Latest news with #Proposition139
Axios
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Lawsuit challenges Arizona abortion limits
A new lawsuit seeks to overturn a trio of abortion restrictions based on the sweeping reproductive rights measure Arizona voters approved last year. The big picture: Voters in November overwhelmingly passed Proposition 139, which guarantees the right to an abortion through fetal viability, which is generally around 24 weeks. The amendment to the Arizona Constitution also prohibits any law that "denies, restricts or interferes" with abortion access before fetal viability, unless it's justified by a compelling state interest and "achieved by the least restrictive means." Yes, but: The abortion rights guaranteed by the measure don't go into effect automatically, and laws restricting abortion rights must be challenged in court before they can be struck down under Prop. 139. Why it matters: Abortion rights advocates have long argued that many state laws are unnecessarily restrictive and needlessly make it more difficult to get an abortion. Catch up quick: Under Prop. 139, abortion rights advocates quickly targeted the state's 15-week abortion ban, which a judge struck down in March, and pledged future lawsuits against other restrictions that Arizona enacted through the years. Driving the news: A lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court on Thursday by two doctors and the Arizona Medical Association argued that various laws and sets of restrictions are in violation of Prop. 139. Those laws: Prohibit abortions because of nonfatal genetic abnormalities in the fetus Require patients to get an ultrasound at least 24 hours before an abortion, which forces them to make multiple trips to a provider, and require doctors to provide information about abortion alternatives Ban telehealth for abortion and prohibit the mailing of abortion pills What's next: The Arizona Attorney General's Office is reviewing the new lawsuit and hasn't decided yet whether it will defend the laws, spokesperson Richie Taylor told Axios. The Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), a conservative nonprofit that champions anti-abortion laws, also has not yet determined whether it would intervene in the lawsuit if Attorney General Kris Mayes declines to defend the laws, president Peter Gentala told Axios. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative group that recently defended the genetic abnormalities law and a fetal personhood law in court, couldn't immediately be reached for comment. Mayes agreed the 15-week ban violated Prop. 139. What they're saying: "Arizona voters took back the power to make their own reproductive health care decisions. Yet they still must jump through hoops to get abortion care," Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights which represents some plaintiffs in the case, said in a press statement. "These burdensome restrictions have been in place for far too long, so we're going to court to strike them down once and for all."
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
18-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Both sides claim victory as Arizona fetal personhood lawsuit dismissed
Photo by iStock / Getty Images Plus A legal challenge against an Arizona law that gives fetuses rights has been dropped, putting the law back on the books despite an overwhelming majority of voters who agreed last year to make abortion a constitutional right in the Grand Canyon State. Whether it is ever enforced, or even can be legally because of that election, remains to be seen. On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Rayes dismissed the multi-year lawsuit and dissolved a previous order blocking the fetal personhood provision from ever being enforced. Rayes' order came after both sides involved in the litigation said that the passage of Proposition 139, which enshrined abortion in the state constitution, made their disagreement moot. 'The legal landscape regarding abortion care under the United States and Arizona Constitutions has shifted throughout the pendency of this matter,' reads the joint stipulation of dismissal. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Four years ago, the Republican-controlled legislature passed a law banning abortions performed because of a fetus' genetic abnormality. Providers found in violation of that mandate faced a class 6 felony, which carries with it a prison sentence between four months and two years. That same 2021 law also ascribed all the rights of an Arizonan citizen to an 'unborn child' from conception onward. But the fetal personhood provision, which abortion advocates warned would outlaw virtually all abortions, has never been in effect, as Rayes swiftly issued an order blocking it on the grounds that it conflicted with an existing personhood definition already in state law. But Tuesday's decision toppled that order, making the personhood provision enforceable, at least in theory. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, who would be in charge of enforcing the 2021 law, has vowed never to take any abortion provider to court. And an executive order from Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs centralized the prosecutorial authority for abortion law violations in Mayes' office, preventing any of the state's 15 county attorneys from enforcing the law. The litigation around the fetal abnormality abortion ban has been more fraught. Just months after being signed by then-Gov. Doug Ducey, Rayes blocked the law under the auspices of Roe v. Wade. But less than a year later, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal right to abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in 2022 and also allowed the genetic abnormality ban to go into effect. A bid by reproductive rights groups to revive the injunction was rejected, and, since 2023, it continues to restrict how abortion providers can care for their patients, even as Mayes has promised never to take them to court over it. Last year, 62% of Arizona voters cast their ballots in favor of amending the state constitution to include abortion as a guaranteed right. But that didn't automatically nullify the fetal abnormality abortion ban, its fetal personhood provision or the dozens of other anti-abortion laws that still remain in state law. There are only two paths to striking down those laws: via legislative repeal or court challenges. And, so far, neither path has borne any success. The GOP majority isn't inclined to alienate its pro-life base and reproductive rights groups have been hesitant to embark on the costly court strategy. Both abortion advocates and proponents of the 2021 law touted the dismissal as a victory. Civia Tamarkin, the president of the National Council of Jewish Women Arizona, which helped lead the challenge against the law, attributed the dismissal to the passage of Prop. 139. 'This dismissal is because of the constitutional amendment that now makes this lawsuit unnecessary,' she said in a written statement. 'The people of Arizona have spoken loudly and clearly last November: decisions about pregnancy must remain with individuals, not politicians.' Tamarkin told the Arizona Mirror that the lawsuit was a 'stopgap' measure meant to delay the law's effective date until Arizonans had a chance to weigh in on the legality of the procedure. Now that abortion is a fundamental right, she said, the legal challenge isn't needed anymore because Prop. 139 has rendered the law unconstitutional at the state level. The federal lawsuit alleged that the 2021 law violated the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment because it was too vague for providers to comply with. Abortion rights groups argued in court that providers could potentially infer the reasoning behind an abortion during the initial consultation, when ultrasounds are administered. And while the fetal abnormality abortion ban may still need a direct legal challenge to remove it from Arizona law, Tamarkin said her organization believes the fetal personhood provision is as good as dead in light of Prop. 139. 'We don't believe that it would be enforced against a provider because the amendment guarantees access to abortion,' she said. 'Implicit in that is that, not only can a patient be guaranteed access, but that a provider can present those services to the patient. It just seems implicit and obvious.' Prop. 139 explicitly protects the rights of both women and health care providers to seek and perform abortions, and it bars the state from adopting, enforcing or passing any policy that punishes abortion providers. But supporters of the 2021 law disagree. An attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, the Scottsdale-based Christian legal advocacy organization that represented GOP legislative leadership in the court challenges against the law when Mayes declined to defend it, said in its final filing in the case that the law can — and should — be enforced. Republican Senate President Warren Petersen, who is mounting a bid to challenge Mayes in 2026, echoed that stance in an emailed statement. 'The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their own case, which is a victory for us. The lawsuit is over. The law remains valid and enforceable,' he said. Richie Taylor, a spokesman for Mayes, acknowledged that the dismissal means the law remains in place and unfrozen, but said the Democrat believes it's invalid because of the right afforded by Prop. 139. 'Although the laws are still currently on the books after the stipulated dismissal, as previous public filings in the case have indicated, Attorney General Mayes continues to believe both the Interpretation Policy and Reason Ban laws are unconstitutional,' Taylor said, using the monikers given to the fetal personhood provision and the genetic abnormality ban to differentiate the two in legal filings. Rayes rejected a bid to keep the legal challenge alive, and he declined to consider the question raised by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys about who can decide whether the 2021 law is unconstitutional. In a supplemental briefing filed the same day the joint agreement to dismiss the lawsuit was submitted, Kevin Theriot, senior counsel for the legal organization, argued that Prop. 139 should have no bearing on the case. 'The new state constitutional amendment is irrelevant to Plaintiffs' federal unconstitutional claims,' he wrote. 'This case is a federal lawsuit before a federal judge alleging federal constitutional claims.' Because the opponents of the 2021 law based their legal challenge on the argument that it violated the U.S. Constitution, the passage of Prop. 139 shouldn't affect the lawsuit's outcome or Rayes' final determination, Theriot argued. Instead, the only way for the 2021 law to be invalidated by Prop. 139 is via a lawsuit initiated at the state level. To date, no such lawsuit challenging the law's continued existence has been filed. 'Arizona's state constitutional amendment protecting abortion doesn't affect the federal vagueness claims,' Theriot wrote. 'And the amendment doesn't prohibit enforcing the challenged laws unless and until a state court determines that there is no 'compelling state interest' for the laws. Indeed, the amendment doesn't repeal any Arizona abortion laws, all of which remained in effect after the passage of the amendment.' It's unclear why Alliance Defending Freedom was attempting to continue the legal challenge. In his brief, Theriot urged Rayes to declare that the accusations of vagueness made against the fetal abnormality abortion ban and the fetal personhood provision were unfounded. If the case had survived the dismissal agreement, it's possible a petition could have landed at the U.S. Supreme Court. But Rayes shot that down by approving the joint dismissal instead, and making no reference to the extra filing — which Tamarkin said was filed days after the legal team for Alliance Defending Freedom had already signed onto the dismissal, in an apparent and confusing reversal of the organization's agreement to end the legal challenge. Both the fetal abnormality abortion ban and the fetal personhood law remain in effect, and while, for now, Democratic leadership guarantees neither will ever be used against a provider, the future is uncertain. And reproductive rights groups continue to be silent on what their next steps might be. A spokeswoman for the Arizona branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, which helped challenge the 2021 law in court, celebrated the news of the dismissal but did not respond to follow-up questions on whether the organization plans to take it to court over conflicts with Prop. 139. Tamarkin said a state-level challenge over constitutionality would first need to identify people who are being negatively impacted by the law, and added that the National Council of Jewish Women Arizona is still figuring out its future legal strategy. 'Any specific challenges in the light of the state constitution, would be made by other plaintiffs,' she said. 'We just got this stipulation granted on Monday. What any next legal steps may be have not yet been determined.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Republicans advance ‘backdoor abortion ban' despite voter-approved protections
A protester at a Planned Parenthood Great Northwest rally in Boise, Idaho, holds up a sign about the EMTALA case on April 21, 2024. Photo by Otto Kitsinger | Idaho Capital Sun Last year, Arizonans took away the ability of lawmakers to restrict abortion. Now, Republicans are trying to prohibit any doctor in the state from ever mentioning the procedure as an option for their patients, in what critics are calling a 'backdoor abortion ban.' Both state and federal law already bar most abortions from being paid for with public funds. Only procedures performed in rape or incest cases or to save a woman's life are covered with federal money under Medicaid. But the sweeping change to state law would forbid the state and any of its political subdivisions, including state agencies and cities, from entering into contracts with or awarding grants to any person or facility that provides or 'promotes' abortions. That would eliminate Medicaid funding to any hospital, health care facility or doctor who sees AHCCCS patients — virtually every health care provider in Arizona — if they so much as tell a pregnant patient about abortions. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX House Bill 2547 flies in the face of the constitutional amendment voters approved last year. In November, 62% of Arizonans voted to enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution via Proposition 139. Along with making the procedure a fundamental right, the initiative also explicitly prohibited the passage or enforcement of any law that infringes on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion unless that law's intent is to improve or maintain her health, is rooted in evidence-based medicine, and preserves her autonomous decision-making. Republicans have sought to frame the bill as preventing taxpayers from footing the bill for abortions. Rep. Lupe Diaz, R-Benson, who sponsored the measure, acknowledged that abortion rights were added to the Arizona Constitution, but said the state should have no part in bolstering the entities that advocate for or perform it, singling out the state's largest abortion provider. '(Abortion) is legal,' he said to lawmakers on the Senate Government Committee on Wednesday. 'In my mind, that's now in the marketplace and we need to let the marketplace go ahead and afford it rather than state funds support it. We don't need state funds to support Planned Parenthood.' While the proposal has been widely regarded as a particular attack on Planned Parenthood, which receives some federal funding for a range of family planning services its clinics offer and treats Medicaid patients, reproductive rights groups have warned it also functions as a gag rule for medical providers across the state — including in hospital emergency rooms. Rep. Lauren Kuby, D-Tempe, questioned whether the bill would cause emergency room doctors to avoid performing abortions in life-threatening cases rather than have the facility's funding pulled. Diaz claimed that emergency situations would be exempt from the bill's prohibition, despite the fact that no such exception is included in its text. And federal protections for doctors and hospitals are unlikely to bridge the gap. While the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act has long been understood as mandating that hospitals which receive federal money must stabilize patients facing life-threatening complications, even when an abortion is warranted, the Trump administration recently appeared to abandon that interpretation. On top of that, Diaz's bill also promises the rescinding of state and local funding for facilities that violate its provisions. Kuby grilled Diaz on what constitutes 'promotion' of abortion, saying she was concerned that even doctors responding to questions from their patients about abortion clinics could be perceived as falling afoul of the bill. 'If a patient asks: 'Where could I get an abortion in Maricopa County?' is that promoting abortion?' she asked. Diaz agreed that it would be. He claimed that the majority of abortions are 'for convenience' and not performed due to an emergency. 'There's a difference between promoting an abortion and then also saying that 'You need medical attention.' I think that's totally different,' he said. 'What you're looking at is a healthy fetus, a healthy baby inside the womb, and the doctor can't say, 'Well, I recommend that you go and get an abortion because you're suffering psychologically.'' The protections in Prop. 139, however, have no such restrictions. Under the voter-approved constitutional provisions, both abortions performed up to the point of fetal viability — generally regarded to be between 23 and 24 weeks of gestation — and those beyond that time are constitutionally protected if a doctor deems one is necessary to safeguard a woman's life, physical or mental health. Kuby pointed out that the proposal is in direct conflict with the Arizona Constitution, but she was quickly cut off by Chairman Jake Hoffman, a Queen Creek Republican and long-time opponent of abortion. 'There's no reason to talk about (Prop.) 139 because this doesn't deal with 139. This deals with public funding,' he said. A member of Arizona's federal delegation also spoke out in defense of the proposal and downplayed any violations of Prop. 139. 'This bill does not litigate Prop 139,' U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs told lawmakers on the panel. 'It doesn't condemn Prop. 139 nor does it advocate for Prop 139.' The Congressman from Arizona's 5th congressional district argued that doctors should not benefit from public funding if they're going to discuss abortion with their patients. Kuby pressed Biggs on why, even for patients who wouldn't be eligible for Medicaid, health care providers should censor themselves. Biggs argued that the bill doesn't prevent doctors from offering information to any of their patients, it simply establishes that the state won't support them in doing so. 'There's nothing in this that says that he can't say, 'You can go get an abortion and you can go to this clinic,'' Biggs said. 'What it says is … we're not going to pay for that doctor who is providing that reference.' Biggs, a former state lawmaker and one-time president of the state Senate, is running for governor in 2026. Reproductive rights groups urged lawmakers to reject the proposal, warning that it would harm low-income Arizonans who rely on Medicaid health care. Jodi Liggett, a lobbyist for Reproductive Freedom for All and Camelback Family Planning, one of just a handful of private abortion clinics in the state, reminded lawmakers that public funding is already mostly barred from being used to pay for abortions, except in limited cases for patients covered under the state's Medicaid plan, the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System. But despite very few abortions being eligible for federal funding, the bill would affect nearly all Arizonans because the vast majority of doctors and health care facilities accept AHCCCS and would be subject to the proposal's requirements. 'It will function effectively as a backdoor abortion ban,' Liggett said. 'No state dollars of any kind could be granted or spent under contract at any facility that performs or refers out to abortions.' She criticized the bill for seeking to regulate a practice that the state is otherwise not involved in, and said patients deserve to know their doctors are telling them about all the care available. 'This is an overreach into information and care that the state isn't paying for and limits patients' access to complete information about their health care options,' she said. Jeanne Woodbury, speaking on behalf of the Arizona chapter of Planned Parenthood, said that the organization offers a wide range of health care services at its seven clinics that would likely be jeopardized because of the abortions it provides. 'The kind of services we provide, aside from abortion, that are funded through Medicaid for patients who have AHCCCS include STI testing, wellness exams, and basic essential reproductive health care,' she said. 'That is what would be defunded by this bill — not abortion, which is already not funded by the state. So, if you're worried about your tax dollars going to something you don't agree with, they're already not. ' Along with abortion rights advocates, multiple health care groups have opposed the bill, including the Maricopa County Medical Society, the Arizona Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dr. Sheena Galhotra, a member of ACOG and a local OB-GYN, criticized Republicans for advancing a proposal that so clearly flouts the mandate issued by voters in Prop. 139. 'It threatens the health and lives of Arizonans, it imposes dangerous restrictions on medical care and it directly contradicts the will of Arizona voters,' she said. Galhotra added that the provisions in HB2547 would have wide-ranging consequences for medical providers and patients. She noted that roughly half of all babies born in Arizona are born under Medicaid, nearly every hospital and OB-GYN accepts AHCCCS and virtually every OB-GYN has performed an abortion in emergency situations. She shared that she has performed abortions for patients who were hemorrhaging or who experienced a prematurely ruptured membrane that later caused a life threatening infection. Galhotra warned lawmakers that approving the proposal would lead to delayed care, as doctors weigh the risks of forfeiting public funding, which could prove dangerous for women across the state. 'This bill strong-arms doctors into withholding care, forcing them to let women die, robbing families of wives, daughters and mothers,' she said. 'If passed, this would effectively defund hospitals.' In the end, the GOP-majority committee greenlit the bill by a vote of 4-3, with only Republicans in favor. It next goes before the full Senate for consideration. But even if it makes it through that final stage, it's headed straight for a veto. Gov. Katie Hobbs is a strong proponent of abortion access and has consistently rejected proposals that seek to restrict the procedure. Also approved on March 18 was House Bill 2439, which would require AHCCCS to include a link on its website that leads to a list of organizations that assist women through pregnancy and information on the state's adoption system. Agencies that perform or refer women to abortion services are prohibited from being included. The Arizona Department of Health Services is already required to maintain a similar link, but the bill's sponsor, Rep. Rachel Keshel, said it's important for women covered by the state's low-income health care program to have every opportunity to learn about alternatives to abortion. 'This will ensure that those women have the same resources in front of them when they go to the AHCCCS website,' the Tucson Republican said. 'It's frustrating, because we like to use the term 'pro-choice,' but honestly, it seems like on our side of the aisle, we're more pro-choice because we want women to have other options.' Liggett acknowledged that, while the same information is already available on ADHS' website, reproductive rights advocates are opposed because the exclusion of abortion as an option unfairly tilts the conversation towards anti-abortion resources. 'Government resources of information, we feel, should be impartial, not given limited or slanted information,' she said. Liggett added that some of the agencies that are included in the list are crisis pregnancy centers — religious organizations whose sole purpose is to deter women from seeking abortions. The largest crisis pregnancy center provider in Arizona, Choices Pregnancy Centers of Greater Phoenix, which has clinics across the Valley, showed up to support the bill. Josh Chumley, the organization's chief advancement officer, said that Choices wants women to be aware of all their options, and added that he would be in favor of widening the list to include even abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. Kuby asked Chumley whether the organization is equally open to keeping patients informed about their ability to obtain an abortion, but Chumley sharply refuted that, saying that women aren't counseled about or referred to abortion providers, but are instead given the 'full story' about the procedure. Kuby voted against the bill, which also passed with only Republican support, and said that it undermines the newly-enshrined fundamental right to abortion. 'We have a constitutionally protected right to understand what our options are whether that's abortion, whether that's adoption — all reproductive health care,' she said. 'So, for the state to skew that information in violation of Prop. 139 is not a road we should be taking.' Republicans, however, defended the bill as nothing more than providing Arizonans with other health care options besides abortion, and rebuked reproductive rights advocates for what they perceived as an attempt to limit access to information. Hoffman accused advocates who spoke against the bill of wishing to uphold only abortion care and said a veto from Hobbs would just serve to reinforce that. 'This bill seeks to provide alternate options for pregnancy support services and adoption,' he said. 'Seems like a very reasonable thing. I doubt that our unreasonable Katie Hobbs will actually sign it, but we're going to send it to her and make her veto it. You know why? Because it's not a good look for you guys.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
20-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Arizona abortion initiative petition circulator indicted in Maricopa County
The Maricopa County Attorney's Office indicted a petition circulator, alleging she submitted false signatures in support of the 2024 abortion rights ballot initiative. Michele Lee Brimmer, 52, gathered signatures to place Proposition 139 on the November ballot, according to the prosecutor's office. Proposition 139 supporters submitted over 823,000 signatures and the Arizona Secretary of State estimated there were nearly 578,000 valid ones. To qualify for the ballot, about 384,000 valid petition signatures were required. The proposition later passed with more than 60% of the vote. The number of signatures believed to be fraudulent would not have affected whether the initiative was placed on the ballot, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell said Thursday in announcing the indictment. 'Fraudulent petition signatures undermine the public's trust in our elections and will not be tolerated by this office,' Mitchell said. 'Those who engage in that conduct will be held accountable.' The Maricopa County Attorney's Office determined that several signatures submitted under Brimmer's name were believed to be fraudulent, with some individuals denying that they had signed the petition. The indictment identified nine petition entries as containing fictitious information. Brimmer, whose first court date has not yet been announced, was indicted on one count of fraud schemes and practices, a Class 5 felony; four counts of forgery, a Class 4 felony; and nine counts of false signatures on a petition, a Class 1 misdemeanor. Brimmer could not be reached for comment Thursday, and a defense attorney had not yet been assigned to her case, according to Maricopa County Superior Court records. (This story was updated to add new information.) This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona abortion initiative petition circulator indicted
