The arguments of the anti-abortion
group that is attempting to stop an abortion rights initiative from
being put to voters this fall are “nonsense,” according to the campaign
supporting the Arizona Abortion Access Act. 

If voters approve Proposition 139
in November, it would enshrine in the state constitution the right to
an abortion up to the point of fetal viability, generally accepted to be
around 24 weeks of pregnancy. Exceptions to that limit would be allowed
if a health care provider determined it was necessary to preserve a
patient’s life, physical or mental health.

The Arizona Secretary of State’s
Office confirmed Monday that the Abortion Access Act had collected
approximately 578,000 valid signatures, significantly more than the
nearly 384,000 it needed to qualify for the ballot. 

The campaign turned in more than
800,000 signatures in support of the initiative, the most in state
history, according to the Secretary of State’s Office.

Attorneys for Arizona Right to Life
claim that the 200-word summary shown to Arizonans who signed petition
sheets to help the act qualify for the ballot was so unlawfully
misleading that it puts all of the signatures into question.

But a trial court judge didn’t agree, and dismissed the case. Arizona Right to Life immediately appealed that decision to the state’s high court. 

In a Wednesday court filing in response to the Arizona Right to Life’s appeal arguments,
Arizona for Abortion Access argued that the state Supreme Court was not
the place for the organization to express its disdainful opinion of the
initiative. 

“On appeal, Plaintiff barely mentions
the trial court’s analysis, much less provides any good reason to
second-guess it,” Andy Gaona, an attorney for the reproductive rights
campaign, wrote. “Rather, Plaintiff yet again misrepresents the
Initiative’s provisions, quibbles about minor omissions that no
reasonable person would think render the description misleading, and
complains that the description doesn’t describe what Plaintiff
speculates will be the Initiative’s anticipated effects. All these
arguments are baseless.” 

Arizona Right to Life claims that the
summary shown to those who signed the petition was misleading because
it contained the phrase “health care provider” while the full text of
the act refers to the “treating health care provider” when describing
who has the authority to determine that an abortion is necessary beyond
fetal viability.

The anti-abortion group argued that
the omission of the word “treating” in the summary led petition signers
to believe that someone other than an abortion provider would be making
that decision. 

Trial court Judge Melissa Iyer Julian found that argument lacking. 

“Reasonable people understand that
medical diagnoses and treatment plans are typically determined by the
medical provider who is actively treating a patient whose health is at
issue,” Julian wrote. “For pregnant patients, this could include the
patient’s primary care, obstetrical, or other medical providers,
including one who provides abortions.” 

Gaona argued that the summary
informed petition signers of all the major provisions of the initiative,
as required by state law, and that leaving out single words from the
full text of the ballot measure did not render it misleading. 

He also clapped back at Arizona Right
to Life’s claim that the summary should have included the potential
impacts of the proposed constitutional amendment on existing state-level
abortion regulations. 

At present, Arizona is under a 15-week gestational ban that will likely be nullified if the act is passed. 

State law regarding initiative
summaries for petitions does not require them to include information
about the possible impacts the measures would have on existing law,
Gaona wrote, adding that those impacts are “purely speculative” anyway. 

“The voters have not yet voted on the
Initiative,” he wrote. “If the Initiative passes, then courts — not the
Committee — may need to decide whether certain existing regulations
meet the standards in the Initiative. The Committee cannot know how
courts would resolve those challenges now. Any potential ‘effects’ in
the 200-word description would thus be no more than guesswork.” 

Gaona asked the Arizona Supreme Court
to affirm the decision of the trial court and allow the Abortion Access
Act to be placed on the ballot. 

Jill Norgaard, a spokeswoman for
Arizona Right to Life, told the Arizona Mirror on Thursday that she had
not seen the Arizona for Abortion Access Wednesday filing in response to
her organization’s appeal. 

Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick has recused himself
from participating in an appeal, and will be replaced on the bench by
Retired former Arizona Supreme Court Justice John Pelander.

Justice Bolick’s wife, then-state Rep. Shawnna Bolick, a Phoenix Republican, was one of the sponsors of a 2022 bill that banned abortion
in Arizona after 15 weeks of pregnancy. She has also been a vocal
opponent of abortion rights throughout her career as a political
activist and elected official.

The high court is expected to make a ruling in the case by Aug. 22, the deadline to print ballots.