Latest news with #CenterforArizonaPolicy
Time of India
23-05-2025
- Health
- Time of India
US: Arizona sued by abortion rights advocates over restrictive laws
Photo: AP Reproductive rights advocates filed a lawsuit on Thursday aiming to overturn several abortion-related laws in the US state of Arizona, arguing that the restrictions violate the state's newly amended constitution, which protects abortion access up to the point of fetal viability. The lawsuit was brought by two Arizona abortion providers and the Arizona Medical Association. It follows the passage of a 2024 ballot measure in which voters approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing abortion rights until fetal viability, typically around 24 to 26 weeks of pregnancy. The legal challenge targets a range of existing state laws, including those that: Ban abortions based on genetic abnormalities, Require patients to receive in-person informed consent at least 24 hours before the procedure, with an opportunity to view an ultrasound, Prohibit the mailing of abortion medication and the use of telehealth services for abortion care. 'These stigmatizing and medically unnecessary abortion restrictions violate the right to reproductive freedom established by Arizona voters last November,' said Rebecca Chan, staff attorney for the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, as quoted by the Associated Press (AP). 'Arizonans are perfectly capable of making decisions about their own reproductive futures.' According to AP, a spokesperson for the Arizona Attorney General's Office confirmed the complaint is under review and stated that current laws should align with the constitutional amendment approved by voters. Arizona was one of several states that passed measures in the 2024 general election to protect abortion rights in their constitutions. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Thousands Are Saving Money Using This Wall Plug elecTrick - Save upto 80% on Power Bill Click Here Undo This lawsuit comes on the heels of a decision earlier this year by an Arizona judge to block the state's 15-week abortion ban, signaling a growing legal push to roll back restrictions enacted prior to the constitutional change. Conservative groups have voiced concern over the lawsuit's implications. Peter Gentala, president of the Center for Arizona Policy — a nonprofit that advocates for socially conservative policies — said the group has not yet decided whether to join the legal battle. 'Women's health is important, and this lawsuit reflects an agenda to maximize abortion in Arizona — and that comes at a cost to women's health,' Peter Gentala, president of Center for Arizona Policy was quoted as saying by the news agency AP.
23-05-2025
- Health
Reproductive rights advocates sue Arizona over laws regulating abortion
PHOENIX -- Reproductive rights advocates sued Arizona on Thursday to unravel several laws regulating abortion in the state. The lawsuit was filed by two providers in the state and the Arizona Medical Association. It comes more than six months after voters enshrined in the state constitution access to abortions up to fetal viability, which is the point at which a fetus can survive outside of the uterus. The advocates are seeking to undo laws including those that bar abortions sought based on genetic abnormalities, require informed consent in-person at least 24 hours before the procedure and offer an opportunity to view the ultrasound, and prohibit abortion medication delivered by mail and the use of tele-health for abortion care. 'These stigmatizing and medically unnecessary abortion restrictions violate the right to reproductive freedom established by Arizona voters last November, and it's time for them to go,' Rebecca Chan, staff attorney for the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said in a statement. 'Arizonans are perfectly capable of making decisions about their own reproductive futures." The state attorney general's office is reviewing the complaint, and an agency spokesperson noted that state law should be in line with the amendment approved by voters last November. Arizona was one of a handful of states that passed ballot measures in the 2024 general election enshrining the right to abortion to their state constitutions. Earlier this year, an Arizona judge blocked the state's 15-week abortion ban. Peter Gentala, president of Center for Arizona Policy, a socially conservative nonprofit, said it is too early to determine if the organization will intervene in the lawsuit. 'Women's health is important and this lawsuit reflects an agenda to maximize abortion in Arizona and that comes at a cost to women's health,' he said.
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
In taking up ‘dark money' disclosure law, AZ Supreme Court could reshape free speech standards
Photo by iStock / Getty Images Plus The Arizona Supreme Court will decide whether a measure that voters overwhelmingly approved to require disclosure of most anonymous campaign spending is constitutional — and, in the process, it could potentially reshape free speech jurisprudence in the Grand Canyon State. The case centers on the Voters Right to Know Act, which won 70% of the vote in 2022. It requires any person or organization making campaign media expenditures of more than $50,000 on a statewide election or $25,000 on local elections to disclose the original source of any contributions totaling more than $5,000. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX It was challenged by the anti-abortion advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, a dark money nonprofit. The political groups argued that mandating disclosure of the source of political spending violates the Arizona Constitution's protections of free speech, association, privacy and separation of powers. Those arguments were rejected by a trial court and the Arizona Court of Appeals, which unanimously ruled in late 2024 that free speech and privacy claims were outweighed by the Arizona Constitution's intent to compel financial disclosure of groups that seek to influence the results of an election. 'The government has strong informational and anti-corruption interests, which are sufficiently important to justify the modest burden the Act places on donors' association rights,' Judge Jennifer Campbell wrote in the court's opinion. 'Plaintiffs fail to articulate why the Act's disclosure requirements are not substantially related to the State's interest in having an informed electorate.' Under federal tax law, neither the Arizona Free Enterprise Club or the Center for Arizona Policy's political arm have to disclose donors. But under Prop. 211, they will be forced to do so for their election-related activities. The two groups lobbied against the passage of Prop. 211, claiming that it was an enshrinement of 'cancel culture.' And CAP, which has a history of pushing anti-LGBTQ+ laws, said it feared the harassment it already received would be directed to its donors if they're forced to be revealed. Neither organization was able to provide proof of a chilling effect or that their financial supporters would face harassment and reprisals, the judges found. In reaching their decision, the appellate judges followed federal precedent regarding disclosure requirements and used an 'exacting scrutiny' standard to evaluate the act's disclosure requirements rather than the tougher 'strict scrutiny' that the dark money groups wanted. But when it accepted the appeal on Wednesday, the Supreme Court told the parties it wants them to argue whether the federal standard for First Amendment cases is applicable to the Arizona Constitution's free speech protections. The state constitution's free speech clause provides broader protections than the First Amendment, and says that every Arizonan 'may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.' By instructing the parties to make their case for what standard should be applied, the Supreme Court made clear it is considering a foundational question about Arizona constitutional interpretation. And the impacts could be significant. If the justices determine that the Arizona Constitution provides greater protection for free speech than the U.S. Constitution, it might apply the 'strict scrutiny' standard. Not only would that force the dark money disclosure law to clear a higher constitutional hurdle, but it would affect any future free speech cases in Arizona. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the state constitution could have greater free speech protections, but followed federal precedent because the Supreme Court has never determined what standard should be applied. Now the high court will determine whether that was correct or if Arizona should chart its own course on free speech standards. 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
