In November, Arizona voters will make the final decision on whether abortion should be a right in the Grand Canyon State after the Arizona Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch effort by anti-abortion activists to remove the question from the ballot.
Dawn Penich, a spokeswoman for the campaign behind the abortion rights initiative, celebrated the court’s decision as a victory for Arizona voters to make their voices heard.
“This victory means Arizona voters can have their say and enshrine the right to abortion in our state constitution, putting personal medical decisions where they belong: in the hands of patients and doctors once and for all,” she said in a written statement.
Arizona Right to Life sought to invalidate all signature collections collected under the Arizona Abortion Access Act, arguing that voters were illegally deceived and tricked into signing. The anti-abortion organization, along with other prominent anti-abortion groups, was part of a Decline to Sign campaign that unsuccessfully attempted to persuade voters not to support the initiative on the ballot.
The campaign behind it Proposal 139 collected a record number of signatures to qualify for the November ballot, and almost 578,000 were confirmed as valid last week – far exceeding the 383,923 votes needed to pass a proposal to amend the Arizona Constitution.
In court Arizona Right to Life argued that a 200-word summary of the ballot proposal, presented to voters by petition distributors to collect signatures, was so illegally misleading that they were left with no choice but to throw out all the signature lists. One of the group’s main complaints was that the summary did not explain that the initiative has the potential to override several existing abortion laws, including the current ban on pregnancy after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
The law guarantees access to abortion until the time of fetal viability, which is generally about 24 weeks, and provides exceptions even after that period if a health care provider deems the procedure necessary to preserve a woman’s life or physical or mental health. It also prohibits state laws that deny, impair, or limit a woman’s right to an abortion unless the state has a compelling interest in doing so, based on evidence-based decision-making that does not interfere with the woman’s autonomy.
Arizona Right to Life’s argument failed to convince a Maricopa County Superior Court judge, who ruled earlier this month that the Summary is absolutely correct and the group’s criticism of the way the campaign described the act should be voiced in the political arena. On Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court sided with the lower court, that the summary complies with state lawsAll seven judges unanimously ordered that the initiative be included in the November ballot.
In a five-page ruling, Chief Judge Ann Scott Timmer wrote that the initiative’s 200-word summary adequately sets out its “key provisions,” as required by law. Arizona LawThese provisions, according to the judges, consist of the Arizona Abortion Access Act establishing a fundamental right to abortion, guaranteeing the right to an abortion up to and beyond fetal viability, and preventing the state from punishing anyone who assists a woman in having an abortion.
Arizona Right to Life’s complaint that the summary did not mention how the initiative relates to existing state law is irrelevant, Timmer wrote, because state law does not require such a statement in the summary. And, she added, it is unnecessary because most Arizonans would understand the impact of the initiative without education.
“The description need not explain the impact of the initiative on existing abortion laws or regulations,” Timmer wrote. “Moreover, a reasonable person would necessarily understand that existing laws that fail the required tests are invalid and will not remain in effect.”
Another argument made by Arizona Right to Life was that the summary omitted the fact that the health care provider mentioned in the initiative, who can authorize an abortion even after the fetus is viable, can also be an abortion doctor. The group’s lawyers said that could open the door to bad faith judgments because abortion doctors directly profit from performing abortions, and argued that including that detail in the 200-word summary may have convinced some voters not to put their names on the petition’s signature lists.
But the Supreme Court rejected that argument, too. Timmer wrote that most Arizonans assume that “health care provider” includes the “treating physician” a woman consults. And, she added, most voters recognize that health care providers adhere to ethical principles and act in good faith to protect the health of their patients.
Ultimately, Arizona Right to Life’s complaints are not enough to keep the abortion rights proposal off the ballot. In fact, Timmer said, most of the group’s criticisms can best be addressed in the political realm, through lobbying and public opposition.
