(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.
Pro-choice protesters rallying to keep abortion legal in Arizona on April 14, 2024. REUTERS
“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.”
Start and end your day informed with our newsletters
Morning Report and Evening Update: Your source for today’s top stories
Thanks for signing up!
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,