A bill proposed by Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., would require abortion providers to show pregnant women their unborn baby on an ultrasound before proceeding with the abortion.
The Ultrasound Informed Consent Act provides pregnant women an opportunity to review ultrasound imaging before ending their baby’s life.
“The Biden Administration’s heinous pro-abortion policies continue to incentivize women to end the lives of innocent, unborn American children. My legislation provides pregnant women a safe and intimate opportunity to rethink their abortion,” Biggs said in a news release. “This subtle but important process change can potentially save millions of unborn lives.”
Under the proposed legislation, the abortion provider must provide an ultrasound, explain what it depicts, display the images to the woman, and provide a complete medical description of the unborn child’s dimensions, cardiac activity, external members, and organs.
The woman is allowed to turn her eyes away without penalty if she does not want to see the image. The bill does not apply to medical emergencies.
Studies show that about 80% of abortion-minded women choose life after viewing their ultrasound.
The bill came during the week of the 51st March for Life, when tens of thousands of people voiced their support for the right to life in Washington, D.C. The legislation has received support from the National Pro-Life Alliance.
“We congratulate Congressman Andy Biggs for taking the leadership on this vital legislation that would ensure that each woman has the right to know the truth about her unborn child,” said Martin Fox, president of the National Pro-Life Alliance. “Congressman Biggs’ Ultrasound Informed Consent Act guarantees that mothers know exactly what an abortion is ending: not just ’tissue’ or a ‘clump of cells’ but the life of her unborn baby.”
Bill co-sponsors include Republican representatives Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, Andy Harris of Maryland, Matthew Rosendale Sr. of Montana, Alex Mooney of West Virginia, Mary Miller of Illinois, Dan Crenshaw of Texas, and Eric Burlison of Missouri.
“Defending the right to life remains one of my top priorities in Congress,” Biggs said.
Elizabeth Troutman is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send her news tips using this link.
Pro-life activists have launched a new campaign to oppose a constitutional amendment that would legalize abortion up to birth in Arizona.
The campaign, “It Goes Too Far” (IGTF), aims to prevent the Arizona Abortion Access Act from qualifying for the ballot this November. In a press release, IGTF campaign manager Leisa Brug said that the amendment would jeopardize the safety of girls and women.
“Arizona abortion laws should protect girls and women, not put them at greater risk, but this amendment asks voters to expand abortion while cutting safety precautions,” said Brug. “What happened to the prized doctor-patient relationship? This takes the required qualified medical doctor out of the doctor-patient relationship and leaves women in the hands of unqualified providers. That is not making the health and safety of women a priority.”
IGTF argues that the abortion amendment would strip the state of any lawmaking authority concerning abortion, including safeguards and parental notice for minors, and would allow abortions up until birth. For the latter claim, IGTF cites the amendment language allowing post-viability exceptions for abortions in cases where a health care professional determines the pregnancy jeopardizes the mother’s mental health.
The activists further claim that the amendment language allowing any “health care professional” to conduct abortions would endanger women by expanding lawful abortionists to include non-physicians and non-doctors. Additionally, IGTF argues that sex abusers would be protected under the amendment’s prohibition against any state laws or regulations penalizing those who aid or assist the mothers obtaining abortions.
IGTF also argues that individuals would be required to finance and even assist in abortions due to language enshrining abortion as a “fundamental right.” The activists say that a lack of taxpayer funding for abortions or a health care professional’s conscience against providing an abortion could be construed as “interference” with obtaining an abortion.
Arizona law classifies a “health care professional” as any person licensed or certified across various chapters and titles of Arizona law, including podiatrists, chiropractors, dentists, naturopaths, nurses, optometrists, pharmacists, physical therapists, psychologists, veterinarians, acupuncturists, athletic trainers, midwives, and more.
IGTF spokeswoman Olivia Escobedo told AZ Free News that their supporters are showing up wherever Arizona Abortion Access Act signature gatherers are situated in order to educate voters on the issue.
“Our supporters are there to let people know how dangerous this amendment is,” said Escobedo. “It has so many hidden agendas in the broad language.”
As part of that effort, IGTF established a database to report where the pro-abortion signature-gatherers set up camp.
Also involved in IGTF campaign are Laureen (Laurie) Mount, co-owner of MDS Communications, and Youssef Khalaf, CEO of both 100 Squared Financial and Data Orbital. The IGTF campaign has both nonprofit and political action committee arms.
Mount and her husband, Jay, are among the top donors for the campaign, along with Dave Lambert.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Imagine a future where abortion is sanctioned until the very moment of birth, parental consent becomes a relic of the past, and taxpayers foot the bill for all abortions.This is not a distant dystopia; it is the gruesome reality that will unfold if a new controversial amendment—the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment—finds its way onto our state’s ballot this November. Now, Arizona voters stand at a crossroads—sign a petition to advance the possibility of this horrific amendment to the Arizona Constitution or decline to sign the petition and stand for the sanctity of life.
The heart of this matter lies in the proposed amendment’s language, asserting, “Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion…” This means that if it gets passed, the Arizona Constitution will be amended to make abortion a fundamental right for all individuals. The amendment’s text also explicitly states that the State shall not enact, adopt, or enforce any law, regulation, policy, or practice that “denies, restricts, or interferes with an abortion after fetal viability that, 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.”
This means that if this amendment passes, it will not only embed abortion as a fundamental right in our state Constitution, but it will remove any constraints on the abortion industry. Just read that direct quote from the proposed amendment again. The text explicitly bars the state from interfering with abortions after fetal viability, contingent upon the “judgment” of a health care professional. Is there any surprise as to why the abortion industry is championing this amendment so heavily? The removal of gestation limits offers abortion businesses unrestricted access to perform abortions at any stage without legal impediments, which will give them significant economic and financial benefits!
Analyzing the language of the amendment reveals three major implications:
Abortion up until birth.
Abortion with no requirement for parental knowledge and/or consent.
Abortion completely funded by taxpayers.
Under this proposed amendment, a 15-year-old girl could abort her baby up until the time of birth, without her parent’s knowledge or consent, and send the bill to taxpayers. That’s not only dangerous, it’s insane.
Proponents of the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment assert that the amendment’s primary objective is to save the mother’s life; however, upon closer examination, the amendment intentionally misleads voters by instilling an urgent fear that the mother’s life is at risk. Anthony Levatino, MD, JD, a board-certified obstetrician gynecologist, challenges this perspective, stating, “There are several serious conditions that can arise or worsen typically during the late second or third trimester of pregnancy that require immediate care. In many of those cases, ending or ‘terminating’ the pregnancy, if you prefer, can be life-saving. But is abortion a viable treatment option in this setting? I maintain that it usually, if not always, is not.” While the amendment writers want the public to believe that this amendment is necessary to save the mother’s life, clearly it’s nothing more than a sympathetic tactic to garner support.
On September 12, 2023, the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment petition campaign began. If petitioners are successful in gathering 383,923 signatures by July 3, 2024, the amendment will appear on Arizona’s ballot this November.
We can’t let that happen.
That’s why it is imperative for Arizona voters, taxpayers, and citizens to take a stand. And many pro-life organizations are doing so right now by leading a grassroots effort to educate Arizonans about why they should “Decline to Sign” this petition.
“Decline to Sign” aims to prevent the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment from even reaching the ballotby engaging in extensive education and awareness efforts. Volunteers associated with this grassroots initiative are dedicated to approaching Arizona voters, taxpayers, and citizens with kindness and providing a comprehensive understanding of the proposed amendment’s potential consequences. “Decline to Sign” volunteers believe that once the proposed amendment’s true nature is revealed, Arizona voters, taxpayers, and citizens can make an educated and informed decision whether to support, or not to support, the proposed amendment. The “Decline to Sign” initiative challenges the proposed amendment’s false impression that it advocates solely for “women’s reproductive health.” The “Decline to Sign” initiative also seeks to shed light on the proposed amendment’s harsh and permanent implications.
The proposed Arizona Abortion Access Amendment presents a crucial juncture in the ongoing discourse about the sanctity of life. As the petition process unfolds, Arizona voters, taxpayers, and citizens face the responsibility to protect the sanctity of life in our state and ensure that the voices of all life within the community are heard.
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.
Attorney General Kris Mayes reaffirmed her pledge to never prosecute abortionists, regardless of state law.
Mayes made the remarks during a press conference following the Arizona Supreme Court oral arguments in Planned Parenthood v. Mayes on Tuesday. The attorney general said that other issues were more important to her, like prosecuting drug dealers giving fentanyl to minors.
“No, we will not be doing abortion prosecutions in Arizona while I’m attorney general, ever,” said Mayes. “We have much more important issues to decide and work on in this state.”
Earlier this summer, Gov. Katie Hobbs issued an executive order that took away all prosecutorial power from the 15 county attorneys concerning abortion law, and gave it to Mayes. That move effectively nullified the possibility for prosecutions of abortionists.
Mayes opted to not dispute the court of appeals ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Mayes from last year, which determined that the 2022 law restricting abortions to 15 weeks’ gestation was to be implemented, and not the near-total abortion ban dating back to Arizona’s territorial days.
Instead, Mayes has backed efforts to expand abortion access in Arizona and other states.
On Wednesday, Mayes joined 10 other attorneys general to issue a statement of condemnation to the Texas Supreme Court. That court overturned an injunction on the state’s abortion ban awarded to a Texas woman seeking to abort her daughter.
Mayes claimed that the health and life of the Texas woman, Kate Cox, were at risk due to the Trisomy 18 diagnosis of her unborn child. Texas abortion law enables abortions in pregnancies that are considered life-threatening or presenting a risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function. Per Texas law, medical professionals determine which pregnancies qualify for that exception.
“No one should be forced to fight in court and leave their home state just to receive the health care they need,” read the statement. “As this case shows, abortion bans pose dangerous health and safety threats wherever they are enacted. Decisions about abortion care should be made between patients and their doctors, not politicians.”
I join my fellow attorneys general in condemning the Texas Supreme Court's decision to deny abortion access to Kate Cox, a pregnant woman whose health & life were at risk as a result of a lethal fetal diagnosis. She was forced to travel out of state to receive abortion care. pic.twitter.com/DltGxPuVAq
The Texas Supreme Court overturned the injunction because Cox’s doctor couldn’t declare that her pregnancy threatened Cox’s life or major bodily functions.
“A woman who meets the medical-necessity exception need not seek a court order to obtain an abortion. Under the law, it is a doctor who must decide that a woman is suffering from a life-threatening condition during a pregnancy, raising the necessity for an abortion to save her life or to prevent impairment of a major bodily function. The law leaves to physicians — not judges — both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient,” stated the court. “[Cox’s doctor] asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion yet she could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox’s condition poses the risk the exception requires.”
In August, Mayes joined a coalition of 20 attorneys general to challenge Idaho’s ban on minors traveling to other states to obtain an abortion. In May, Mayes joined an amicus brief challenging a Texas ruling blocking federal approval of the controversial abortion drug mifepristone.
Since taking office, Mayes has encouraged major pharmacy chains to continue to offer mifepristone regardless of legal challenges.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court held oral arguments on the state’s two conflicting abortion bans in the case Planned Parenthood et al v. Kristin Mayes/Hazelrigg.
The court is determining the fate of two conflicting laws: the total abortion ban outlawing all but life-saving abortions, in existence prior to Arizona achieving statehood with versions dating back to Arizona’s first laws as a territory in 1864, and the 2022 ban restricting abortions to 15 weeks’ gestation except in cases of medical emergency. The latter law was codified just months before the Supreme Court overturnedRoe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, who has refused to defend the pre-statehood ban, declared the day before the oral arguments that the ban would relegate Arizonans to a lesser, premodern society.
“Arizonans cannot be shoved back to the 1860s,” said Mayes.
Tomorrow, the Arizona Supreme Court will hear arguments on the harmonization of two conflicting statutes on abortion. The consequences of this case are huge. Arizonans cannot be shoved back to the 1860s. https://t.co/rrfc7wI5AJ
Gov. Katie Hobbs encouraged voters to sign the ballot petition to legalize all abortion up to birth.
If you’re as outraged as I am that there’s a possibility for a Civil War-era abortion ban to go into effect in 2023, then take action right now and sign the petition to put a right to abortion on Arizona’s ballot next November by going to https://t.co/ZYodddLbWGpic.twitter.com/9NqlGdl3fX
Stepping up to defend the pre-statehood ban in Mayes’ stead and first to speak during Tuesday’s oral arguments was Jake Warner, an attorney with the Scottsdale-based conservative Christian legal organization, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
Warner proposed that a certain continuity exists between the pre-statehood ban, which the court referred to as the “territorial law,” and the 2022 ban limiting abortions to 15 weeks’ gestation.
Per Warner, the pre-statehood ban imposes a certain authority on the 2022 statute: all abortions prior to 15 weeks must be life-saving, and that abortions after 15 weeks must not only be life-saving but based on a medical emergency. Warner said that the language of the 2022 statute gave express direction to give deference to the pre-statehood ban.
Chief Justice Robert Brutinel and Vice Chief Justice Ann Timmer didn’t appear convinced of the argument. The pair indicated that physicians would be confused by the two statutes.
"Arizona’s law affirms that life is a human right. I am hopeful that the court will uphold this life-saving principle." – ADF's Jake Warner pic.twitter.com/YmlmnV4zvy
On the subject of ectopic pregnancies — an oft-referenced terminal condition in the abortion debate — Warner said that physicians wouldn’t be punished for their removal, since ectopic pregnancies constitute a medical emergency and their removal constitutes a life-saving measure.
Warner said that the 2022 restriction doesn’t repeal the pre-statehood abortion ban, because it created no new right to an abortion. Brutinel posited that the legislative intent with the newer law was to legalize abortion up to 15 weeks’ gestation. Warner countered that the legislature’s intent with its 2022 restriction was to ensure that it protected unborn life to the greatest extent possible.
Justice Clint Bolick questioned how the current law doesn’t conflict with the territorial ban, challenging the implication that something that wasn’t able to be prosecuted prior to Dobbs could now be prosecuted. Likewise, Brutinel said that a physician couldn’t have been prosecuted for conducting abortions under the new law. Warner responded that the language of the 2022 statute only purports to regulate terminations after 15 weeks, not before.
Counsel for Planned Parenthood Arizona, Andy Gaona, argued that the state legislature has displayed a progressive permissiveness when it comes to allowable abortions. Gaona stopped short of declaring the existence of a right to abortion at the outset of his arguments, but did declare, repeatedly, that abortion constituted a form of health care in closing.
“We have never maintained the right to an abortion exists,” said Gaona. “Abortion is health care. I’m not sure anyone has ever said that in this courtroom.”
Planned Parenthood counsel closing remarks before the Arizona Supreme Court: "Abortion is health care. I'm not sure anyone has ever said that in this courtroom." pic.twitter.com/NKh4O6fD6v
Contrary to what Warner posited, Gaona argued that the 2022 law allows abortions up to 15 weeks without prosecutions, citing the previous court of appeals decision. Timmer asked whether the state legislature would need to declare a right to an abortion in order to permit that interpretation; Gaona responded that the legislature only needs to regulate criminal conduct to do so, arguing that criminal laws allow that which they don’t criminalize.
Bolick pointed out the 2022 law specifically referenced the territorial law in its construction:
“This act does not […] Repeal, by implication or otherwise, section 13-3603, Arizona Revised Statutes, or any other applicable state law regulating or restricting abortion,” stated the provision.
Gaona disagreed. He said that the court of appeals’ harmonization of the statutes didn’t repeal the pre-statehood law, even by removing prosecution, because the 2022 law now qualifies as the criminal prohibition for elective abortions. Gaona clarified that a physician couldn’t be prosecuted under the territorial statute, but could under the 2022 law if they conduct abortions after 15 weeks.
Gaona argued that a series of statutes that aren’t self-referential or fail to include language repealing an old statute qualify as an implied repeal. Gaona said that if the legislature’s intent was to resurrect the pre-statehood ban, it should’ve stated that clearly “and it clearly didn’t do that.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
