Anti-abortion activists are taking legal action to stop a referendum on enshrining the right to abortion in the Arizona Constitution.
Arizona Right to Life has filed a lawsuit claiming that the initiative is “inherently misleading” due to its poorly written language, which may cause signers to have a different understanding of its intended effects than what is outlined in the actual legal text. The lawsuit was filed on Wednesday and raises concerns about the initiative’s potential for confusion and misinterpretation.
According to Attorney Timothy La Sota, the difference in the petition is significant enough to sway someone’s decision on whether or not to sign it. This, in turn, calls for the removal of the entire measure from the Nov. 5 ballot.
In the event that Judge Melissa Julian of the Maricopa County Superior Court does not agree with those assertions, La Sota has another legal theory up his sleeve.
According to him, approximately 200 individuals who collected signatures did not fulfill one or more of the requirements for circulating petitions. The reasons varied from not registering correctly with the secretary of state, which is mandatory for those who are either paid circulators or non-Arizona residents, to incomplete contact details or previous felony convictions.
La Sota accused certain circulators of using deceitful methods to present the proposal to voters.
According to him, this involves making claims that the proposed measure would solely permit abortions until fetal viability, which is typically around 22 to 24 weeks into the pregnancy. However, the initiative itself, which must be included with the petitions and is accessible to signers, reveals that the procedure may be performed beyond that time frame to safeguard the mother’s life or physical and mental wellbeing.
The discovery of issues with the circulators by Julian does not necessarily indicate that the measure will be removed from the ballot. A thorough investigation by the judge would be required to assess the validity of each signature collected by the circulators, and to decide whether or not they should be disqualified.
Achieving the task at hand would require a significant amount of effort and resources.
Supporters of the Arizona for Abortion Act have reported that they have submitted a total of 823,685 signatures. The requirement is only for 383,923 signatures to be validated for the act to qualify.
While a legal battle ensues in a Maricopa County courtroom regarding the labeling of the measure as Proposition 139, there is another issue at hand.
Supporters of the initiative made a request to Judge Christopher Whitten on Thursday to overturn the decision made by the Republican-controlled Legislative Council. The decision was to use the phrase “unborn human being” in the summary, which is legally required.
According to Attorney Austin Yost, the language used in the description that will be distributed to over 4 million registered voters does not meet the impartiality requirement. Yost is requesting that Judge Whitten declare the language illegal and order the council to comply with the medically correct term “fetus.” He believes that the judge has the authority to enforce this change.
Dr. Patricia Habak, a board certified obstetrician and gynecologist, provided testimony to support Yost’s argument. She informed Whitten that the term “unborn human being” is not medically recognized and is not utilized in medical education or literature.
During the questioning by Kory Langhofer, the attorney hired by GOP legislative leaders to defend the wording, Habak admitted that there may be instances where a doctor could use the phrase in question.
Habak suggested that it might be suitable to provide guidance to a pregnant woman who indulges in drug use or smoking and is in the later stages of pregnancy. This is particularly important as such women may have a better understanding of the impact of their actions on the health of the baby they are carrying. Therefore, advising them on what they should be doing during pregnancy can have a positive outcome on the health of their baby.
Langhofer’s argument is supported by the fact that the law regarding drafting ballot explanations should refrain from using technical terms.
During the conversation, he mentioned that the term “unborn human being” is already present in the current law that permits abortion up to 15 weeks of pregnancy, which this initiative aims to reverse. Langhofer further added that legislators have every right to use the same language while discussing this modification.
After considering the matter, Whitten made a decision.
The relevance of his ruling on the wording comes into play only if Proposition 139 makes it to the ballot, which is precisely what the Arizona Right to Life lawsuit aims to prevent.
If passed, the proposed measure in Arizona would amend the state’s constitution to recognize abortion as a “fundamental right”. It would also prohibit the state from implementing any law, policy, or practice that would impede this right, unless it is deemed necessary to achieve a compelling state interest using the most lenient methods available.
The law not only prohibits post-viability restrictions, but also allows treating physicians to make decisions that safeguard the health and well-being of the pregnant person. Additionally, any law that punishes individuals or organizations for assisting someone in exercising these rights would be deemed illegal.
The lawsuit’s focal point is the matter of “compelling state interest,” which would permit specific limitations.
According to La Sota, the initiative defines any action taken to “improve or maintain the health of an individual seeking abortion care” as long as it aligns with accepted clinical practices and evidence-based medicine.
When Julian proposed the idea, he was told by La Sota that the issue with it is that it would supersede any other significant government interest, “except making the abortion safer for women.” La Sota also pointed out that even the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which first made abortion legal, acknowledged that the state has a “significant and valid interest in safeguarding the potentiality of human life.”
“The fetus is not recognized among the other participants,” stated La Sota.
According to him, the measure also raises concerns about the provision that states regulations must not interfere with an individual’s ability to make autonomous decisions.
La Sota stated that the state is powerless to prevent an abortion, regardless of the despicable eugenic or racist motives behind it, the excruciatingly painful procedure performed on the unborn, or the timing of the termination, even if it is up until the moment of birth.
According to his argument, the language that emphasizes the respect for a woman’s “autonomous” rights could be interpreted as eliminating all regulations, such as the requirement for the procedure to be performed by a qualified professional. Additionally, La Sota believes that this language would also supersede current laws that mandate minors seeking an abortion to obtain either parental consent or judicial approval.
Julian, on the other hand, came to the conclusion that these arguments are more related to the proposal’s advantages, which falls under the voters’ jurisdiction, rather than any legal shortcomings in the initiative.
Circulators, on the other hand, present technical issues that are clearer and easier to define.
In Arizona, it is against the law to collect signatures for petitions if the individual has been penalized for breaking state election laws within the last five years. The same goes for those who have been convicted of fraud, forgery, or identity theft, or have any felony convictions without having their civil rights restored.
La Sota has raised a technical concern about the telephone number provided by the circulator. According to La Sota, the number is either not operational or it does not belong to the person in question.
However, it is also possible that there are reasons behind the situation.
When a person registers as a circulator, they are required to provide a phone number. It’s important to note that this requirement is at the time of registration, and the person may have provided a temporary cell phone number. Just because the number is not currently in use does not necessarily mean the law has been violated.
According to Dawn Pench, the spokeswoman for Arizona for Abortion Access, the complaints made in the litigation are nothing but desperate attempts to silence the will of over 820,000 Arizona voters. In her prepared response, she asserted this fact and highlighted the significance of respecting the decision made by the majority of people.