CV-NEWS-FEED // Arizona Right to Life has asked the state Supreme Court to block the addition of a pro-abortion amendment to the ballot in the upcoming election, arguing that the amendment’s description contains misleading language.
The brief, filed with the Arizona Supreme Court on August 12, comes after Judge Melissa Julian of the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled against AZ Right to Life on August 2, according to the Arizona Capitol Times. News agency Arizona Mirror has provided the link to the relevant letter.
AZ Right to Life attorney Jennifer Wright filed a brief on August 12 asking the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court ruling and issue an order preventing the abortion amendment Proposition 139 from appearing on the general election ballot.
Wright argued in his brief that the amendment’s description was a “bait-and-switch” game, making it appear as if the amendment would legalize abortion up until the fetus is viable, when in fact abortion is legal up until birth.
“The description is inherently misleading and confusing,” Wright wrote.
>> READ MAYRA’S STORY: From Planned Parenthood Director to Pro-Life Activist in Arizona
The description was missing the words “treatment” and “good faith judgment,” which are included in the text of the amendment. The description explains, among other things, that the state may not “refuse, restrict, or obstruct” abortions until the fetus is viable, which the description says is determined by “a health care provider.”
In addition, the description states, the state “may not deny, restrict, or interfere with an abortion after that point in pregnancy (viability of the fetus) if a physician determines that an abortion is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant person.”
Wright argued that this wording falsely portrays the amendment as allowing abortion based on “objective, evidence-based medical standards,” when in fact the wording of the amendment itself allows for subjective opinions to determine whether an abortion, even late-stage, is necessary.
The wording of the amendment does not just say “healthcare professionals,” but entirely “in the good faith of a treating health care professional,” Wright emphasized.
The words “treatment” and “good faith judgment” omitted from the description are “critical” to clarifying the amendment’s main provision, which Wright argued is “that the abortion provider may perform a post-viability abortion based solely on his or her subjective opinion.”
By omitting those words, Wright argued, the description led an “untold number” of the ballot initiative’s signatories “to believe that the amendment was based on objective, evidence-based medical standards.”
She pointed out that although the description had a word limit of 200 words, it was only 190 words long and supporters of the initiative “provided no excuse as to why” the specified words were omitted.
>> READ MAYRA’S STORY: From Planned Parenthood Director to Pro-Life Activist in Arizona
Wright also argued that the description lacked other information important to signers, such as how various state laws would be affected by the change. One example Wright cited is the parental consent law, which governs assisting minors in obtaining an abortion.
Wright pointed out that the amendment includes a provision that the state “shall not enact, adopt, or enforce any law, rule, policy, or practice that … penalizes any person or entity for aiding or abetting a pregnant person in exercising her right to an abortion under this section.”
According to the Arizona Capitol TimesWhen Judge Julian decided AZ Right to Life after Wright made similar arguments, he wrote, “Arizona courts have never required an initiative brief to explain all the potential effects of a measure.”
Another reservation raised by Wright in his brief concerns a section of the amendment that appears to allow future abortion regulations if there is a “compelling governmental interest,” with the purpose of the regulation being to improve or maintain the health of a mother seeking an abortion “consistent with accepted clinical standard of practice and evidence-based medicine.”
However, Wright wrote: “Even the sole permissible government interest in promoting maternal health is illusory because it comes with a catch: it must not ‘interfere with the autonomous decision-making of the person concerned.'”
>> READ MAYRA’S STORY: From Planned Parenthood Director to Pro-Life Activist in Arizona
“This means, at a minimum, that the state cannot do anything to stop abortion, even when it is performed for the worst eugenic or racist reasons, in a cruel manner that is particularly painful to the unborn human, or performed at any time before birth,” she continued, later writing:
In fact, the amendment would nullify any legislative effort to regulate any aspect of abortion that might interfere with a woman’s “autonomous decision-making.”
The times reported that supporters of the change must file a response this week.
