(The Center Square) – The Arizona Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Prop. 139, a citizen-led ballot measure to put abortion access in the Arizona Constitution, will remain on the ballot.
This decision was put before the Supreme Court after the pro-life organization, Arizona Right to Life, appealed the superior court’s decision to keep the proposition on the ballot despite Arizona Right to Life’s claims that the language on the petition used to collect signatures was misleading.
Their claims of misleading language include that the petition did not include the word “treating” in front of healthcare providers when referenced in the 200-word description on the petition and that the description omits the phrase “good faith judgments,” when talking about decisions made by healthcare providers. Additionally, Arizona Right to Life claimed that the description was misleading since it did not outline the consequences this amendment would have on current abortion regulations.
“The superior court was required to disqualify the Initiative from the ballot only if the Description either (1) “omitted a ‘principal provision’ of the measure” or (2) failed to accurately communicate the principal provisions’ general objectives,” reads the Supreme Court’s decision. “Plaintiff/Appellant does not argue that the Description omits a principal provision. Instead, it challenges the Description’s accuracy in describing these provisions.”
According to the Supreme Court, the principal provisions of Prop. 139 are the establishment of a fundamental right to abortion, the scope of that right before and after viability and the prohibition on the state from penalizing an individual for exercising that right. If successful, the change to the state's constitution would prevent lawmakers from altering abortion law.
“The Description explains each of these provisions and the tests that would apply to restrictions upon that right,” reads the decision. “Nothing in the Description “either communicates objectively false or misleading information or obscures the principal provisions’ basic thrust.”
Additionally, the court said that the description is not required to explain the proposition’s' impact on current abortion regulations.
“Moreover, a reasonable person would necessarily understand that existing laws that fail the prescribed tests would be invalid rather than continue in effect,” reads the decision. “Similarly, a reasonable person would assume that the “health care provider” tasked with determining fetal viability would ordinarily be the pregnant woman’s own treating physician, who is, by virtue of such person’s profession, guided by ethical codes and presumably acts in good faith to preserve her health.”
Arizona for Abortion Access sent a statement on Tuesday following the Supreme Court’s decision, stating that they are confident Arizonans will vote in favor of Prop. 139.
“With less than 80 days to go until the election, we will continue working around the clock to ensure Arizona voters from every corner of the state, from every background and every political party say YES to putting personal decisions about pregnancy and abortion where they belong - with patients, their families and their doctors, without government interference,” reads the press release. “We are confident that this fall, Arizona voters will make history by establishing a fundamental right to abortion in our state, once and for all.”
Jill Norgaard, communications director for Arizona Right to Life, said that despite the Supreme Court's ruling, they will continue to "work with our pro-life partners across the state to continue to expose what this language actually is, which is allowing abortion up to birth."
The language of the proposition says that the state is prohibited from interfering with an individual's fundamental right to abortion until the point of fetal viability, with exceptions for after fetal viability only if the women's physical or mental health is in danger.
Most Popular
Comments / 0