CV NEWS FEED // On July 30, Arizona Right to Life revised its lawsuit against Proposition 139, which aims to establish a constitutional “right” for women to have an abortion in Arizona, to focus on its strongest argument: the bill’s “vague and misleading” wording.
According to the Arizona Capitol Times, previous claims about issues with petition signatures and fraud by circulators have been dropped.
Arizona Right to Life (AZRTL) spokesperson Jill Norgaard stated that the claims about petition signers and circulators have been dropped so the organization can focus completely on the strongest argument against Proposition 139.
“We are focusing on the language of this faulty petition and how it is extremely vague and misleading to Arizonans,” she said.
AZRTL Attorney Jennifer Wright stated, “Because the arguments in the motion are so strong, Arizona Right to Life dropped the second count, which would have required a massive amount of evidence to be prepared and presented for trial.”
AZRTL presented its case at a hearing on Aug. 2 before Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Melissa Julian.
Proposition 139 would allow abortions with few restrictions before fetal viability (between 22 and 24 weeks). It permits abortions beyond this point if deemed necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the mother.
AZRTL argues that the measure is presented as limiting abortion to pre-viability, but, in actuality, it allows for abortion up to birth, especially through its undefined terms, such as “mental health,” which “is so broadly defined that almost nothing is prohibited.”
The lawsuit claims that while many voters might support a petition allowing abortion up to viability, they may not be fully aware of the measure’s broad protections for late-term abortions. The vague and poorly defined post-viability clause could influence whether individuals would sign the petition, according to AZRTL. Additionally, the language of the bill, which states that any regulation cannot infringe on a pregnant woman’s “autonomous decision making,” could allow abortions with unlicensed providers, and the measure could override parental consent laws. The organization argued that these issues should have been fully explained in the 200-word summary of the petition.
