By Howard Fischer
Mail | X: @azcapmedia

PHOENIX — Backers of a measure to guarantee the right to abortion turned in what they said was more than 800,000 signatures on Wednesday to put the issue on the November ballot.

If approved, what’s dubbed the Arizona for Abortion Act would insert a provision in the state constitution guaranteeing the right of women to terminate a pregnancy. That would be absolute up until fetal viability — generally considered between 22 and 24 weeks — but permitted in certain circumstances beyond that.

The campaign, if successful, would most immediately override current law that permits abortion until 15 weeks. The only exceptions beyond that are for “medical emergencies.” It is built on the argument that these are personal decisions and should not be restricted by state laws.

But it is getting a fight from a group named It Goes Too Far. Foes say the language is misleading and will open the door to everything from unqualified medical practitioners performing abortions to allowing minors to terminate a pregnancy without parental consent, both forbidden under existing law.

While the foes are not as well funded as initiative organizers who already had raised $12 million by the end of March, they contend their network of 3,000 volunteers will help convince those going to the polls to reject the initiative.

At least part of the campaign for the initiative is based on the premise women should be able to make these decisions by themselves in consultation with doctors and family, unfettered by artificial limits.

“Fifteen weeks is a completely arbitrary point that doesn’t relate to any specific milestone in fetal development,” said Dr. Paul Isaacson, a Phoenix obstetrician and gynecologist who also performs abortions.

“Many of the medical complications that can lead to the need for an abortion don’t occur or might not be discovered before 15 weeks,” he said. “Ultrasound, routinely performed to ensure fetal well-being, can only be performed when the fetus is big enough for those problems to be seen, usually around 20 weeks.”

What it comes down to, Isaacson said, is that “every pregnancy is different.”

Foes do not necessarily disagree, tut it is precisely for that reason they contend that what the initiative would allow is dangerous.

That surrounds the language in the measure governing what happens after viability.

It says the state cannot deny, restrict or interfere with an abortion that a “treating health care professional” says is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual. Opponents say that means anyone who is a licensed health care professional can perform the surgical procedure or dispense the abortion pill — even chiropractors.

Isaacson insisted the initiative, which would amend the state constitution, would not override state laws that spell out scope of practice.

“In Arizona, only a licensed physician, someone with more than a decade of post-secondary education and training, may perform an abortion,” he said. “This initiative does nothing to change that.”

But attorney Dawn Grove, who is working with initiative foes, said she sees other legal “loopholes” in the ballot measure.

One is that definition of viability — the point beyond which there would have to be a reason to terminate the pregnancy.

The initiative says that happens when, in the good faith of a treating physician, there is “significant likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.”

Grove said that is far too loose a standard, something she said “subtly redefines viability into the ninth month of pregnancy.”

“The undeniable reality is that babies born before 37 weeks — pre-term babies — need extraordinary medical measures,” she said. Grove said her own experience with two of her three children born in the eighth month of pregnancy.

“They needed oxygen, they needed to be in incubators ... to have their temperatures regulated,” she said.

There also is the language that says post-viability abortions can be performed when a health care professional determines it is necessary “to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.” Grove said that language is too broad.

“It can include protecting the woman’s mental health, financial health, her familial health, her stress and anxiety, any number of reasons that a profiting abortionist could point to and say we need a late-term abortion,” she said.

Isaacson accused foes of fear mongering.

“Extremists would have you believe when abortion is highly accessible that women will have abortions frivolously,” he said.

“This is so absurd that it hardly requires an answer,” said Isaacson. “But let me just say that in 30 years as a physician I have never seen this.”

Grove also pointed to that language creating a “fundamental right” to abortion. That, Grove said, opens the door to demands for having taxpayers finance the procedure.

That is not entirely speculative. The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit last month challenging a Michigan law that bans Medicaid coverage for abortion and related care. The organization contends it violates that’s state’s own newly enacted constitutional protections for reproductive freedom.

Potentially less clear is what happens to existing laws governing abortions for minors.

In Arizona, someone younger than 18 has to obtain parental consent, though there is an option for that person to petition a court for a “judicial bypass.”

Dawn Penich, spokeswoman for the campaign, acknowledged the initiative that says “every individual has a fundamental right to abortion,” is silent on the question of parental consent.

Proponents are backed by those who told tales of their own experiences. That includes Pamela Hill, who said she was a teen in 1964 — before the U.S Supreme Court ruled that women had a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy — and having to obtain an illegal abortion. The result, she said, was injuries to her uterus that complicated her ability to get pregnant when she was ready.

“We cannot go backwards,” she said.

In gathering 823,685 signatures, proponents say this shows the measure already has strong support, amounting to about one of of every five registered voters. And organizers have said they figure the entire effort, from paying petition circulators through the costs of advertising and promotion, could run $50 million.

But what it ultimately could come down to is what Arizona voters consider to be a proper cutoff for the procedure.

When the petition drive started, state law outlawed abortion except to save the life of the mother. That would have forced voters to choose between the initiative and its possibly overly broad language or what amounted to a ban.

Arizona lawmakers narrowly killed that, replacing it with a 15-week ban. More than 90% of abortions are performed in that period.

A statewide poll in May found a vast majority of Arizonans believe that abortion should be legal in at least certain circumstances.

But whether that’s enough to secure voter approval of a ballot measure in November to enshrine the right to terminate a pregnancy in the Arizona Constitution remains uncertain. And the key is that question of “circumstances.”

The survey by Noble Predictive Insights found 40% of registered voters questioned believe the procedure should be legal under any circumstances. At the other extreme, it found only 11% who believe abortions should not be allowed at any time.

What that leaves, however, is that 49% in the middle. And where they land on the yes-no spectrum — and how they will vote in November — could come down to what would be the exceptions from any ban — including how far along is the pregnancy.

At one extreme, 85% of that middle group said they support abortion in cases of endangerment to the mother’s life.

Noble found 82% of those in the middle say they would support a law that allows abortion if a pregnancy is the result of rape, with 78% expressing the same views in cases of incest. The current 15-week law has no such exceptions.

But support drops to 57% if the issue is allowing abortion in cases where the baby is likely to have severe disabilities or health problems.

Potentially more significant is the calendar.

Just 9% of those in the middle said they are comfortable allowing abortion up to the point of fetal viability. By contrast, 43% of those in the middle said they are willing to support the right to terminate a pregnancy — but only up to 15 weeks, the current state of Arizona law.