Voters added abortion rights to the Constitution. Republicans want abortion pill restrictions.
Republicans in the Arizona Legislature want to put increased restrictions on medication abortions, in direct contradiction to a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to abortion that voters approved in November.
Sen. Mark Finchem, R-Prescott, claimed during a Wednesday Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee meeting that there was no way to know exactly why voters favored the Arizona Abortion Access Act.
More than 61% of those who voted in the Grand Canyon State's 2024 general election chose to enshrine the right to abortion into the state constitution.
But that hasn't stopped Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives and the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee from voting for House Bill 2681, which would impose a long list of new restrictions and requirements on those seeking medication-induced abortions.
Finchem and Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Prescott, both argued that HB2681 would protect unborn children who cannot protect themselves. Pro-choice advocates described it as a backhanded way to place additional hurdles in the way of abortion access, defying the will of the voters, and making the most widely used way to carry out an abortion more difficult.
'I do hope you respect the will of the voters,' said Jodi Liggett, a lobbyist for Reproductive Freedom for All. 'They've spoken loudly, and they don't want politicians involved in their access to care.'
In response, Finchem told Liggett that voters only indicated whether they were for or against the Arizona Abortion Access Act, and that no data existed to explain why, adding that it 'disturbs' him to hear Liggett make 'missassertions' about voters' motivations.
Liggett answered that the abortion rights campaign did extensive polling before gathering signatures to put Prop. 139 on the ballot, and those polls indicated that voters don't want politicians making medical decisions for them.
The Arizona Abortion Access Act, as the constitutional amendment was officially known, prohibits any law, regulation or policy that would deny, restrict or interfere with the fundamental right to abortion before fetal viability (generally around 24 weeks) unless it is for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining the health of a person seeking an abortion, consistent with clinical practice standards and evidence-based medicine.
It also prohibits any law or regulation that would interfere with access to abortion after fetal viability if the patient's health care provider believes it is necessary to protect the patient's life, physical or mental health.
Additionally, Prop. 139 bars any law that penalizes a person for aiding or assisting someone in exercising their right to an abortion.
House Bill 2681, sponsored by Republican Rep. Rachel Keshel, a member of the far-right Arizona Freedom Caucus, would place numerous restrictions on abortions prior to fetal viability.
Keshel's bill would require a doctor who prescribes medication to induce abortion to examine the patient in person, test the patient's blood and inform them of the 'possible physical and psychological aftereffects and side effects' of taking the medication.
The physician would also be compelled to inform the patient that they 'may see the remains of the unborn child in the process of completing the abortion.'
The proposed legislation would also force the doctor to schedule a follow-up visit with the patient, to make 'all reasonable' efforts to ensure the patient attends that appointment and include a record of those attempts in the patient's chart.
A medical provider who violates HB2681 could be held civilly liable by the patient who obtained the abortion — their parents if they're a minor — or by the person who impregnated them.
Any of them could file a lawsuit against the physician to recover monetary damages for psychological, emotional and physical injuries, statutory damages up to $5,000 and attorney fees.
Marilyn Rodriguez, a lobbyist for Planned Parent Advocates of Arizona, called HB2681 'fear mongering based on junk science.' She accused Republican lawmakers on Wednesday of trying to make the process 'as difficult and scary as possible to put abortion out of reach for as many Arizonans as possible.'
As abortion restrictions have been for decades, Keshel's bill is couched in language about patient safety. It ignores that the drugs widely used to induce abortion in early pregnancy, mifepristone and misoprostol, are considered safe for use up to 10 weeks of gestation, according to the FDA.
Elizabeth Lee, a reproductive medicine expert who spoke on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All, said that the measure would make it more difficult for women in rural areas to get abortions since in-person visits to a physician could be out of reach for them. Currently, doctors can prescribe medication for abortion through a telehealth visit.
If doctors' offices are too far away, or appointments aren't available, rural women could be pushed past 11 weeks of gestation and have to undergo a more invasive surgical abortion that comes with an increased risk of complications.
Lee added that the blood testing requirement in the proposed legislation, for RH incompatibility, was completely unnecessary. RH incompatibility is a potentially dangerous condition that happens when a mother's immune system attacks the red blood cells of her fetus, but Lee said that patients typically aren't treated for it until 20 weeks of gestation.
Before voting to forward House Bill 2681 on to the full Senate, Rogers said that the legislature should 'protect those that cannot protect themselves' adding that everyone will have to answer to God for their decisions.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
18 minutes ago
- Axios
The era of the public apology is ending
The age of the public apology is over, as more brands, public figures and companies dig in their heels amid backlash or dodge accountability amid operational snafus. Why it matters: This is a major shift in communication style and reflects the current zeitgeist. State of play: American Eagle doubled down on its controversial ad featuring Sydney Sweeney, women's dating advice app Tea didn't apologize after user data was hacked and leaked, and Crowdstrike left out the "sorry" initially when its global outage took out airlines and more last year. While phony statements from Astronomer executives littered the internet, the executives have yet to issue public apologies following the recent kiss cam scandal. Replit CEO Amjad Masad had choice words for X users who were offended by his stance on the Gaza conflict, writing, "I've been reflecting and going back and forth on how to handle this. I finally realized that I must, from the bottom of my heart, apologize to — absolutely nobody." Zoom out: This isn't happening in a vacuum, according to communication experts — the no-apology, hardline stance is a response to desensitized audiences, political polarization and cancel culture fatigue. "People are simply tired of the outrage cycles and cancellation campaigns," crisis communications expert Molly McPherson says. "And the public is splitting because they don't want to jump on someone else's grievance bandwagon." Plus, there's no guarantee the apology will placate people, as it may be seen as a weakness to some or insufficient to others. The rapid pace of the news cycle is another major consideration. Controversy could quickly blow over without the need for a public apology, which could threaten to drive more coverage and conversation. What they're saying: Instead of making sweeping public apologies, some are opting for more targeted outreach, says Paul Argenti, professor of corporate communications at Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business. "Leaders are reconsidering whether it's the right tool, and we're watching companies experiment here, defending their decision, ignoring the noise or addressing constituencies privately instead of making a public spectacle," he adds. Context: An apology signals a reset. It is an acknowledgement that something went wrong and will be corrected. However, if a change in strategy or action isn't taken, then apologizing looks inauthentic and can worsen the backlash. "Not every crisis demands a loud response ... but it's almost as if the more personal the crisis, the more personal the response needs to be," McPherson says. Yes, but: American consumers are still boycotting brands that don't align with their values. 1 in 4 Americans report boycotting a brand, with Democrats twice as likely to boycott as Republicans, a recent Ipsos survey found. The bottom line: Taking accountability and being transparent can build trust in place of an apology.
New York Post
18 minutes ago
- New York Post
Ex-Biden White House spokesman says he only saw 46th president twice in two-plus years of service
WASHINGTON — Former White House spokesman Ian Sams spoke with his boss, President Biden, just two times during his more than two years in the administration, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) told reporters Thursday. 'One of the most shocking things to me,' Comer said, is that Sams 'communicated with Joe Biden two times, he saw Joe Biden, talked to Joe Biden — two times.' 'In fact, [former special counsel] Robert Hur spent more time with Joe Biden than Ian Sams,' added Comer after sitting in on a transcribed interview Sams gave committee staff. The House investigation into the purported coverup of Biden's mental state is in full swing. AP The former Biden official served as a spokesman for the White House Counsel's Office from mid-2022 to August 2024, when he left to serve as a senior adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. 'It raises serious concerns and serious questions about who was calling shots at the White House,' Comer explained. Start your day with all you need to know Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters 'If the White House spokesperson was being shielded from the president of the United States, who was operating the Oval Office?' Former Spokesman Ian Sams says he only saw the president twice in two years of service. Getty Images Thursday's interview was the 11th with a former Biden aide centered on the purported cover-up of the 46th president's decline, which Republican investigators believe may have involved the improper wielding of executive authority. 'There were very few people around Joe Biden, especially at the end,' Comer said, 'and that's when the majority of the pardons and executive orders were signed with that autopen.'
Politico
20 minutes ago
- Politico
Redistricting tests Trump's finely tuned influence machine
Marrying the two, Trump has a singular strategy that he's employed to great effect so far this term to compel Republican lawmakers into supporting his appointees and legislative agenda. There are very few exceptions, in part because Trump has made clear the consequences for dissent. Trump and his team have repeatedly threatened primary challenges for GOP lawmakers who do not bend to his will, going as far as standing up a super PAC that's raising millions of dollars to target Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) for voting against the 'big, beautiful bill.' And the White House is vetting potential primary challengers to Massie, including Kentucky state Sen. Aaron Reed, who traveled to Washington for a meeting last month, two people familiar with the trip confirmed to POLITICO. 'Incumbent presidents have broad sway over their party…The only real difference is that Trump will operate with language and threats we haven't seen from other presidents,' said Doug Heye, a GOP strategist who has worked for House Republican leadership. 'He's more YOLO than lame duck.' The White House did not respond to a request for comment. Now Trump and his team are trying their playbook on GOP governors and state lawmakers as they push as many red states as possible into mid-decade redistricting. They are on the cusp of success in Texas, where the Republican-controlled Legislature is imposing a new map designed to net the party five seats. Missouri Republicans are widely expected to follow suit when they return to Jefferson City in September for their annual veto session — despite still smarting from a knock-down, drag-out redistricting fight just two years ago in which they ultimately rejected drawing an additional GOP district. While Republicans in the state Legislature are reluctant to revisit the difficult inter-party politics at play, the Trump administration is working to force them to submit anyway, calling up Gov. Mike Kehoe and local lawmakers who have expressed skepticism about the effort. There's also a less direct form of pressure at play — one that has guided GOP decision-making throughout Trump's time as the party's standard-bearer.
