by Daniel Stefanski | Nov 8, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
The right to an abortion will now be enshrined in the Arizona Constitution after voters approved a radical ballot measure on Tuesday night.
Proposition 139 passed in the Grand Canyon State, receiving over 61% of the vote as of Thursday night. It will create a “fundamental right” for abortion up to “fetal viability” and allows a baby’s life to be ended potentially up until birth.
Arizona for Abortion Access released a short statement on its social media platform after the outcome became clear, stating, “We did it! Arizona has overwhelmingly voted to protect abortion access! We proved, yet again, that Arizona is a state that values freedom and individual rights. Thank you to the thousands of voters, volunteers, and donors – this victory belongs to you.”
Pastor Eric Jones, who helped organize a large coalition of local faith leaders against Prop 139, bemoaned the result of the campaign in a statement posted to his Facebook account. Jones wrote, “While I mourn and lament over the passage of Prop 139, there remains a silver lining as over 700 Arizona Christian pastors crossed denominational and doctrinal lines to unite over this biblical issue and take a stand for the sanctity of human life. Our unity and willingness to stand together pleases the Lord. “How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity (Psalm 133:1)! And so, let us not grow weary in doing good and let us pray without ceasing. God, have mercy on us.”
Cathi Herrod, another pro-life advocate against this ballot measure, issued a warning about the effects of this amendment on her state, saying, “Arizona will come to regret passing Prop 139 – when girls and women lose their doctors and safeguards, when parents get shut out, when a staggering number of unborn lives end before they even begin, and when voters realize they have been lied to by proponents who would say anything to pass their extreme abortion amendment.”
Herrod added, “I suspect abortion activists know, and that is why they deceitfully lied to voters, telling them there was a ban – when there was no ban – and shamefully telling them women cannot get treatment for miscarriages without passing the proposition. Again, false. But Prop 139 was never about protecting women; it has always been about unregulated and unlimited abortion.”
For several decades, Arizona had been one of the most pro-life states in the country – largely thanks to Republican legislators, governors, and effective activists. Because of the constitutional amendment being passed by voters, a simple majority of the members of the state legislature would not be able to reform any of the policies enacted by the measure.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Oct 23, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona’s Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs is insisting that the Prop 139 amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would state, “Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion,” would not include minors. However, prominent critics of the Proposition, such as Cindy Dahlgren, communications director for Center for Arizona Policy Action, says different. Dahlgren told reporters, “It would clearly be argued that ‘every individual’ includes minors.”
In the text of the Proposition, the new amendment would read:
“Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion, and the state shall not enact, adopt or enforce any law, regulation, policy or practice that does any of the following:
- Denies, restricts or interferes with that right before fetal viability unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means.
- 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.
- Penalizes any individual or entity for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the individual’s right to abortion as provided in this section.”
The legal definition of “individual” is key to this argument:
- According to A.R.S. 18-551, under Arizona law, an “individual” is defined as, “a resident of this state who has a principal mailing address in this state as reflected in the records of the person conducting business in this state.”
- Under A.R.S. 43-104, “‘Individual’ means a natural person.”
- Under family law in Arizona, A.R.S. 25-1202 also clearly establishes that the definition of “individual” applies to minors through the inverse: “’Child’ means an individual, whether over or under the age of majority.”
As reported by the Arizona Capitol Times, Hobbs claimed that even if the amendment to the Arizona Constitution were to overturn current abortion laws requiring parental consent, that minors would still be unable to obtain an abortion without that consent.
“Health care providers would be subject to the same provisions relating to minors as they are under any other circumstance,” Hobbs told the outlet.
However, current Arizona law under A.R.S. 44-132 doesn’t seem to bear that conclusion out. The law in question states clearly:
“The consent of the parent, or parents, of such a person is not necessary in order to authorize hospital, medical and surgical care.”
The Arizona Capitol Times noted that Attorney General Kris Mayes, another Democrat advocate for the sweeping pro-abortion law, told reporters that this major legal distinction would likely need to be settled in court. “If Prop 139 passes, my office will conduct an analysis on its impact to other statutes,” Mayes explained.
“As with most newly passed referendums, litigation may be necessary to determine the specific impact on state law,” she added. “Ultimately, the courts may have to decide how any new constitutional provisions interact with current laws.”
The Arizona Capitol Times also observed that there is existing legal language in statute that addresses a judicial path for a minor to seek abortion without parental consent if she proves to a judge she is “sufficiently mature and capable of giving informed consent.” And while not a majority of the abortions performed involve minors, these cases do present a significant portion, about 12% of the total cited in 2022: 37 out of 250.
The outlet also spoke with Attorney Andrew Gaona, representing Arizona for Abortion Access, who told reporters that the measure would create “a fundamental right to abortion and sets forth the standard that existing and future laws regulating abortion must satisfy.” He also claimed that the new law wouldn’t be definitive on the question of minors.
“How that standard will apply to the more than 40 existing abortion-related statutes if a party chooses to challenge some or all of them will be determined by Arizona courts,” he said.
Bethany Miller, an attorney representing the Center for Arizona Policy told the Arizona Capitol Times that the distinction between Prop 139 and other amendments pertaining to individual rights comes down to the wording. “The Arizona right to bear arms is not ‘fundamental,’” she said, citing a 1994 ruling that declared the right to bear arms a qualified rather than absolute right. “In other words, Arizonans do not have the right to bear arms in any time or any way.”
“By contrast,” she warned, “Prop. 139’s fundamental right is likely to be interpreted as a near absolute right.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 19, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The narrowly passed repeal of Arizona’s complete ban on abortion became effective on Sep. 14th in a moment that is being widely celebrated by pro-abortion Democrats. Although Democrat Gov. Katie Hobbs signed the bill, H.B. 2677, into law in May, the bill only became effective on Saturday.
Under the current legal framework enacted in 2022, the state of Arizona has an effective ban on abortion after 15 weeks. While the Arizona Court of Appeals had previously ruled that the 2022 15-week measure and the total ban enacted by the territorial legislature in 1864 could be “harmonized,” the Arizona Supreme Court rejected this notion.
The Court wrote in its majority opinion, “Our conclusion that the legislature did not intend to create a privilege secured by law to obtain or perform an abortion obviates the need to harmonize §§ 13-3603 and 36-2322. Harmonization between these laws may be accomplished only by repealing § 13-3603 in contravention of the legislature’s express intent and engaging in untenable statutory interpretation such as excising physicians from the plain meaning of ‘person’ in § 13-3603, defined as ‘a human being’ in A.R.S § 13-105(30). And indeed, despite purporting to harmonize the statutes, the dissent’s treatment of § 13-3603 all but nullifies it. We decline to do so.”
The court ruled that following Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the ruling that reversed Roe v. Wade, “Arizona has never independently created a statutory right to abortion. We will not ‘amend a statute judicially [nor] read implausible meaning into express statutory language’ given the absence of an abortion right in Arizona jurisprudence. Kyle v. Daniels, 198 Ariz. 304, 306 ¶ 7 (2000). Therefore, because the federal constitutional right to abortion that overrode § 13-3603 no longer exists, the statute is now enforceable, prospectively prohibiting abortion unless necessary to save a woman’s life.”
As reported by the Associated Press, Hobbs in no way intends to stop at repealing the 1864 ban and intends to install the a “right” to abortion in the state. She said in a statement cited by the AP, “I will continue doing everything in my power to protect reproductive freedoms, because I trust women to make the decisions that are best for them, and know politicians do not belong in the doctor’s office.”
In a May post to X, she outright stated, “Any bill attacking the right to safe and legal abortion access will be vetoed without hesitation.”
Indeed the initiative Proposition 139 created by “Arizona for Abortion Access” will appear on the ballot in November to repeal the 2022 15-week abortion ban and create an amendment for a “fundamental right” for abortion up to “fetal viability” allowing a baby’s life to be ended potentially up until birth.
As previously reported by AZ Free News, a legal battle unfolded between the legislature and the initiative organizers over the use of the phrase “unborn human being” in the description of the initiative. The State Supreme Court found in a 5-2 decision that the legislature’s choice to use the phrase “unborn human being” rather than “fetus” met legal standards.
The state legislative council explains in its 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.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
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 Corinne Murdock | Mar 8, 2024 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
A Scottsdale priest, Fr. Don Kline of St. Bernadette Catholic Church, urged the public to decline to sign a petition advocating for the total legalization of abortion up to birth.
Fr. Kline issued his stance in a statement for the advocacy group, Decline to Sign. The priest encouraged Arizonans to inform abortion advocates seeking signatures that abortions take the life of unborn children, and to inform their neighbors and peers about the petition circulating. Fr. Kline concluded his remarks with a prayer.
“When moments like this happen in our history we know that there is evil present and we need to invite God to be present and to give us the strength to confront this evil,” said Fr. Kline. “We pray, Lord, for the wisdom and the courage to do what we need to do to support these mothers, especially those who are suffering, who are afraid, who are not sure what to do. Raise up good people to support them, that they may be open to life, to the gift of life that God has blessed them with.”
Decline to Sign arose in response to the petition launched by Arizona for Abortion Access (AAA) to put total abortion legalization as a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot. The state currently allows abortions at up to 15 weeks’ gestation.
Fr. Kline and the local clergy aren’t alone in their opposition to the petition.
Last week, Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) and all GOP senators signed and released a statement, the Arizona Right to Life Declaration, urging Arizonans to refuse to sign AAA.
“[I]t is an assault on God’s value and sovereignty regarding the sanctity of human life,” reads the declaration.
AAA’s proposed ballot question would create a “fundamental right to abortion,” meaning it would prohibit the denial, restriction, or intervention with an abortion even after fetal viability if a healthcare professional determines that the unborn child presents a threat, either to her mother’s mental or physical health. The petition defined fetal viability as sustained survival outside the womb without the intervention of “extraordinary medical measures.”
The proposed ballot question has the backing of the state’s top Democratic leaders: Gov. Katie Hobbs signed the petition in December, and a number of leading progressive organizations have issued their endorsements including ACLU of Arizona, Affirm Sexual and Reproductive Health, Healthcare Rising Arizona, Arizona List, NARAL Arizona, and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona (PPAAZ).
AAA has until July 3 to gather nearly 384,000 valid signatures to put the initiative on the ballot.
At the helm of AAA are leaders in the pro-abortion movement such as former PPAAZ chair Chris Love and NARAL Arizona senior advisor Jodi Liggett, and the Tempe-based abortionist Candace Lew. The group also has the campaign finance assistance of one of the key players in Arizona’s Democratic dark money network, Dacey Montoya.
According to Arizona campaign finance records, over $4.5 million of AAA’s $5.8 million in funding has come from out of state advocacy groups:
- Over $3.1 million from the Fairness Project, based in Washington, D.C.;
- $1 million from Advocacy Action Fund, based in California;
- $250,000 from Think Big America, based in Illinois;
- $150,000 from The Green Advocacy, based in Washington, D.C.;
- $20,000 from Our Children Our Future, based in California
Over $1.1 million came from Arizona-based organizations and individuals: $600,000 from Arizonans Fed Up With Failing Health; over $278,300 from Healthcare Rising Arizona; over $117,100 from PPAAZ; $100,000 from Paradise Valley philanthropist Juanita Francis; $21,300 from Arizona List; $10,000 from philanthropist and medical marijuana doctor Gina Berman; $10,000 from Lew; and $5,050 from Reproductive Freedom for All Arizona.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
