Dear Editor,
Abortion is legal in Arizona up to 15 weeks and beyond for medical emergencies. So, Arizonans voting on Prop 139 are not choosing between abortion or no abortion; they are choosing between abortion with limits and safety precautions – or unlimited, unregulated abortion, without doctor or parental oversight.
If the abortion amendment fails to pass, abortion will continue to be legal up to nearly four months of pregnancy, and basic safety regulations will remain in place. If it passes, prepare to see commonsense regulations fall as abortion takes priority over women’s health and safety.
Proponents try to laugh off these concerns, but voters in Ohio and Michigan are not laughing. Similar abortion amendments passed in Michigan in 2022, and in Ohio in 2023. Now, they are losing their safety protections and limitations.
In Michigan, women lost their right to see a qualified medical doctor to rule out potential complications, including a deadly ectopic pregnancy and the right to be informed of the risks of abortion before having one. Michigan clinics no longer even have to report deadly abortion related complications. The ACLU is also suing to force Michigan taxpayers to pay for other women’s abortions, citing the newly amended state Constitution, and has filed a similar suit in Ohio.
With the evidence now before us, Arizona should not fall for the same scheme.
A recent poll shows Arizona voters want limits on abortion; 90% want it limited to 15 weeks or earlier. With that kind of support for Arizona’s 15-week limit, it’s no wonder proponents must deceive voters to expand abortion further.
They say the amendment legalizes abortion up to fetal viability but fail to disclose that the broad exemption for the “physical or mental health” of the woman doesn’t mean her health is at risk. The U.S. Supreme Court broadly defined that exemption to include anything related to the woman’s wellbeing, down to the very presence of stress.
The amendment also leaves the definition of viability completely up to the healthcare provider, who doesn’t even have to be a doctor. It further states that viability depends on “the particular facts of the case” – a term impossible to regulate and ripe for any legal argument in favor of abortion long after the fetus can survive outside the womb.
The Guttmacher Institute admits more than 10,000 late-term abortions occur every year in the U.S. and most are not medically necessary, “Most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses.”
Proponents also say abortion should only be between a woman and her doctor; but the amendment takes the doctor out of the doctor-patient relationship by removing the required physician visit. You won’t find the word doctor or physician in the amendment.
Remember this: The courts interpreting the law are bound by what it says, not what proponents claim.
So, when the amendment language uses the term “treating healthcare professional” instead of doctor, courts will look to the definition in Arizona statute 32-3201 and find a list of about 25 professions, including chiropractor, podiatrist, and massage therapist. This opens the door to a wide range of people providing abortions or the abortion pill, or signing off on late-term abortions.
By keeping the language vague, proponents avoid answering for obvious unpopular details.
When it states any regulation must not “infringe on an individual’s [abortion] decision,” it means regardless of the health and safety benefits. See “compelling state interest” under Sec.3 B.
And when the amendment gives the new “fundamental right to abortion” to “any individual,” it means parents lose their right to know if their minor daughter gets an abortion.
Don’t take our word for it, check our claims with the amendment language. We cite every truth claim we make. See for yourself that Prop 139 will lead to unlimited, unregulated abortion at the expense of girls and women; something most Arizonans agree goes too far.
Leisa Brug, Campaign Manager
It Goes Too Far campaign
