by Corinne Murdock | Oct 31, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
A federal court ruled that abortionists can challenge the state’s ban on discriminatory abortions.
The Ninth Circuit Court ruled on Monday in Isaacson v. Mayes that abortionists may petition for an injunction against state law prohibiting abortions based on fetal genetic abnormality, dubbed the “Reason Regulations.” Judges Ronald Gould, Andrew Hurwitz, and Roopali Desai agreed in their ruling with the abortionists’ claim that they endured economic harm. The abortionists blamed the abortion ban’s vagueness for moving them to conduct less abortions out of caution.
Specifically, the abortionists claimed that the discriminatory abortion ban violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: the threat of prison jeopardized their liberty interest, and the threats of license revocation, monetary damages, and revenue loss jeopardized their property interest. The circuit court dismissed the state’s claim of interest in regulating medical practice.
“That their services include abortion does not alter the fact that Plaintiffs make money providing these services and have lost money because the Reason Regulations restrict what services they can provide,” stated the ruling.
During the trial, the abortionists revealed that patients with likely or confirmed fetal abnormalities made up a significant part of their business.
The “Reason Regulations” made it a felony to either knowingly solicit or accept money to finance an abortion, or to perform an abortion, based on a fetal genetic abnormality.
The abortionists claimed that their overcompliance with the statute was due to the vagueness of the term “genetic abnormality,” and the statute’s lack of details on determining how much that factor had to play into a patient’s decision to get an abortion as well as the level of knowledge an abortionist would have to have in order to be guilty of violating the ban.
Monday’s ruling reversed an Arizona District Court order issued in February allowing the ban to go into effect. The district court rejected the abortionists’ request for a preliminary injunction, since the Supreme Court had just ruled that no constitutional right to abortion existed in its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health ruling last year overturning Roe v. Wade.
The federal court remanded the case back to the district court for it to decide, once more, whether the state ban on discriminatory abortion may go into effect.
A similar ongoing case may nullify the results of Isaacson v. Mayes. In Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes, the Arizona Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in December to determine whether the state’s preemptive, pre-statehood, total abortion ban remains enforceable due to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The state’s total abortion ban was suspended following the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that created a constitutional right to abortion. Last year — prior to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health — the state passed its 15-week abortion ban.
Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes would decide which of the two laws has authority in the state.
The state never repealed its total abortion ban. The 15-week ban didn’t preclude the enforcement of any other preceding abortion laws.
Last week, Planned Parenthood Arizona (PPAZ) filed a motion to recuse Arizona Supreme Court Judge William Montgomery for his personal beliefs opposing PPAZ.
Earlier this month, Gov. Katie Hobbs filed an amicus brief to oppose the total abortion ban.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Daniel Stefanski | Sep 22, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Second Amendment advocates recently had something to cheer thanks to a judicial decision from a federal appeals court.
Earlier this month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion against the Center for Biological Diversity in a case that featured a legal question over lead ammunition. The United States Forest Service and the National Rifle Association of America were defendants in the matter.
The case has tarried in the judicial system since 2012, bouncing back and forth from the district and appeals court levels. The plaintiffs filed the legal pleadings over their contention that California condors were ingesting and perishing from lead ammunition left behind by hunters in the Kaibab National Forest.
“This NRA victory is a significant setback for gun control and anti-hunting advocates who see ammo bans as a pivotal leap in their agenda,” said Michael Jean, the Director of the Office of Litigation Counsel with the Institute for Legislative Action.
According to the summary of the decision from the Ninth Circuit, “The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of an action brought by the Center for Biological Diversity and others alleging that the United States Forest Service was liable as a contributor under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by failing to regulate the use of lead ammunition by hunters in the Kaibab National Forest in Arizona.” The opinion added, “Although the Forest Service has broad authority to regulate hunting and fishing activities, it rarely exercises its authority to preempt state laws related to hunting and fishing; hunting activities are primarily regulated by the State of Arizona.”
U.S. District Judge Stephen M. McNamee, in his July 2013 ruling, highlighted that even if the plaintiffs received the opinion they were seeking, the California condor might very well still be at risk due to its migration habits. He wrote, “The Court also notes that the behavior and feeding habits of the California condor and other avian species make it unlikely that even if Defendant were to ban lead from being discarded within the KNF, the condor would no longer suffer from the lead poisoning that causes Plaintiffs’ alleged aesthetic injury. The California condor is known for long distance travel. Their longer trips consist of arching loops that reach from eastern Nevada, through southwestern Arizona, to the New Mexico border. They are also known to fly into Utah in pursuit of carrion. The condors could easily fly and subsequently feed outside the borders of the KNF and therefore outside of the area managed by Defendant. Plaintiffs give no indication that any of these other states ban the use of lead ammunition. Because of the extensive range of the California condor, it is likely that those birds that inhabit KNF will travel to those areas in search of carrion and ingest lead ammunition in the same manner as lead ingested within KNF borders.”
In an exclusive interview with AZ Free News, Arizona Representative Austin Smith shared his thoughts on the Court’s opinion, saying, “The recent 9th Circuit decision is an important victory for hunters, sportsman, and shooting enthusiasts across Arizona. I’m pleased to see this attempt to regulate ammunition by the radical gun control and anti-hunting lobby failed. As a 5th generation Arizona hunter and angler, this will serve as great precedence in preserving our Second Amendment and hunting heritage on the Kaibab.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Corinne Murdock | Aug 19, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The Scottsdale-based Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) secured a federal court ruling that effectively halts mail-order abortions.
On Wednesday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must reinstate its safety restrictions for mifepristone use. In effect, the ruling limits mifepristone’s use to the first seven weeks of pregnancy, as well as requires an in-person visit with a provider prior to prescription.
This is the Texas court’s second ruling against mifepristone access. In April, the court issued an injunction against the abortion drug. The same hour of that injunction, a Washington federal court ruled that the FDA must continue providing mifepristone. Several weeks after those conflicting orders, the Supreme Court halted the Texas court’s injunction until all litigation had concluded.
ADF sued the FDA last November on behalf of four pro-life medical groups, who argued that mifepristone shouldn’t have been approved by the FDA over 20 years ago and should be removed from the market.
The FDA approved mifepristone in 2000, during the Clinton administration, using a fast-tracked approval process. The FDA justified approval by reclassifying abortion as a “serious or life-threatening illness” and mifepristone as a “meaningful therapeutic benefit.” In a 2008 report, the Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) noted the medical community’s widespread criticism of the basis for mifepristone’s approval.
“Critics have argued that unwanted pregnancy should not be considered a serious or life-threatening illness,” stated the GAO report.
Mifepristone’s efficacy and safety are dubious. The drug’s usage has been linked to hundreds of cases of infections and death, if not more. Government studies have estimated adverse effects of the drug occurring in as many as one in five women. The FDA also failed to convince the New Orleans court of the drug’s safety.
“[I]n loosening mifepristone’s safety restrictions, [the] FDA failed to address several important concerns about whether the drug would be safe for the women who use it,” read the majority opinion.
Yet, state leaders have advocated for access to the abortion drug. Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office claims the drug is “incredibly safe” and that restrictions on it are “unnecessary.”
In June, Hobbs issued an executive order usurping county attorneys’ authority over prosecuting abortion law violations.
In March, Mayes encouraged pharmacies to give out abortion pills. In May, Mayes joined an amicus brief to advocate for the upholding of mifepristone’s FDA approval.
Hours after the circuit court ruling, Mayes’ new Reproductive Rights Unit issued guidance on how individuals can hide their data, such as internet history and communications, when seeking abortions. The new unit is headed by deputy solicitor general Hayleigh Crawford.
The attorney general didn’t issue a direct response to this week’s ruling, but the data privacy guidance and corresponding meeting appeared to be an indirect response of sorts.
Featured guests at the meeting included:
- Chris Love, board member and senior advisor for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, and attorney at Kewenvoyouma Law;
- Sheena Chiang, co-chair of the Planned Parenthood Arizona Board of Directors, and attorney for the Maricopa County Legal Defender’s office;
- Jodi Liggett, founder of the progressive think tank and advocacy group Arizona Center for Women’s Advancement, former deputy chief of staff for Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego, former vice president of external affairs and executive director for Planned Parenthood of Arizona, former senior policy advisor for Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, former CEO of Arizona Foundation for Women, and former policy advisor for former Gov. Jane Hull;
- Bré Thomas, CEO of Affirm Sexual and Reproductive Health For All, former Arizona Department of Health Services manager and senior policy advisor, former Arizona Department of Economic Security executive assistant to the deputy director, and former women’s health policy advisor for former Gov. Janet Napolitano;
- Cadey Harrel, doctor and founder of Agave Community Health and Wellness;
- Tonya Irick, director of abortion clinic Family Planning Associates Medical Group
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Daniel Stefanski | Aug 3, 2023 | Education, News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona’s Republican Legislative leaders are continuing to defend the integrity of women’s sports in federal court.
On Tuesday, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after a federal district judge blocked the ‘Save Women’s Sports Act’ from going into effect.
In their motion, the legislators wrote, “Under the district court’s preliminary injunction order, ‘the [Save Women’s Sports] Act shall not prevent Plaintiffs from participating in girls’ sports’ and ‘Plaintiffs shall be allowed to play girls’ sports at their respective schools.’ Any success by Plaintiffs in try-outs and meets will displace biological girls from making a team, getting playing time, and succeeding in final results. Biological girls will be irreparably harmed if they are displaced by, forced to compete against, or risk injury from Plaintiffs.”
Petersen released the following statement to accompany the announcement of his latest action in court over this issue: “Not only science, but common sense clearly supports the fact that in general, boys are bigger and stronger than girls at all stages of life. Expecting them to compete against each other in athletic competition is reckless, irresponsible and will subject girls to increased risk for injury. It’s unfortunate young girls in our public schools will face these heightened dangers while participating in sports competition against boys and lose out on athletic opportunities because this law is on hold. What’s even more disheartening is our Attorney General has no desire to protect our female athletes, prompting myself and Speaker Toma to do her job for her. I’m confident our judicial system will agree with the protections we’re fighting for so that all young women and girls in Arizona will have the opportunity to compete on an even playing field.”
Speaker Ben Toma issued a short comment on Twitter, posting, “We filed an emergency motion asking the 9th Circuit to allow Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act to remain in effect pending appeal & the Court set an expedited schedule. The district court’s ruling is wrong; it has harmful, real-world consequences for female athletes.”
Last month, Judge Jennifer Zipps granted a preliminary injunction against SB 1165, the Save Women’s Sports Act, which blocked the law from going into effect. Arizona’s Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, the defendant in the case, promised to appeal the ruling, saying, “This will ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court, and they will rule in our favor. The Plaintiffs in this case claimed that this only involves pre-pubescent boys, but we presented peer-reviewed studies that show pre-pubescent boys have an advantage over girls in sports. The only expert presented by the Plaintiffs was a medical doctor who makes his money doing sex transition treatments on children and who has exactly zero peer-reviewed studies to support his opinion.”
One of the representatives of the plaintiffs, Justin R. Rassi from Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, lauded the judge’s ruling, writing, “The Court’s well-reasoned decision exposes the lack of any legitimate justification for this discriminatory law, which inflicts severe and irreparable harm on transgender girls like Megan and Jane. We are very happy that, as a result of this ruling, Jane and Megan will be immediately able to resume playing sports with their friends.”
The latest Motion from Petersen and Toma follows a series of actions they have taken in this legal matter occurring in federal court. Earlier this year, they filed a Motion to Intervene, highlighting that because “Attorney General Kris Mayes is not defending the constitutionality of the law,” they were taking this step. Petersen said at the time, “We’re looking forward to fighting for the rights of female athletes across Arizona, as well as for the Court making it clear Arizona’s law protecting women and girls should be enforced.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Page 1 of 11
