(C) Arizona Mirror
This story was originally published by Arizona Mirror and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Abortion rights initiative campaign calls anti-abortion challenger’s arguments ‘nonsense’ [1]
['Caitlin Sievers', 'Shefali Luthra The', 'More From Author', '- August', '.Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Coauthors.Is-Layout-Flow', 'Class', 'Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus', 'Display Inline', '.Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Avatar', 'Where Img']
Date: 2024-08-15
The arguments of the anti-abortion group that is attempting to stop an abortion rights initiative from being put to voters this fall are “nonsense,” according to the campaign supporting the Arizona Abortion Access Act.
If voters approve Proposition 139 in November, it would enshrine in the state constitution the right to an abortion up to the point of fetal viability, generally accepted to be around 24 weeks of pregnancy. Exceptions to that limit would be allowed if a health care provider determined it was necessary to preserve a patient’s life, physical or mental health.
The Arizona Secretary of State’s Office confirmed Monday that the Abortion Access Act had collected approximately 578,000 valid signatures, significantly more than the nearly 384,000 it needed to qualify for the ballot.
The campaign turned in more than 800,000 signatures in support of the initiative, the most in state history, according to the Secretary of State’s Office.
Attorneys for Arizona Right to Life claim that the 200-word summary shown to Arizonans who signed petition sheets to help the act qualify for the ballot was so unlawfully misleading that it puts all of the signatures into question.
But a trial court judge didn’t agree, and dismissed the case. Arizona Right to Life immediately appealed that decision to the state’s high court.
In a Wednesday court filing in response to the Arizona Right to Life’s appeal arguments, Arizona for Abortion Access argued that the state Supreme Court was not the place for the organization to express its disdainful opinion of the initiative.
“On appeal, Plaintiff barely mentions the trial court’s analysis, much less provides any good reason to second-guess it,” Andy Gaona, an attorney for the reproductive rights campaign, wrote. “Rather, Plaintiff yet again misrepresents the Initiative’s provisions, quibbles about minor omissions that no reasonable person would think render the description misleading, and complains that the description doesn’t describe what Plaintiff speculates will be the Initiative’s anticipated effects. All these arguments are baseless.”
Arizona Right to Life claims that the summary shown to those who signed the petition was misleading because it contained the phrase “health care provider” while the full text of the act refers to the “treating health care provider” when describing who has the authority to determine that an abortion is necessary beyond fetal viability.
The anti-abortion group argued that the omission of the word “treating” in the summary led petition signers to believe that someone other than an abortion provider would be making that decision.
Trial court Judge Melissa Iyer Julian found that argument lacking.
“Reasonable people understand that medical diagnoses and treatment plans are typically determined by the medical provider who is actively treating a patient whose health is at issue,” Julian wrote. “For pregnant patients, this could include the patient’s primary care, obstetrical, or other medical providers, including one who provides abortions.”
Gaona argued that the summary informed petition signers of all the major provisions of the initiative, as required by state law, and that leaving out single words from the full text of the ballot measure did not render it misleading.
He also clapped back at Arizona Right to Life’s claim that the summary should have included the potential impacts of the proposed constitutional amendment on existing state-level abortion regulations.
At present, Arizona is under a 15-week gestational ban that will likely be nullified if the act is passed.
State law regarding initiative summaries for petitions does not require them to include information about the possible impacts the measures would have on existing law, Gaona wrote, adding that those impacts are “purely speculative” anyway.
“The voters have not yet voted on the Initiative,” he wrote. “If the Initiative passes, then courts — not the Committee — may need to decide whether certain existing regulations meet the standards in the Initiative. The Committee cannot know how courts would resolve those challenges now. Any potential ‘effects’ in the 200-word description would thus be no more than guesswork.”
Gaona asked the Arizona Supreme Court to affirm the decision of the trial court and allow the Abortion Access Act to be placed on the ballot.
Jill Norgaard, a spokeswoman for Arizona Right to Life, told the Arizona Mirror on Thursday that she had not seen the Arizona for Abortion Access Wednesday filing in response to her organization’s appeal.
Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick has recused himself from participating in an appeal, and will be replaced on the bench by Retired former Arizona Supreme Court Justice John Pelander.
Justice Bolick’s wife, then-state Rep. Shawnna Bolick, a Phoenix Republican, was one of the sponsors of a 2022 bill that banned abortion in Arizona after 15 weeks of pregnancy. She has also been a vocal opponent of abortion rights throughout her career as a political activist and elected official.
The high court is expected to make a ruling in the case by Aug. 22, the deadline to print ballots.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://azmirror.com/2024/08/15/prop-139-abortion-rights-initiative-campaign-calls-anti-abortion-challengers-arguments-nonsense/
Published and (C) by Arizona Mirror
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/azmirror/
