On Wednesday, Democratic Maricopa County Attorney candidate Julie Gunnigle denied allegations of partnering with an abortion clinic accused of fetal organ sales.
Gunnigle issued the denial in response to a text campaign survey which asked voters about their attitude toward Gunnigle’s connection to an abortion clinic that “violated federal law by harvesting and selling organs for profit.” Gunnigle called the allegation a “new low” and denounced her opponent, Maricopa County attorney Rachel Mitchell, for having supporters that would issue the text.
“This ‘survey’ which is untrue, hurtful, and reprehensible has no place in politics and is a disservice to her constituents, particularly coming from someone in an office reeling from lack of integrity,” stated Gunnigle.
Today I was accused of…being part of a fetal organ harvesting operation?!?
The origins of the allegation that Gunnigle partnered with a fetal organ harvesting operation likely originated with a viral report from earlier this month. The Washington Free Beacon reported on Gunnigle’s campaign event in 2020 with Camelback Family Planning, an abortion clinic that harvested and sold fetal organs from 2010 to 2015.
The Washington Free Beacon report also noted Gunnigle’s recent fundraising efforts for another abortion clinic, Desert Star Family Planning, whose founder made light of fetal organ harvesting.
NEW: Soros-Backed Arizona DA Candidate Partners With Abortion Clinics That Sold Fetal Organs
In addition to endorsements from both abortion clinics, Gunnigle benefits from the Democratic dark money network’s kingpin, George Soros, whose Open Society Policy Center bankrolled Planned Parenthood lobbying after investigative journalist David Daleiden released undercover videos of abortion providers selling fetal tissue. Those videos sparked national controversy.
The House Committee on Oversight and Reform has a “Planned Parenthood Fact v. Fiction” page countering Daleiden’s claims. The committee notes that Planned Parenthood recoups only the cost of transferring the fetal parts, drawing the distinction between “sale” and “profit.”
In March, months ahead of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, Gunnigle pledged to not prosecute anyone who broke laws limiting or prohibiting abortions if elected.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell announced on Tuesday that her office wouldn’t prosecute women who obtain an abortion, citing the ongoing legal confusion over state law on abortion.
Mitchell disclosed that her office hasn’t received any case submittals relating to abortion. However, if any submittals were to come through, Mitchell promised that she would seek court guidance before taking any action.
“I know this is a highly emotionally-charged subject, and I want the community to know: I will not prosecute women for having abortions,” said Mitchell. “And no statute even suggests that a woman will ever be prosecuted for her decision.”
Mitchell added that she wouldn’t further victimize rape, incest, or molestation victims by prosecuting them. She implied that her detractors were spreading lies in order to sow fear for political gain. That final comment was likely directed at her opponent, Democratic candidate Julie Gunnigle.
In response, Gunnigle accused Mitchell of “flip-flop[ping]” on her position on prosecuting abortion cases. Gunnigle contended that Mitchell’s promise to enforce the law was contradictory.
Do you know why you shouldn’t wear flip-flops while you’re running?
Because it’s dangerous. This flip-flop by unelected County Attorney Mitchell is dangerous. /🧵 https://t.co/v6pAqR4DC0
Planned Parenthood endorses Gunnigle. Earlier this week, the abortion organization petitioned the Pima County Superior Court to implement a stay on its ruling last week, which lifted the 1973 injunction on Arizona’s total abortion ban.
PPAA is proud to announce our endorsement of Julie Gunnigle for Maricopa County Attorney. Gunnigle is a local attorney and activist who continues to fight for reproductive freedom, justice in our criminal legal system, and funding in our public schools. @JulieGunniglepic.twitter.com/GQkRqOtiri
— Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona (@ppazaction) March 28, 2022
At present, two abortion laws are in effect: one limiting abortions to 15 weeks, and another banning abortions entirely save in cases where the mother’s life is at stake.
While the state of abortion law is in legal limbo in Arizona, local governments are determining their next moves.
Tucson led the way, preceding the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling by passing a resolution in early June that effectively established the city as a safe haven for abortions. The resolution allowed the police to not arrest anyone who violated abortion law.
AZ Free News reached out to the Phoenix City Council and the Phoenix mayor’s office concerning their promise last month to pass a resolution prohibiting the use of city resources to enforce abortion laws. We are awaiting a response.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Following the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) rejection of a constitutional right to abortion, two Arizona organizations still advertise abortion funding. They’re the Abortion Fund of Arizona (AFAZ) and the Tucson Abortion Support Collective (TASC).
AZ Free News reached out to AFAZ and TASC for comment. AFAZ confirmed that they’ve continued providing abortion funding, but TASC never responded with comment.
AFAZ serves all of Arizona, offering funding on a first-come, first-serve basis according to their monthly budget, averaging 40-50 callers a month. In order to qualify, pregnant women seeking abortions must have an appointment scheduled at an abortion clinic. Pregnancies over 16 weeks gestation are prioritized. AFAZ also offers resources for other logistics: meals, gas, Rhogam vaccine, and childcare funding, as well as transportation and lodging arrangements.
In 2020, AFAZ pledged over $100,000 to women seeking abortions, and in 2021 they pledged over $80,000.
AFAZ launched in 2017 through Pro-Choice Arizona. Pro-Choice Arizona and AFAZ once operated under the NARAL Pro-Choice America network, but achieved independence in 2019. Pro-Choice Arizona is also a member of the Arizona Reproductive Justice Coalition.
Current members of the Arizona Reproductive Justice Coalition include Organized Poder, Parteras De Maiz, and Trans Queer Pueblo. Black Lives Matter (BLM) Phoenix-Metro was one of their past members.
Funding abortion is a radical act of compassion. This year we have seen a drastic uptick in financial need, especially due to the ongoing economic loss and struggle from the pandemic. Become a monthly donor to support abortion access! https://t.co/JP60e1ttkGpic.twitter.com/Jpiz6yWKFH
TASC serves Southern Arizona. In addition to assisting with abortion funding, TASC offers logistical resources such as transportation, legal aid, “abortion doula services,” and walkthroughs of Arizona’s abortion law.
On their website, TASC warns pregnant women against crisis pregnancy centers. TASC claimed that these centers are “designed to intentionally mislead women” with “medically inaccurate information about pregnancy, fetal development, and abortion” and “lies, manipulation, and threatening or intimidating language.” As proof of their claims, TASC links to NARAL Pro-Choice America’s article, “The Truth About Crisis Pregnancy Centers.”
TASC then lists the crisis pregnancy centers in the Tucson area.
Playwright and actor Lin-Manuel Miranda, announced earlier this month that TASC was one of the abortion services receiving funds from his “Hamilton”-affiliated campaign to support abortions, “Hamilton 4 Choice.”
The announcement came about a week before Miranda served a cease-and-desist to a McAllen, Texas church for putting on a Christianized version of “Hamilton,” edited to discuss Biblical values.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Phoenix leadership may prohibit the use of city resources to enforce abortion restrictions or bans, according to a forthcoming resolution.
Although the resolution isn’t available for public review yet, city officials gave confirmation of its existence to the newly-launched Phoenix arm of Axios on Monday. The city council tasked staff to craft the resolution in June, according to City Attorney Cris Meyer.
I'm thrilled by the engagement we've seen from the community this month.💪🎉
Working with staff on an abortion ban policy response, updating the PHX Housing Plan, & continuing heat relief outreach are some of my top priorities for when Council heads back into session on 8/31. pic.twitter.com/Ubh9yINThC
— Councilwoman Yassamin Ansari (@District7PHX) August 2, 2022
Following the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling that rejected the existence of a constitutional right to abortion, Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego declared that the city was pro-choice.
“A majority of the city council and I have no interest in using city resources to prevent women from accessing health care,” said Gallego.
I am deeply disappointed by today’s Supreme Court decision. Phoenix is a pro-choice city. A majority of the city council and I have no interest in using city resources to prevent women from accessing health care.
Gallego’s communications director, Jeanine L’Ecuyer, announced earlier this summer that the council was deciding between three separate actions: formal opposition to the SCOTUS decision, a petition to the Arizona state legislature to legalize abortions, and the prohibition of city resources for enforcing abortion laws.
In July, Councilwoman Yassamin Ansari declared that prohibiting enforcement of Arizona laws on abortion was the city’s way of fighting back. Ansari has also called for cities to fund abortion travel expenses.
A month has passed since SCOTUS rescinded the federal abortion rights – Phoenix is fighting back.
By lending unapologetic support for abortion access and ensuring no city resources are used to enforce extremist state laws, we can show that we are a city of choice and freedom. pic.twitter.com/Txt5o4EvYT
— Councilwoman Yassamin Ansari (@District7PHX) July 28, 2022
The abortion industry in Arizona has largely come to a halt, due to uncertainties of current law. Arizona has several laws regulating abortion. The oldest law predating statehood, thereby preceding SCOTUS’ Roe v. Wade decision, banned abortion completely. Another law codified in March restricts abortions after 15 weeks’ gestation.
Few are willing to provide abortion services. One Phoenix clinic, Camelback Family Planning, continued with its abortion services after a federal judge issued an injunction on a 2021 Arizona law recognizing the personhood of an unborn child. The clinic hasn’t only given abortions to Arizona women — according to abortionist Dr. Gabrielle Goodrick, the clinic has given abortions to women in other states as well.
“It’s inhumane, it’s unethical, it’s not sound medically to have women waiting and traveling,” said Goodrick.
Women in Arizona who don't want children feel grateful for finding an abortion clinic in Phoenix to get the right medication pic.twitter.com/v4xVT5kfTy
The legal hurdles confronting pro-abortionists in Arizona and across the nation prompted Planned Parenthood to take action. The abortion giant pledged to spend $50 million in support of pro-abortion candidates — Democrats — ahead of the upcoming midterm elections in November. The funds will hit Arizona as well as Georgia, Nevada, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
So far this year, Federal Election Commission (FEC) records reflect that Planned Parenthood has only contributed $2,000 to Congressman Tom O’Halleran (D-AZ-01). He’s facing Republican, Trump-endorsed opponent Eli Crane.
In 2020, Planned Parenthood put $28,000 into Arizona through its Arizona division, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona (PPAZ), and several federal leaders: O’Halleran, Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and failed Democratic congressional candidate Hiral Tipirneni.
This year, according to the secretary of state’s campaign finance database, PPAZ has spent over $74,700 so far this year on pro-abortion Democratic candidates. In 2020, PPAZ spent over $211,000.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Monday, a federal judge determined that a 2021 law recognizing the personhood of unborn children was unconstitutionally vague and in conflict with other state laws.
The law, referred to as the “Interpretation Policy,” declares that all state laws should be interpreted and construed to acknowledge that unborn children have the same rights, privileges, and immunities as all other Arizonans. The statute includes specific cause of action exemptions for individuals who perform in vitro fertilization procedures and women who indirectly harm their unborn children due to improper or insufficient self-care.
The law also defines “unborn child” as the “offspring of human beings from conception until birth.” Conception is synonymous with fertilization, although the federal judge in the case, Arizona District Court Judge Douglas Rayes, an Obama appointee, contended that certain medical journals recognized conception as the moment a fertilized egg implants in the uterus.
Rayes opined that Arizona’s Interpretation Policy was unclear in what it meant to “acknowledge” the equal rights of the unborn, pointing to the lack of definition anywhere in Arizona statutes and comparing the variety of definitions offered by Merriam-Webster and Black’s Law Dictionary. He agreed with the plaintiffs that authorities might employ a maximalist view of acknowledging the equal rights of the unborn.
On the subject of definitions, Rayes further contended that neither the Interpretation Policy or any other Arizona law amended the definition of “person” to include unborn children. Rayes added that the legal team of the lead defendant, Attorney General Mark Brnovich, couldn’t explain why that was in court proceedings.
“The Interpretation Policy either does absolutely nothing, or it does something. What that something might be is a mystery or, as Defendants put it, ‘anyone’s guess,’” wrote Rayes. “A law which requires such extraordinary effort to decipher fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it permits and proscribes.”
Brnovich hasn’t issued a statement on Rayes’ ruling. His latest press release announced a lawsuit excoriating the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) latest dishwasher and laundry machine regulations. On the day Rayes issued his ruling, Brnovich only tweeted a statement about an ongoing lawsuit to prohibit charitable donations from being an alternative to class payouts.
Further on in his ruling, Rayes argued that the Interpretation Policy’s personhood requirement conflicted with other current laws regulating abortion: abortion providers’ licensing and credentialing requirements in A.R.S. §§ 36-2155, 36-2153(E), 32-3531(B), 36-449.03(C)(3)(a)–(b); abortion clinic licensing requirements in A.R.S. §§ 36-449.02; 36.449.03; abortion informed consent requirements in A.R.S. §§ 36-2153, 36-2156; abortion statistical and demographic data reporting requirements in A.R.S. §§ 36-449.03(I), 36-2161–62; second trimester abortion method restriction in A.R.S. § 13-3603.01; ban on abortion for reasons of race or sex in A.R.S. § 13-3603.02(A)(1); consent requirements for minors in A.R.S. § 36-2152; and restrictions on telemedicine for abortion care in A.R.S. § 36-3604.
Additionally, Rayes expressed concern that other parts of Arizona’s criminal code could leave abortion providers vulnerable to prosecution since they didn’t have exemptions for lawful abortions, such as statutes on assault, child endangerment, and child abuse.
“Abortion providers do not have fair notice of whether, if they conform their conduct to these laws, they nonetheless may face criminal, civil, or professional liability under other statutes based solely on what licensing, law enforcement, or judicial officials think it means to ‘acknowledge’ the rights of the unborn,” wrote Rayes.
In his concluding remarks, Rayes clarified that his ruling didn’t focus on abortion but rather the law’s justice.
“[This motion] is about giving people fair notice of what the law means so that they know in advance how to comply,” wrote Rayes. “The Interpretation Policy is so vague that it ‘makes it impossible for plaintiffs to do their work with fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required, in violation of their procedural due process rights.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) filed the initial complaint on behalf of doctors Paul Isaacson and Eric Reuss, the National Council of Jewish Women Arizona (NCJW AZ), the Arizona National Organization for Women (AZ NOW), and the Arizona Medical Association (ArMA).
Isaacson is a Phoenix-based abortionist with Family Planning Associates (FPA) Medical Group, and previously a University of Arizona College of Medicine professor. After SCOTUS denied the existence of a constitutional right to abortion last month, Isaacson began crowdfunding $100,000. FPA Medical Group closed due to the current legal limbo concerning abortion in the state.
In an update last Saturday, Isaacson shared that the funds raised — at the time, just under $6,000 — enabled FPA Medical Group to keep its staff employed another week.
“We continued to dismantle the clinic today — very emotional moment taking my diplomas off the wall,” wrote Isaacson.
Our office has concluded the Arizona Legislature has made its intentions clear regarding abortion laws. pic.twitter.com/jvjKXaXKwd
Reuss is a Scottsdale-based OBGYN who served previously on the board of Planned Parenthood of Arizona (PPAZ). Phoenix Magazine named Reuss a “Top Doc” seven times from 2010 to 2018.
Both Isaacson and Reuss have engaged in pro-abortion legal battles alongside ACLU and CRR before. Most recently, the parties came together to defeat Arizona’s requirement that abortion providers inform their patients about reversal procedures prior to taking an abortion pill.
Reuss wrote an opinion piece for the Arizona Republic in 2015 claiming that abortion pill reversal wasn’t evidence-based, calling the requirement “legislative overreach” and “hearsay.”
“There is absolutely no evidence-based data that the process can be reversed,” wrote Reuss.
Certain studies and current treatments for reducing risks of recurring miscarriage and premature births conflict with Reuss’ claim. A study specific to abortion pill reversal found that 64 to 68 percent of pregnancies were saved within 72 hours of taking the first abortion pill.
The Interpretation Policy was one part of a larger bill introduced by State Senator Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix), SB1457. The bill also made it a class 6 felony to abort children due to a genetic abnormality, except in a medical emergency. This provision added to current protections prohibiting the abortion of a child based on its sex or race. Last September, the court issued a preliminary injunction for that restriction. At the end of last month, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) vacated that injunction.
BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court just vacated the injunction in Brnovich v. Isaacson. Arizona’s ban on discriminatory abortions is now in effect. pic.twitter.com/vAZD9iB1WS
Additionally, the bill prohibited public education institution facilities from performing or providing abortions except in a medical emergency. Instead, the bill required that abortion clinics either cremate or inter fetal remains, with the decision of the child’s final resting place given to the mother.
The bill also required that only qualified physicians provide abortion-inducing drugs and prohibited anyone from delivering or mailing those drugs.
Finally, the bill prohibited public or tax money from allocation to research projects using aborted fetal remains.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
