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 Daniel Stefanski | Sep 16, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
A growing number of Arizona pastors are joining together to stand in opposition to a ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to allow abortion on demand.
This month, Pastor Eric Jones of Evident Life Church in Gilbert, announced that there were almost 700 faith leaders who signed the Declaration of Arizona Pastors in Defense of Voiceless Children and Vulnerable Women.
In July, Jones wrote, “Last August, after hearing about the horrific ‘Arizona Abortion Access Act’ (now called Prop 139) which would legalize abortion for all nine months, I felt the Lord calling me to do something. This declaration and the growing coalition of Arizona pastors is the result.”
The Declaration reads as follows:
“To save the lives of innocent children, to protect the health of women, to help people avoid a terrible regret, and to show love to our neighbors, we, as Christian pastors in Arizona, declare the following:
- Whereas every human life is valuable because every human life, born and pre-born, is wonderfully made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; Psalm 139:13-14).
- Whereas abortion is the ending of an innocent human life, and results in danger and hurt towards women (Exodus 21:22-25; Genesis 9:6).
- Whereas the church is here to compassionately serve and support vulnerable women (1 John 3:18, Psalm 82:3-4).
- Whereas abortion is not a political issue, but a biblical and moral one (Mark 12:17).
- Whereas effort is underway to change the Arizona Constitution to allow children to be aborted during all nine months of development in the womb.
The undersigned Arizona pastors urge every person to refuse to provide a signature to put the ‘Arizona Abortion Access Act’ (Prop 139) on the ballot and should also vote against the Act, or any similar measure, if it appears on the ballot (Proverbs 6:16-17, Ephesians 5:11).”
According to the Declaration’s website, the purpose of this document and statewide effort is “designed to unify Arizona Christian pastors around the sanctity of human life while providing a clear voice against the proposed ‘Arizona Abortion Access Act’ (Prop 139).” The website shares that, per an analysis from an attorney, “the amendment is written so broadly that it allows unlimited abortion up to birth, removes most safety standards, eliminates the required qualified medical doctor, gives broad leeway to who can provide abortions, shuts out moms and dads when their minor daughter needs them most, shields sex offenders who force their victims to get abortions to cover their crimes, opens the door to taxpayer funded abortions, [and] threatens conscience protections for healthcare workers.”
Arizona voters will get an opportunity to decide the fate of the Abortion Access Act in November’s General Election.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Aug 16, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
On Wednesday the Arizona Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling, validating the use of the phrase “unborn human being” as an impartial descriptor for Proposition 139, the ballot measure to legalize abortion totally.
The court’s 5-2 decision was a mere three pages long. In it, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the Arizona legislature’s choice to use the phrase “unborn human being” rather than “fetus” meets the standard of substantial compliance required by law for drafting an impartial analysis of ballot measures.
That phrase, “unborn human being,” resides in existing state law as well, something the Arizona Supreme Court did note in its order.
Vice Chief Justice John Lopez didn’t elaborate on his analysis in this ruling, just that the phrase complied with the standards of the law. Lopez promised that the court would issue an opinion in the future to more fully explain the decision.
The Maricopa County Superior Court’s slightly longer ruling had determined that “unborn human being” couldn’t qualify as an impartial analysis of the ballot proposal making abortion a constitutional right because the phrase carried an “emotional and partisan meaning” for both supporters and opponents of abortion.
Contrary to the Arizona Supreme Court’s view, the superior court had determined that the existence of the phrase “unborn human being” in state law was irrelevant to the question of neutrality.
The offending phrase at the heart of this legal battle was part of the Arizona Legislative Council’s nonpartisan descriptor intended for the informational pamphlets given to voters about the Arizona Abortion Access Act and other ballot measures:
“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.”
An abortion does occur through the intentional killing and removal of an unborn human being from the womb of his or her mother.
The Arizona Abortion Access Act would create a fundamental, constitutional right to abortion up until birth, should a health care professional deem the abortion to be necessary to protect the mother’s life or health. The act would also impose a preemptive ban on any legislation seeking to punish those who assist mothers in obtaining abortions.
The group behind the proposal, Arizona for Abortion Access, said in a statement that describing an unborn child as an “unborn human being” was a manipulative ploy by anti-abortion advocates lacking “basis in medicine or science” or expert approval.
“This means that Arizona voters won’t get to learn about the questions on their ballot in a fair, neutral, and accurate way but will instead be subjected to biased, politically-charged words developed not by experts but by anti-abortion special interests to manipulate voters and spread misinformation,” said the group.
The group went on to urge voter support for the proposal; they didn’t indicate whether they planned on challenging the ruling.
Justice Clint Bolick recused himself from the case due to his wife, State Senator Shawnna Bolick, serving on the legislative council and crafting the contested language. Retired Justice John Pelander was selected by Chief Justice Ann Timmer to assume Bolick’s place; Pelander sided with the majority.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Jul 24, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Come November, Arizona voters may decide whether to establish abortion at any stage of pregnancy as a fundamental right in the state constitution.
The assigned ballot number, Proposition 139, declares that voting in favor of the initiative would create a fundamental right to abortion, thereby limiting the state’s ability to interfere with all abortions — mainly those pregnancies predating the generally accepted standard for viability, around 24 weeks.
However, that doesn’t mean that abortions won’t be covered by the state constitution after viability. The proposition declares that abortions will be permissible after viability should any involved health care professional determine them “necessary” to protect the mother’s life or health.
The proposition would also preemptively ban lawmakers from imposing any criminal sanctions or other punishments on anyone who assists another in obtaining an abortion.
“A ‘yes’ vote shall have the effect of creating a fundamental right to abortion under Arizona’s constitution. The State will not be able to interfere with this fundamental right before fetal viability, unless it has a compelling reason and does so in the least restrictive way possible. Fetal viability means the point in the pregnancy when, in the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus. Throughout the pregnancy, both before and after fetal viability, the State will not be able to interfere with the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional that an abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant individual. The State will not be able to penalize any person for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the right to an abortion.”
The secretary of state’s office is still reviewing signatures for the initiative.
Earlier this month, the PAC behind the initiative, Arizona For Abortion Access, sued the Arizona Legislative Council for using the term “unborn human being” rather than “unborn fetus” in their official analysis of the proposition distributed to voters in a publicity pamphlet.
An attorney for the PAC told lawmakers during their hearing on the subject that “unborn human being” was a partisan phrase, rather than their preferred term of “fetus.”
Arizona For Abortion Access, the political action committee behind the ballot initiative, has pulled in nearly $23.2 million for their cause.
The PAC’s biggest donors are mainly out-of-state entities: over $13.4 million altogether from The Fairness Project, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, Advocacy Action Fund, the ACLU Foundation, Open Society Action Fund, Think Big America, The Green Advocacy, Movement Voter PAC and Project, Our Children Our Future, Clean and Prosperous America, and Moms Fed Up.
Several in-state entities rich with out-of-state cash flow put about $5.8 million toward the initiative: Arizonans Fed Up With Failing Health, ACLU of Arizona, Reproductive Freedom for All Arizona, Healthcare Rising Arizona, and the UFCW Local 99 PAC.
A number of wealthy, out-of-state billionaires have donated funds:
- Phoebe Gates, daughter of Bill Gates and Stanford University student, $750,000;
- Liz Simons, daughter of hedge fund billionaire James Simons, $250,000;
- Gaye Pigott, a Washington descendant of one of America’s richest families, the Pigott family, $75,000;
- Eric Laufer, a New York engineer, $65,000;
- Giovanna Randall, president and head designer of New York luxury bridal company Honor NYC $65,000;
- Barbara Simons, a retiree of San Francisco, California $51,000;
- Barton Faber, former Canto executive, a California-based software company (reported as living in Hawaii, but formerly from Arizona), $50,000;
- Ning Mosberger-Tang, a Colorado photographer, gave $50,000;
- Steven Spielberg, famed Hollywood director, and his Hollywood actress wife, Kate Capshaw, gave $100,000;
- Sheli Rosenberg, a retired Illinois executive of Equity Group Investments, gave $50,000;
- Gregory Serrurier, retired California cofounder of Redwood Grove Capital, $50,000;
- Eric Uhrhane, a Californian software engineer and angel investor, gave $50,000;
- Laura H. Lauder, a California philanthropist, gave $25,000;
- Georgia Taylor Michelson, Californian and wife to Zimmer Biomet board member Michael Michelson, gave $25,000;
- Marcia Grand, a California donor, gave $25,000;
- Sal Al-Rashid, a New York investor, gave $25,000;
- Elizabeth Brown, a California farmer, gave $25,000;
- Robin Donohoe, a Georgia venture capitalist, gave $25,000
Several wealthy in-state donors also gave. Among them were Juanita Fitzer Francis, who gave $200,000 — a former nurse with University of Arizona College of Medicine and Phoenix Children’s Hospital, and board member of the Arizona State University Foundation and University of Illinois Foundation. Francis also presides over the Francis Family Foundation.
There was also David and Louise Reese, who gave about $200,000 together. They operate the David E. Reese Family Foundation, a private grantmaking foundation in Paradise Valley. David formerly ran banking institutions across Arizona, Ohio, and New York.
And then there’s Sedona’s Donalyn Mikles, who gave $100,000. Mikles has been a top donor for the Democratic Party and Gov. Katie Hobbs in recent years. Mikles has served as a director of the Kling Family Foundation, a private philanthropic California nonprofit.
Donald Levin, a DRL Enterprises executive in Phoenix, gave $50,000. Paul Lipton, a Tucson hydroponics supply company founder, gave $25,000. Likewise, Robert Bertrand, a Paradise Valley retired executive of Concord Servicing, gave $25,000.
They’ve spent nearly $13.5 million so far, around $11 million on signature gathering. The second-largest expenditure was on advertising, generally, amounting to over $500,000, and polling came at a cost of over $100,000.
Staff salaries for other organizations also topped the list: staffing for Healthcare Rising, Reproductive Freedom for All Arizona, The Fairness Project, and the ACLU altogether amounted to over $400,000.
Their cash balance sits at just over $9.7 million.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Page 1 of 11
