and associated costs, and there’s even a GiveSendGo campaign to help cover these expenses. But Maison would be the first to say it’s worth it to highlight the unparalleled need to defend innocent babies in the womb. If our society can imprison someone for peacefully protesting to protect life while allowing the potential for laws like the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment that permit killing a baby right before birth, we face a grave hypocrisy. Maison’s climb is a passionate plea for humanity to recognize that abortion is murder and that we cannot stand idly by. We have a responsibility to take action against it.
WATCH: ‘Pro-life Spiderman’ shares why he scaled 40-story Chase Tower
Katarina White serves as Legislative District Co-Chair for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed with the “Decline to Sign” initiative, visit the Arizona Right to Life website. Katarina also delves deeper into the proposed amendment through the “Conservative Seoul Show,” where she presents the “Sanctity Unveiled” segment. You can join her as she explores the challenges faced by the sanctity of life in the State of Arizona here.
The latest poll released from Noble Predictive Insights has shown that, when compared to a pre-abortion ban reversal poll last year, public opinion on abortion in Arizona has remained largely the same, with the state’s apparent rejection of abortion on demand or “legal under any circumstances” remaining consistent with 60% of respondents. Of the voters opposed, 11% said abortion should be illegal regardless of circumstances while 49% said it should be permitted “only under certain circumstances.”
The poll, conducted by NPI from May 7-14, compared consistently with a similar February poll that predated the state Supreme Court ruling on the 1864 abortion ban re-activated by the reversal of the Roe v. Wade ruling. David Byler, NPI Chief of Research said in a press release, “When Roe was overturned, a significant chunk of the electorate moved left on abortion. But the 1864 law didn’t have a comparable effect in Arizona. The governor and legislature moved quickly on the 1864 law, so it didn’t change the landscape much.”
Among the voters who agreed that abortion is acceptable under “certain circumstances” the support for each reason broke down as:
Cases where the mother’s life was endangered (85%)
Instances of rape (82%)
Cases of incest (78%)
Babies at risk of severe complications (57%)
Within a certain timeframe (45%)
47% support within the first 6 weeks of pregnancy (within the first missed menstrual cycle/prior to a heartbeat).
43% support up to 15 weeks (roughly the end of the first trimester of pregnancy).
Support significantly drops off at 24 weeks or late-term with only 9% and again at 40 weeks or full-term at just 1%.
The pro-abortion politicos and activists who are working on a ballot initiative to enshrine a “right to abortion” up to any point before fetal viability (typically between 22-24 weeks) are likely to find the battle a contentious one with Arizonans evenly split according to NPI at 41% in favor and 41% against, fighting for the 18% of undecided voters.
As noted above, only 9% of those polled were comfortable with the 22-24 week timeframe with a majority of the support resting at the six and fifteen week marks. Arizona’s current statute places the limit at fifteen weeks already.
As reported by Tucson.com, the language of the initiative could prove even more problematic with the determining point of “fetal viability” being “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.”
The poll also indicated that abortion, though important, is hardly an Arizonan’s top priority. Twenty-two percent of registered voters in Arizona said that immigration was the most important of their top three issues, with abortion only amounting to 12%. Inflation weighed heavily with 19% of voters naming it as their top issue. Affordable housing accounted for 12% of the first choice with climate change, taxes, national defense, healthcare, education, the income gap, LGBT rights, and gun policies all coming it at single digits.
Simply put, Tuesday’s poll appears to indicate that the upcoming election in Arizona could be far more decisively driven by economic factors than abortion, an issue where Arizonans’ opinions seem to be largely locked-in.
