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 milliontoward 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.
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.
