Counteracting the abortion culture requires us to celebrate the gift of children, and to uplift and empower the families who choose life.
By Garrett Riley |
As Arizona grapples with the implications of Proposition 139, a new dynamic in the state’s legislative landscape is emerging. Passed in 2024, the Arizona Abortion Access Act radically expands abortion rights beyond viability, through nine months and up to birth for virtually any reason. We are looking at a future in Arizona that enshrines unrestricted and nearly unregulated abortions.
Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, and a key figure in the pro-life community, expressed concerns about the broad and ambiguous language of Prop 139. Herrod and her organization fear that such terms may overturn well-established measures like informed consent and parental consent laws, which are reasonable safeguards. These laws ensure that women fully know the implications and alternatives before making an abortion decision.
From the pro-life perspective, these measures are not merely legal hurdles but essential ethical considerations that respect both the life of the unborn child and the informed autonomy of women. Herrod’s commitment to challenging vague terms within the proposition underscores a broader dedication to engaging in the democratic process, ensuring that all voices are heard and considered.
The legal battles anticipated over Prop 139 are not solely about restricting rights but are seen as a necessary defense of life and ethical medical practices. Of course, the emphasis on legal challenges to abortion laws must stem from the science that proves life begins from conception, and human rights must be conveyed to the unborn.
Tragically, the potential for existing laws to be swept away without thorough public discussion or consideration of the implications will begin unfolding in 2025 and beyond. As Arizona navigates these complex legal and ethical waters, all pro-life voices play an essential role in representing the electorate concerned with real healthcare, medical ethics, and human rights.
The passage of Prop 139 marks a critical juncture in Arizona’s history of abortion laws. This event not only triggers legal disputes but also offers our pro-life community a chance to promote a society that deeply values human life. Our advocacy transcends legal arguments, aiming to foster a culture committed to life’s intrinsic value, and the importance of the foundational roles children and family play in a healthy society. As we engage in these efforts, the goal is to nurture a community ethos that respects life from conception to natural end, thereby influencing legislative and policy frameworks.
Counteracting the abortion culture requires us to celebrate the gift of children, and to uplift and empower the families who choose life. Arizona Life Coalition (ALC) is dedicated to changing the culture by encouraging pro-life choices through education, collaboration, and acts of charity. We believe that to be pro-life is to be pro-family. By supporting pregnant women and struggling families, we stand as a community that affirms life, strengthens families, and nurtures hope, advocating that one life saved from abortion is worth all our time, money, and efforts.
Garrett Riley is the executive director of the Arizona Life Coalition, with a mission of inspiring pro-life choices through charity, education, and unifying collaboration.
With the certification of the 2024 Elections complete, the battle lines are being drawn in what could amount to a lengthy legal clash over abortion restrictions in the state.
As reported by the Associated Press, the next fight to break out will likely be to render the present abortion law, a 2022 ban on abortions after 15-weeks with the exception of saving a mother’s life, inoperative. Unless and until a court rules or the legislature passes a new statute to align with the newly minted amendment, the 15-week ban remains in effect. It is around this bulwark that pro-life parties are beginning to build a defensive case, or conversely one that attacks the constitutional amendment.
Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes told reporters, “The position of the state of Arizona will be that we agree that abortion is legal in our state.”
Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) told reporters with the AP that the group is working to anticipate any legal challenges to the current statutes and are preparing to legally “intervene where appropriate.”
Darrell Hill, policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona told the wire service, “All the laws that have currently been on the books are under question and are subject to possible challenges at some point.”
Today, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs “celebrates” the passage of Proposition 139 to amend the Arizona Constitution to enshrine a constitutional, fundamental right to an abortion.
It is not a time to celebrate. It is a time to mourn the legal taking of unborn children’s lives and… pic.twitter.com/3vhutP1LX4
In a post to X, the Center for Arizona Policy commented, “Today, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs ‘celebrates’ the passage of Proposition 139 to amend the Arizona Constitution to enshrine a constitutional, fundamental right to an abortion. It is not a time to celebrate. It is a time to mourn the legal taking of unborn children’s lives and the resulting harm to their mothers.”
The advocacy group warned, “Within days, Arizona will see one or more lawsuits that will prove the real intent of Proposition 139: to overturn up to forty of Arizona’s common sense safety standards. Standards that not only protect the viability of unborn children but also the well-being and lives of their mothers. These laws were passed to protect women and their unborn children. Prior to the election, Prop 139 proponents scoffed when we pointed out that the amendment would not only legalize abortion until birth but would put all of Arizona’s common sense abortion safety standards in jeopardy.”
In addition to the 15-week ban, as many as 40 additional statutes require abortion restrictions. They range from requiring pregnant women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound performed at least 24 hours beforehand, to forbiddding abortions explicitly performed due to the existence of a genetic abnormality in an unborn child.
CAP added, “The proponents of this disastrous amendment are revealing what their real agenda has always been: to expand abortion – and their profits – at any cost, even the cost of Arizona women’s health and lives. Governor Hobbs celebrates. Those who value the sanctity of human life at all stages weep. Our commitment remains what it had always been: protect both the woman and her unborn child. We will fight tirelessly to defend these critical, lifesaving measures. We will do all we can to limit the anticipated breadth of Proposition 139.”
Challenges to Prop 139 may range from the vagueness of its standard of “fetal viability,” to how “a compelling state interest,” is defined, with one argument being that preventing murder is in the state’s direct and compelling state interest. Further, allegations that the proposition was only approved through disinformation propagated by Governor Hobbs may lead to legal challenges as well.
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.”
Governor Katie Hobbs, who bedecked the Ninth Floor of the Arizona Executive Tower with the Progress Pride Flag to mark Pride Month, has chosen to also mark the month by vetoing SB 1511. The bill would have required fair treatment for one of the most marginalized groups of all: those who suffer from gender transitions and now seek to reverse the damage, known as ‘de-transitioners.’
Arizona Senator and Vice Chair of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee Janae Shamp (R-Surprise) proposed the “Detransitioner Bill of Rights” in February, which would guarantee an equality of care and medical coverage for those seeking to reverse so-called ‘gender affirming’ care. On February 22, it was passed by the Senate, and on June 12 was sent to Hobbs after passage in the House. The governor issued her veto six days later with the comment: “This bill is unnecessary and would create a privacy risk for patients,” and no further explanation.
According to Greg Scott, the Vice President of Policy at the Center for Arizona Policy, the bill was a “simple ‘good faith’ bill that levels the health care playing field for a vulnerable population of Arizonans and takes the politics out of medicine and insurance coverage.” In an Op-Ed for the AZ Capitol Times, Scott added, “The purpose of SB 1511 is not to pronounce judgment about the merits or the dangers of gender transition. And it doesn’t. Rather, it does what a law is supposed to do – solve a real problem affecting real people.”
Responding to the veto from Hobbs, Sen. Shamp wrote in a press release, “If doctors are going to block the natural puberty process of children and surgically alter the genitalia of people struggling with gender dysphoria, they must be prepared to undo the damage – as much as possible.”
“And if insurers are going to pay for gender-altering drugs and surgeries, they must also pay for any effort to regain the victim’s God-given identity. My heart goes out to the growing number of people, especially children, who are struggling with their identity and are being pushed into physically altering their bodies as a solution, instead of receiving the mental healthcare they deserve. Shame on Governor Hobbs for sending a message that the institutions tasked with protecting their health and wellbeing have turned their backs on them.”
🚨 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Hobbs Marks "Pride Month" by Denying Necessary Medical Treatment for Growing Number of Detransitioners
Shamp added, “I’m fighting for equal treatment for people like Chloe Cole, who traveled to the Capitol from out of state to share her heartbreaking experience of the irreversible damage and regret from attempting to transition into the opposite sex,” said Senator Shamp. “As a child who was confused with her gender identity, she was given puberty blockers and underwent a double mastectomy. She has since detransitioned and struggles with the severe damage left behind. It’s unfathomable that we consider mutilating an undeveloped child’s body as “healthcare,” but what’s even more horrifying is the fact that we deny them access to care when they go on to suffer the mental and physical consequences.”
WATCH:
Speaking to a press conference on February 1, Cole told reporters, “Everything that I went through did nothing to address the underlying mental health issues I had. My doctors, with their gender theories, thought all my troubles would go away as soon as I was transformed into something that vaguely resembled a boy. Their theories were wrong. I now have two giant scars across my chest that remind me every day that I was butchered by the institutions that we all thought we could trust. The drugs and surgeries changed my body, but they did not and could not change the undeniable reality that I am, and forever will be, a female.”
According to the release, SB 1511 would have “required insurers and providers of gender-altering drugs and surgeries to also provide and cover detransition procedures. This bill would have held health care providers and insurance companies accountable for the damage they cause by prescribing off-label drugs and experimenting on children and adults with irreversible surgeries.”
When asked by AZ Free News if she intends to reintroduce SB 1511 or another bill like it, Shamp said, “Absolutely. This legislation will continue until there is coverage for detransitioners.”
“Will it be run again?” she continued. “Absolutely. It might actually get more robust to include more informed consent with patients who are transitioning. Patients need to know that insurance companies will not cover detransition.”
On its last day of the term, the U.S. Supreme Court gave a major victory for the First Amendment, leading to mixed reactions from Arizona elected officials and advocates.
In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for 303 Creative LLC in the case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. The case centered on a Colorado businesswoman, Ms. Lorie Smith, who “filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the State from forcing her to create websites celebrating marriages that defy her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman.” The majority coalition in the Court held that “the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.”
As part of his prevailing opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote, “But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong. Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider ‘unattractive,’ post, at 38 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.), ‘misguided, or even hurtful,’ Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574. But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is reversed.”
The opinion sparked applause and outrage across the country – especially in Arizona. Center for Arizona Policy, one of the state’s influential pro-life and pro-family organizations, released a statement to cheer on the decision from the six justices in the majority, writing, “The ruling is a huge victory for those who do not want government telling them what to say or what messages they must create. That goes for the liberal publisher who does not want to publish a book with conservative views, as well as for the religious website designer who does not want to promote weddings that violate her religious beliefs. Today’s ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis acknowledges the difference between disagreement and discrimination by distinguishing between serving all people and promoting all messages. Lorie Smith happily designs websites for all customers but cannot create messages that run counter to her deeply held beliefs. Her decision is based on the message, not the person. Today, the Court affirms that difference.”
Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes took the opposite view, saying, “Today, a woefully misguided majority of the United States Supreme Court has decided that businesses open to the public may, in certain circumstances, discriminate against LGBTQ+ Americans. While my office is still reviewing the decision to determine its effects, I agree with Justice Sotomayor – the idea that the Constitution gives businesses the right to discriminate is ‘profoundly wrong.’”
Mayes added that “Despite today’s ruling, Arizona law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, including discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity. If any Arizonan believes that they have been the victim of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, or ancestry in a place of public accommodation, they should file a complaint with my office. I will continue to enforce Arizona’s public accommodation law to its fullest extent.”
The Arizona House Democrats Caucus also weighed in on the decision, tweeting, “This is not about weddings. This is about creating a religious right to discriminate against protected classes across a broad front of services, taking our country back to Jim Crow. And using a fake case to do it. Shameful.”
Republican Representative Travis Grantham, the Arizona House Speaker Pro Tempore, responded to the Democrats’ attack: “And the award for dumbest take ever goes to……”
The Arizona Attorney General’s position on the case’s outcome is a complete reversal of her predecessor’s, who, in 2022, co-led a coalition of states in filing an amicus brief, which urged the nation’s high court “to defend the First Amendment rights of business owners.” At that time, Mark Brnovich said, “Owners of small companies do not give up their constitutional rights as a cost of doing business. Freedoms of speech, belief, and expression are at the core of who we are as Americans, and our government is out of line to infringe on them.”
ICYMI: Our office co-led a coalition, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to defend the 1A rights of business owners.
Freedoms of speech, belief, and expression are at the core of who we are as Americans, and our government is out of line to infringe on them. https://t.co/1PTOi9oEb5
