by Corinne Murdock | Jun 24, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Gov. Katie Hobbs exercised her executive authority to take the enforcement of abortion law into her own hands.
On Friday — almost one year to the day that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade via Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — Hobbs issued an executive order rescinding county attorneys’ authority to prosecute in abortion-related cases, instead granting sole authority to Attorney General Kris Mayes. In a statement, Hobbs characterized abortion as a “fundamental right.”
“I signed an Executive Order protecting Arizonans’ reproductive freedom,” said Hobbs. “I will not allow extreme and out of touch politicians to get in the way of the fundamental rights of Arizonans.”
In addition to strengthening control over abortion prosecutions, Hobbs’ executive order directed state agencies to not assist in investigations relating to those who provide, assist, seek, or obtain abortions; banned compliance with other states’ extradition requests for those who provided, assisted, sought, or received an abortion where illegal; and established an advisory council to formulate strategy on expanding abortion access.
The executive order declared that abortion restrictions and bans were inimical to equity for those who get the most abortions: non-white, disabled, and poor individuals. The order also declared abortion as a form of freedom.
“[L]imitations on access to reproductive healthcare disproportionately impact people of color, people who live in rural and tribal communities, people with low incomes, and people with disabilities,” stated the order.
READ THE EXECUTIVE ORDER HERE
In addition to abortions, the Governor’s Advisory Council on Protecting Reproductive Freedom will be charged with expanding access and implementing equitable solutions concerning sexual and reproductive health care resources. Hobbs will appoint the council chair and members. The executive order noted that the council would “reflect the diversity” of Arizona to include indigenous, rural, and LGBTQ+ members.
Planned Parenthood, an abortion provider which also offers sexual and reproductive health care items, expanded their resources over the past year to include gender transition drugs like puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy.
Pro-life groups challenged Hobbs’ statutory authority behind the executive order immediately.
In a press release, Center for Arizona Policy claimed that state law only allows for the attorney general to aid county attorneys in their duties — not replace them.
“Arizona law, A.R.S. 41-101, Section 8 states that the governor ‘may require the attorney general to aid a county attorney in the discharge of his duties.’ Aid does not mean supplant or replace. In her zeal for abortion, Gov. Hobs has exceeded her authority as governor,” stated Herrod. “The law does not allow her to strip county attorneys of their clear enforcement authority as granted in various Arizona laws.”
Hobbs preceded the executive order with an announcement of support for the Arizona Right to Contraception Act on Thursday.
Arizona law currently bans abortion after 15 weeks’ gestation.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | May 28, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The pro-life group Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) has asked the Arizona Supreme Court to reverse a lower court ruling nullifying the state’s total abortion ban.
The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled in December that, because the state legislature hadn’t attempted to eliminate elective abortions following and in spite of the Roe v. Wade ruling, the state legislature wouldn’t currently support the long-dormant ban.
CAP submitted their amicus brief in the case Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes on Monday. In the brief, CAP pointed out that the decades-old injunction preventing the enforcement of the state’s abortion ban was contingent on the authority of Roe as law of the land. CAP also noted that most states with abortion bans following the Roe ruling repealed their bans, yet Arizona didn’t over the last 50 years.
“Recall that the legislature had two choices under Roe: allow the abortion free-for-all that Roe created or seek to limit abortion,” wrote CAP. “Eliminating elective abortion was not an option; Arizona’s law doing precisely that was already enjoined.”
CAP argued that the legislature had expressed legislative intent to protect unborn children at all stages of gestation on multiple occasions. The organization noted that Arizona had also attempted in 2012, unsuccessfully, to prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks gestation. CAP also noted that the state legislature enacted a statute in 2021 to direct all provisions of Arizona law to “be interpreted to acknowledge the equal rights of the unborn.”
CAP pointed to the language of the bill enacted last year allowing abortions to occur up to 15 weeks’ gestation, SB1164.
“[W]ith the potential overturning of Roe on the horizon, the legislature sought to avoid any doubt that it desired § 13-3603 [the abortion ban] to become fully enforceable again,” stated CAP. “Thus, S.B. 1164 went beyond simply saying that it was not repealing any ‘applicable state law regulating or restricting abortion.’ 2022 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 105, § 2 (2d Reg. Sess.). Its statement of non-repeal also referenced one law specifically—§ 13-3603.”
CAP estimated that about 13,000 unborn children were killed through abortion due to the lower court’s ruling, which upheld SB1164.
“Put simply, both the legislature and various abortion supporters believed that if Roe were overturned, § 13-3603 would prohibit physicians from performing elective abortions from conception. If the legislature did not desire that outcome, it would have acted to prevent it,” said CAP. “It did not. To the contrary, the legislature declared its intent to preserve § 13-3603 even after being told that it would prohibit all elective abortions if Roe were overturned. That intent must be given effect.”
In a press release, CAP argued further that the overturning of Roe should’ve restored the state’s dormant abortion ban. CAP said the lower court ruling “wrongly assumed” that post-Roe state lawmakers that passed limitations on abortion in accordance with the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) precedent didn’t intend to protect the pre-Roe ban.
“State lawmakers passed dozens of laws protecting life while Roe forbade them from going further; they kept the pre-Roe law on the books, even as they made other adjustments to the law; they passed a requirement that Arizona laws be interpreted to value all human life, at every stage of development; and they wrote into the latest abortion law a recommitment to protect life by specifically stating that they were not repealing the pre-Roe law by passing a 15-week limitation just months before Roe was overturned,” stated CAP.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Dec 18, 2022 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
In this past November’s election, Arizona voters were misled into passing Prop 211. Billed as the “Voters’ Right to Know Act” that’s supposed to “Stop Dark Money” in our state, it sounds harmless enough. But that was all a part of the clever messaging from its campaigners—like former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard—to scare the average person into voting “yes.”
Unfortunately, it worked. But Prop 211 is unconstitutional, and that’s why the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, in partnership with the Center for Arizona Policy and the Goldwater Institute, filed a lawsuit to stop the Act from being enforced…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Corinne Murdock | Aug 15, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Arizona now prohibits health care providers from using an individual’s disability as a disqualification from an organ transplant. The sole exception would be in the case that a patient’s disability poses a medical problem when receiving an organ transplant, excluding that patient’s ability to comply independently with the procedure.
The legislation also requires health care facilities to accommodate their organ transplant-related services for disabled patients, such as communications and counseling. It included specific provisions for patients with hearing and visual impairments, as well as cognitive, neurological, developmental, or intellectual disabilities.
Comprehensive information on all organ transplant centers’ policies regarding patients with disabilities doesn’t exist — only studies exist. A 2019 study from the National Council of Disability, a federal agency, confirmed that to be the case, observing a lack of transparency and consistency concerning organ transplant policies. What’s more, the council reported that individuals with disabilities and their families actually face pressure to donate organs. One of the most comprehensive studies, conducted in 2008, estimated that 43 percent of organ transplant centers “always” or “usually” deny children with a neurodevelopmental disability, while about 39 percent “rarely” or “never” do.
One Arizona mother, Felicia (Josie) White testified to the House Health & Human Services Committee that she supported this bill because Phoenix Children’s Hospital policy didn’t confirm that they would approve her daughter for a heart transplant, due to her having Down Syndrome. The White family felt compelled to seek treatment across the country, 3,000 miles away, in Boston, Massachusetts.
“We know individuals with Down Syndrome live full and fruitful lives well into adulthood. If transplant centers can teach illiterate, non-English speaking parents to dose meds, there’s no reason someone with Down Syndrome could not be taught,” said White. “I understand that organ allocation is a limited resource, but I also know that labeling anyone with cognitive delays ‘unable to transplant’ is a slippery slope that could include everything from ADHD to who knows what.”
Another mother, Andrea Temarantz, shared that her son also has Down Syndrome and would be jeopardized if he needed an emergency organ transplant. Temarantz informed the legislators of the studies on organ transplant discrimination. She insisted that the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) already prohibited such discrimination, but that there weren’t any enforcement mechanisms to protect patients with disabilities from ADA violations in Arizona.
“Every life is precious, and no one should be blocked from a transplant because of stereotypes about persons with disabilities,” said Temarantz.
Governor Doug Ducey signed that anti-discrimination bill, HB2659, into law in March.
The bill received no opposition in the state legislature. Both the House and Senate, as well as their respective committees, passed it unanimously.
State Representative Steve Kaiser (R-Phoenix) sponsored the bill. It received an endorsement from the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP).
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by AZ Free News | Feb 25, 2021 | News
PHOENIX – Some find it hard to believe that a law was necessary, but the Covid epidemic has limited the access clergy members have had to the sick and dying. As a result, the Arizona House of Representatives stepped up and approved HB 2575, legislation requiring that hospital visitation policies facilitate the ability of clergy to visit patients for religious purposes, including during a pandemic.
In an end-of-life situation, hospitals would have to facilitate in-person clergy visitation regardless of the time of day, thanks to the bill sponsored by State Representative Quang Nguyen.
The bill was supported by Dignity Health, Center For Arizona Policy, Arizona Catholic Conference, and Health System Alliance Of Arizona.
“I’ve heard many troubling stories over the past year of people left to die alone in a hospital, unable to receive in-person spiritual care,” said Representative Nguyen. “Pandemic or not, it’s simply wrong to deny patients and their families the spiritual comfort and support they need during such a difficult time. This legislation makes sure that won’t continue to happen.”
Under HB 2575, clergy members are required to comply with all reasonable health and safety precautions imposed by hospitals when interacting with patients. The bill also contains an emergency clause, which means it would take effect immediately, if passed and signed into law.
The bill now moves to the State Senate for consideration.
