Arizona
Voter pamphlet on Arizona abortion measure can refer to fetus as 'unborn human being,' court rules
![Voter pamphlet on Arizona abortion measure can refer to fetus as 'unborn human being,' court rules Voter pamphlet on Arizona abortion measure can refer to fetus as 'unborn human being,' court rules](https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/08/2024-07-31T034641Z_1010261567_RC2Y59AXP7WD_RTRMADP_3_USA-ELECTION-ARIZONA-1024x683.jpg)
PHOENIX (AP) — An informational pamphlet for Arizona voters who will decide in the fall whether to guarantee a constitutional right to an abortion can refer to a fetus as an “unborn human being,” the state’s highest court ruled Wednesday.
Arizona voters will get to decide in November whether to add the right to an abortion to the state constitution.
READ MORE: Arizona and Missouri are the latest states to add abortion amendments to the ballot. What would the measures do?
The proposed amendment would allow abortions until a fetus could survive outside the womb, typically around 24 weeks, with exceptions to save the mother’s life or to protect her physical or mental health. It would restrict the state from adopting or enforcing any law that would prohibit access to the procedure.
The justices of the Arizona Supreme Court, in Wednesday’s decision, sided with Republican lawmakers over proponents of the ballot measure on abortion rights.
The ruling drew swift criticism from abortion rights advocates who had argued that the phrase “unborn human being” is neither impartial nor objective. They also said they were concerned that Arizonans would be subjected to biased and politically charged words.
“We are deeply disappointed in this ruling, but will not be deterred from doing everything in our power to communicate to voters the truth of the Arizona Abortion Access Act and why it’s critical to vote YES to restore and protect access to abortion care this fall,” the group, Arizona for Abortion Access, said in a statement.
The pamphlet gives voters information on candidates and ballot measures to help inform their choices. It was unclear, however, whether any specific language contained in the pamphlet would appear on the ballot.
The Arizona secretary of state’s office said Monday that it had certified 577,971 signatures — far above the required number that the coalition supporting the ballot measure had to submit in order to put the question before voters.
Democrats have made abortion rights a central message since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 — and it is a key part of their efforts in this year’s elections.
![](https://newspub.live/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/np-logo.png)
Arizona
Gustine police officers honored for saving man in Arizona after crash
![Gustine police officers honored for saving man in Arizona after crash Gustine police officers honored for saving man in Arizona after crash](https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/15185316_081424-kfsn-gustine-img.jpg?w=1600)
GUSTINE, Calif. (KFSN) — Officers in the North Valley are being recognized for taking action to save a man after a crash, across state lines.
In September of 2023, Gustine police officers Jose Gallardo, Luciano Zelvaggio and Emanuel Gonzalez were driving two new police vehicles back to the Valley from New Mexico.
While passing through Arizona, they were frantically flagged down by a woman.
The group pulled over to help and found a man stuck inside a crashed pickup truck.
Police say smoke was coming from the engine as the officers broke a window to get him out.
They continued tending to the injured man until he was taken to the hospital by local first responders.
Those three officers received Medals of Valor from the California Reserve Officers Association.
The awards were presented at a luncheon held in Burbank.
The Gustine Police Department shared photos of the officers as they were honored for their heroic efforts.
Copyright © 2024 KFSN-TV. All Rights Reserved.
Arizona
Unlicensed Arizona midwife continues to practice
![Unlicensed Arizona midwife continues to practice Unlicensed Arizona midwife continues to practice](https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/95a8799/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1280x672+0+24/resize/1200x630!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fx-default-stgec.uplynk.com%2Fause%2Fslices%2F53f%2F5c3d34b8b29a45469a86c02775b7a2cf%2F53ff8ee96e73404293bf4d8fcb5e2d32%2Fposter_f41de9b3625748328f645eb7c80de9ab.jpg)
The state of Arizona has filed a lawsuit against a formerly licensed midwife in an effort to prevent her from continuing to provide care to pregnant women and newborns.
Sarah Kankiewicz agreed not to practice midwifery in the state for at least 15 years in a settlement agreement, dated June 13, with the Arizona Department of Health Services. She surrendered her license to avoid revocation after complaints about her care of clients, including a Safford mom and baby who died after complications during a home birth.
ABC15 creates searchable database to help moms choose quality Arizona midwives
In a civil complaint, filed on July 30, the Arizona Department of Health Services said regulators received information in July that Kankiewicz was continuing to act as a midwife. The complaint said she had announced on her Wild Birth Services social media account, “Ever wonder what happens in the state of Arizona when an unlicensed midwife continues to practice? Let’s find out together.”
ADHS regulators accused Kankiewicz of acting as a midwife without a proper license when she sent a compensation agreement to a client and submitted prenatal lab orders for a client after June 13.
The state is asking a Maricopa County judge to issue an injunction preventing Kankiewicz from “delivering a baby or providing health care related to pregnancy, labor, delivery and postpartum care of a mother or an infant.” In addition, the state is requesting she be barred from using any “words, letters, signs, or figures to indicate that the person is a licensed midwife.” A hearing is set for August 16.
Kankiewicz filed an answer to the lawsuit saying she “intend[s] to defend these allegations.” She did not respond to a phone call and text from ABC15 seeking comment.
ADHS initially licensed Kankiewicz in 2020 as a certified professional midwife.
The state moved to revoke Kankiewicz’s license after her client Jordan Terry died and Jordan’s son Mack was stillborn in December. Jordan had planned to have a VBAC, vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, at home. After hours of labor, the mom lost consciousness.
Jordan was taken to a Safford hospital but neither she nor her baby survived. Her cause of death was uterine rupture.
State regulators later found Kankiewicz should never have taken Jordan as a client because her prior C-section had complications. Regulators also found the midwife failed to properly monitor vital signs and dilation and waited too long to call EMS.
The home birth tragedy raised questions about oversight of Arizona midwives and enforcement actions.
Jordan’s family told ABC15 they didn’t know state regulators had found deficiencies in the care Kankiewicz provided during two previous births, and the midwife had been fined five times for failing to turn in reports on time.
Got a news tip? You can reach Melissa by email at melissa.blasius@abc15.com or call 602-803-2506. Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) @MelissaBlasius or Facebook.
Arizona
Right to Life says AZ Supreme Court should block abortion rights initiative from the ballot
![Right to Life says AZ Supreme Court should block abortion rights initiative from the ballot Right to Life says AZ Supreme Court should block abortion rights initiative from the ballot](https://azmirror.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/antiabortion-prolife-banner-scaled.jpg)
An anti-abortion group is hoping the Arizona Supreme Court will step in and block voters in November from deciding whether to amend the state constitution to include a right to abortion.
Arizona Right to Life failed to convince a trial court judge that the campaign for the Arizona Abortion Access Act misled voters who signed their petition to make it on the ballot. After their lawsuit was dismissed on Aug. 6, the group immediately appealed the decision to the high court, asking the justices to overturn the trial judge’s decision and block the measure from being put to voters.
In both the initial lawsuit and the appeal, 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.
The Arizona Secretary of State’s Office confirmed Monday that the Abortion Access Act had collected enough voter signatures to make it on the ballot. The campaign behind the act, Arizona for Abortion Access, gathered a total of more than 820,000 signatures, and approximately 578,000 were confirmed to be valid, significantly more than the nearly 384,000 it needed to qualify.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
If voters favor the Abortion Access Act, it would guarantee a woman’s right to an abortion up to the point of fetal viability, 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.
Jennifer Wright, an attorney for Arizona Right to Life, wrote in the appeal 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.
Wright is a former assistant Arizona attorney general who is representing Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Kari Lake in a defamation suit filed against her by Republican Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer. She also recently began representing Lake in her suit to overturn the results of the 2022 gubernatorial race that she lost to Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs.
Attorneys for the anti-abortion organization claimed that omitting the word “treating” in the summary misled those who signed the Abortion Access petition into thinking that someone other than an abortion provider would decide whether an abortion past the point of fetal viability was warranted. But trial court Judge Melissa Iyer Julian disagreed.
“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.”
Wright went on to argue that the exception for the mental or physical health of the mother would essentially give a green flag to any abortion, up until birth — an inflammatory and inaccurate claim frequently advanced by abortion foes.
Wright argued that the summary should include a description of how the Abortion Access Act would impact existing abortion legislation, but Julian disagreed on that point, as well.
“Concern about the impact this initiative may have on existing abortion regulations is not a ground to compel the initiative’s removal from the ballot. ‘The proper place to argue about the potential impact of an initiative is in the political arena, in speeches, newspaper articles, advertisements and other forums,’” Julian wrote, referencing previous rulings.
At present, Arizona is under a 15-week gestational ban that will likely be nullified if the act is passed.
The proposed constitutional amendment also includes a provision stating that “no law, regulation, policy or practice shall be enacted or enforced” that restricts, denies or interferes with the right to receive an abortion either before or after fetal viability.
Arizona Right to Life claims that this provision, which says that any restrictions put on the procedure should “not infringe on that person’s autonomous decision-making,” essentially bans all regulations on the procedure, including that it be performed by a licensed medical professional.
“For example, if a woman wants an unlicensed abortion provider to perform an abortion, even someone without medical training, her desire for autonomous decision-making would appear to trump any state interest,” Wright wrote.
The group also alleged that it would allow abortions to be performed for egregious reasons.
“At a minimum, this means the State can do nothing to stop the abortion, even if it is being done for the worst eugenic or racist reasons, is being done in a horrific manner that is particularly painful to the prenatal human or is being done at any time up to birth,” Wright wrote.
Arizona Right to Life was one of several organizations behind the “Decline to Sign” campaign that unsuccessfully sought to persuade voters not to support the Abortion Access Act’s effort to qualify for the November election.
Dawn Penich, a spokeswoman for the abortion rights initiative’s campaign, told the Arizona Mirror that no one was available Tuesday to comment on the appeal to the Supreme Court.
But Penich previously criticized Arizona Right to Life for continuing to pursue arguments already rejected by the trial court.
“This appeal shows yet again that they are willing to do and say anything — no matter how desperate or dishonest — to deprive Arizonans of their right to direct democracy,” she said in an emailed statement after the anti-abortion group said it would appeal the trial court ruling. “We’re hopeful the Arizona Supreme Court will grant us a fair and unbiased review and allow Arizona voters to have their say at the ballot box. Arizona for Abortion Access remains committed to giving Arizona voters the chance to restore and protect our right to access abortion free from government overreach, once and for all.”
Arizona Supreme Court Justice Bill Montgomery, who once accused Planned Parenthood of committing genocide, said he wouldn’t recuse himself from a previous case to decide whether “unborn human being” could be used to describe the abortion rights initiative in an election information pamphlet sent to every voter in the state.
Arizona for Abortion Access has argued that, because of his opposition to Planned Parenthood and history of using anti-abortion language, he cannot be impartial in rulings regarding the abortion rights measure.
Montgomery adamantly disagreed, saying that his strong feelings regarding abortion don’t make him biased.
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago
Twisters movie review: no winds of change blowing here – FlickFilosopher.com
-
News1 week ago
The ‘Blue Walz’: How a low-key Midwestern governor shot to the top to be Harris’ VP pick | CNN Politics
-
Politics1 week ago
Mark Kelly posts cryptic message amid Kamala Harris veepstakes speculation
-
News1 week ago
Kamala Harris holding rally in Pennsylvania to introduce running mate after securing Democratic nomination
-
World1 week ago
Venezuela launches probe against opposition leaders Gonzalez, Machado
-
Politics1 week ago
Harris VP search comes down to the wire, with Dems divided over Shapiro, Walz, Kelly
-
World1 week ago
At Israel’s ‘Guantanamo Bay’, protesters defend soldiers accused of abuse
-
World1 week ago
EU Commissioner and RAI top management: A sticky August for Meloni