Latest news with #ArizonaAbortionAccessAct
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Fake signatures on 2024 petition for abortion access leads to man's indictment
A man accused of falsifying signatures on a petition for abortion access in the 2024 general election was indicted by a grand jury and faces multiple charges, Maricopa County prosecutors announced May 6. Anthony Harris, 53, registered as a petition circulator in April 2024 despite past convictions that made him ineligible, according to the Maricopa County Attorney's Office. Investigators found that dozens of signatures Harris submitted to put Proposition 139, the Arizona Abortion Access Act, on the ballot were forged. The suspect's efforts would not have made a difference whether the initiative qualified. Proposition 139 had enough valid signatures to make the ballot, and it later passed, prosecutors stated. Harris faces the following charges in the indictment: aggravated taking identity of another, a class three felony; fraudulent schemes and practices - willful concealment, a class five felony; circulator registration violation, a class one misdemeanor; and 10 counts of false signature on a petition, a class one misdemeanor. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: proposition-139-falsified-signatures-man-indicted
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
AZ Supreme Court: ‘Unborn human being' in abortion ballot description wasn't partisan
Photo by Jim Small | Arizona Mirror Nearly eight months after the Arizona Supreme Court allowed 'unborn human being' to be included in a description of the state's abortion rights initiative, the court explained why it determined the phrase wasn't politically biased. In a 24-page opinion, Justice Kathryn King wrote that a Republican-controlled legislative panel didn't violate state law when it approved a summary of the Arizona Abortion Access Act that started off with a sentence that included the words 'unborn human being' because it was simply quoting existing law. The court ruled 5-2 to let the Republican-crafted language stand. 'The reference to 'unborn human being' when describing 'current state law' does not depart from or inaccurately describe the text of existing law or the proposed measure; does not contain extraneous adjectives, adverbs or commentary chosen by the (Legislative) Council; does not omit relevant contextual information; and does not selectively emphasize one omission in the initiative to the exclusion of others,' King wrote. 'In this case, the Council recited the precise term used in existing law to illustrate the changes the Initiative would make if adopted.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ann Scott Timmer wrote that quoting state law doesn't make the description impartial if the law being quoted was written to advance an ideological viewpoint. For instance, she wrote, lawmakers referring to a fetus as a 'sweet, innocent baby' in state law wouldn't automatically make that term somehow neutral. State law requires that the Legislative Council, a panel composed of lawmakers from both parties but controlled by the GOP majority, draft summaries of each ballot measure for a voter publicity pamphlet, which is meant to give Arizonans a quick rundown of what they'll be voting for in the next election. That same law mandates those summaries be impartial, and the courts have long held that language 'tinged with partisan coloring' is unlawful. Last year, the panel, made up of eight Republicans and six Democrats, approved a description of the Arizona Abortion Access Act that included the phrase 'unborn human being' in the first sentence. The Arizona for Abortion Access Committee quickly took the legislative panel to court, arguing that the summary should be thrown out and rewritten with 'unborn human being' replaced by the neutral and medically accurate term 'fetus.' In legal filings, Republicans claimed that 'unborn human being' is impartial because it's pulled directly from the 2022 law prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks that would be overturned if the initiative passed. While Arizona law demands impartiality in publicity pamphlet summaries, it also allows for a description of how proposed ballot measures might affect current laws. A Maricopa County Superior Court judge sided with the abortion rights group, writing that the term is 'packed with emotional and partisan meaning' — something that Arizona courts, including the state's highest court, have long rejected. Less than a month later, the state Supreme Court overturned that ruling. Despite what abortion advocates viewed as an attempt from anti-abortion Republicans to put 'its thumb on the electoral scale,' an overwhelming majority of Arizona voters cast their ballots in November in favor of Proposition 139, enshrining it in the Arizona Constitution and making the procedure a fundamental right. The court's majority — Justices King, John Lopez, Bill Montgomery, Robert Brutinel and John Pelander — agreed with Republicans that quoting existing law is as impartial as it gets, and 'fetus' is just as loaded a term as 'unborn human being.' Notably, King and Lopez were among the four justices who reinstated a near-total abortion ban from 1864 last year, and Montgomery faced criticism when he refused to recuse himself from the case in light of his past statements that Planned Parenthood was responsible for overseeing the 'greatest generational genocide known to man.' The Arizona branch of Planned Parenthood was one of the main groups involved with the creation and advocacy for the abortion rights initiative. King, writing for the majority, pointed out that the summary description for Prop. 139 'began by accurately describing' the 15-week law and ended by outlining the impacts of the ballot measure, and even used the proposition's own language, including the terms 'fetus' and 'fetal.' On top of that, King wrote, another Arizona law recognizes a 'human being' starting at conception and even widely accepted dictionary definitions refer to unborn human beings when explaining what a fetus is. (That law was also part of the legislation that enacted the 15-week abortion ban.) She chided abortion groups for fixating on the phrase and said the courts have historically been concerned with Legislative Council analyses that are biased or inaccurate, and not with whether a specific term, especially one that is already enshrined in state law, is appropriate. 'This Court has never found that an analysis violated the impartiality requirement where, as here, the Council used precise statutory language to describe existing law and then explained the text of the proposed measure and its effects,' she wrote. 'Instead, this Court has concluded that analyses were not impartial where they departed from or inaccurately described the text of the existing law or the proposed measure or failed to include relevant contextual information.' The justices also argued that Arizona law prefers the use of 'unborn human being' over 'fetus' because the latter might confuse voters. The law governing how to write publicity pamphlet summaries calls for 'clear and concise' language that avoids technical terms. 'Fetus,' according to the high court's majority, may be too difficult for Arizonans to understand, and the difference between it and 'unborn human being,' the justices posited, is akin to the difference between 'myocardial infarction' and 'heart attack.' 'Put simply, (the law) recognizes that the use of non-technical terms where possible is more likely to assist voters with understanding and rationally assessing a proposed measure, in particular with voters who lack specialized training or expertise in a technical area,' the majority concluded. King added that removing the phrase 'unborn human being' would amount to the high court tipping the scales in favor of abortion rights groups. She argued that some voters might be swayed by the difference in language, and that lawmakers were trying to highlight the 'moral' policy change that Prop. 139 was seeking to achieve. 'By accurately noting that existing statutory law describes a pregnancy as involving an 'unborn human being' and then identifying that the Initiative proposes adding the terms 'fetus' and 'fetal' into the Arizona Constitution when creating 'a fundamental right to abortion,' the Analysis provides background information about existing law and the measure's proposed changes,' King wrote. 'This approach impartially puts voters on notice of exactly what they are voting for or against.' By lobbying for replacing the phrase with 'fetus,' the justices said that abortion groups were really trying to push for a description that would benefit their initiative. And that's unlawful, because Arizona state law expressly bars legislative council from taking a side. 'If 'fetus' were used, the Council would have deviated from existing law's text and placed its thumb on the scale in favor of the Initiative under the guise of 'neutral terminology,'' the court ruled. Timmer, the court's chief justice, and Justice James Beene disagreed, arguing that waving away the phrase as nothing more than a direct quote ignores its partisan origins. Timmer wrote in the dissenting opinion that, even though the U.S. Supreme Court toppled Roe v. Wade and gave states the power to regulate abortion, the debate over the procedure continues to be as 'politically, morally, philosophically, and emotionally divisive' as ever. And the central question in that debate is when, exactly, a pregnant woman is carrying an 'unborn human being.' By inserting that phrase into the publicity pamphlet summary, Timmer said, the Legislative Council took a side in that argument. She also reminded the court that, while Arizona law demands impartiality from Legislative Council and its summaries, no such requirements exist for lawmakers. That means that a ballot measure summary which quotes a law also risks carrying with it any biased language or motives that were enshrined in that statute. Timmer lambasted the majority opinion for unhesitatingly accepting the phrase 'unborn human being' as impartial simply because it was pulled from existing law and said it was a shaky foundation on which to approve legislative council summaries. 'To illustrate with a far-fetched example, if the legislature had used the term 'sweet, innocent baby' in (the 2022 law), I doubt anyone would view that term as 'impartial' if used in describing an abortion-related measure, although it would be accurate to say that the term is used in the statute,' she wrote. 'Our job is to determine whether the analysis is impartial as required by (Arizona law), meaning we cannot rubberstamp language as 'impartial' merely because the legislature used it in an affected statute.' But while the majority opinion clarified that it wasn't intended to set a precedent for automatically regarding every state statute as impartial, Montgomery conceded as much in a concurring opinion. Just because a phrase as colorful as 'sweet innocent baby' is included in a hypothetical state law, he wrote, doesn't immediately render a Legislative Council description which quotes it biased. Instead, the court must look at the analysis as a whole. And, he concluded, simply because 'unborn human being' has been a sticking point for advocates on both sides of the abortion debate, it doesn't mean that the summary of Prop. 139 should have been thrown out. 'The mere fact that the phrase might also be used in debates concerning the legal rights and statuses that ought to be afforded (or not) to human fetuses/unborn human beings does not render this use of the phrase partial,' Montgomery wrote. In the dissenting opinion, Timmer and Beene criticized the Legislative Council summary for advancing a phrase that sought to sway voters and convince them, with alarming language right off the bat, that Prop. 139 directly conflicted with their 'moral interests.' 'In starting the legislative analysis by using the term 'unborn human being' when paraphrasing the statute that currently prohibits abortions after fifteen weeks' gestation, the Council promoted that value judgement that a fetus is a 'human being',' Timmer wrote. 'For that reason, I cannot find that the legislative analysis is impartial.' Timmer also took issue with the claim that keeping 'unborn human being' in the summary gave voters the opportunity to decide which term to back. Prop. 139, Timmer wrote, was never about what language Arizona should use. 'Word choice in Arizona law was not the issue in the Initiative,' she said. 'Indisputably, the Initiative did not give voters the option of inserting the term 'unborn human being' into Arizona law.' King accused Timmer of failing to address the fact that 'fetus' carries just as much partisan implication as 'unborn human being,' and argued that only by including both terms could Legislative Council create a fully impartial analysis. But Timmer responded that the courts have never accepted 'cancelling out' influence as a solution, and said that the justices are only responsible for identifying unlawful summaries. There's no reason, she wrote, that the legislative council couldn't have avoided any impropriety by simply leaving both terms out. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Voters added abortion rights to the Constitution. Republicans want abortion pill restrictions.
Photo via Getty Images 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
Yahoo
13-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Arizona's most powerful anti-abortion lobbyist retired following key defeats last year
Cathi Herrod in 2025. Photo by Gage Skidmore | Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0 Cathi Herrod, who led the decades-long fight to enact dozens of anti-abortion laws in Arizona, left her post as president of the Center for Arizona Policy last month. Herrod helmed Center for Arizona Policy, an evangelical Christian advocacy group that has fought for — and in many cases succeeded — laws restricting abortion and curtailing rights for gay and transgender people, for nearly 20 years before retiring in January. Center for Arizona Policy is a powerful lobbying group that had a hand in most of the Grand Canyon State's abortion restrictions passed over the past 30 years, including the 15-week ban signed into law in 2022. That ban was nullified when voters in November approved the Arizona Abortion Access Act, which enshrined the right to abortion into the state constitution, and set the stage for the courts to unravel much of the abortion regulation that Herrod and her organization worked to place in state law to make it more difficult for women to access reproductive health care and for doctors to provide it. 'Arizona will come to regret passing Prop 139 — when girls and women lose their doctors and safeguards, when parents get shut out, when a staggering number of unborn lives end before they even begin, and when voters realize they have been lied to by proponents who would say anything to pass their extreme abortion amendment,' Herrod wrote in a statement shortly after the election. Herrod and the Center for Arizona Policy were vocal opponents and fought to defeat the measure. Also last year, Herrod fought to keep the legislature from overturning a near-total abortion ban that was written in 1864, which she called 'the most protective pro-life law in the country.' Lawmakers ultimately repealed that Civil War-era law. She and the Center for Arizona Policy also backed an Alabama Supreme Court ruling that effectively made in vitro fertilization illegal in that state. On Jan. 16, Herrod quietly announced her retirement through a post on the Center for Arizona Policy website. In a letter to supporters, she wrote that she decided in 2022 that her time as president was coming to an end. 'Serving God through His work at Center for Arizona Policy has been a blessing for me,' she wrote. 'I have had the joy of knowing I was called to this work and this ministry. You all have been an encouragement and blessing. Your prayers mean more to me than I can say.' In the same missive, Herrod introduced her successor, Peter Gentala, who served as an attorney for the CAP from 2004 to 2008. That year, he was hired as a GOP caucus attorney for the Arizona House of Representatives, and he later worked for Childhelp. Gentala officially took over as the organization's president on Feb. 10. 'I consider it a high honor and blessing for Peter to follow me,' Herrod wrote. 'I can't think of anyone more qualified and suited to lead CAP forward. Peter loves the Lord and lives out a biblically-formed worldview.' In an adjoining statement, Greg Fraley, chairman of CAP's board of directors, wrote that throughout his career Gentala has focused on the issues that matter most to the Center for Arizona Policy. Prior to his previous stint with CAP, Gentala worked for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Scottsdale-based advocacy group that files lawsuits aimed at advancing far-right policy goals.. 'I am so happy and honored to follow Cathi Herrod as CAP's next president,' Gentala wrote in a statement. 'I admire Cathi — and I know that admiration is shared throughout our great state. Through the years, she has been a dynamic leader, a redoubtable advocate for the truth, and a compassionate reflection of God's love.' In addition to its advocacy for restrictions on abortion, the Center for Arizona Policy supported Arizona's universal expansion of state-funded vouchers to pay for private school tuition, as well as a litany of anti-LGBTQ policies and legislation. The organization's 'statement of faith' posted on its website says that its members believe marriage 'has only one meaning; the uniting of one man and one woman in a single, exclusive union, as delineated in Scripture' and that sex should only occur in a marriage between a man and a woman. The statement goes on to say that 'the rejection of one's biological sex and adoption of a transgender self-conception is inconsistent with God's holy purposes in creation and a departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.' In Gentala's statement, he praised CAP's work over the past 30 years, saying that it had contributed to more than 200 pieces of legislation that he said affirmed the value of every human life, the importance of families as the foundation of society and freedom to practice religion. 'As my season of leadership begins, please know that my overarching ambition for this organization is to be ready and willing to answer the call of the Lord, to entrust all results in His hands, and to give Him the Glory every step of the way,' Gentala wrote. Herrod did not respond to a request for comment. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
