Initiative drive seeks to keep abortion legal in Arizona

Arizona voters may get a chance to keep abortion legal even if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.

An initiative drive launched Tuesday would put a “right to reproductive freedom” in the Arizona Constitution, covering all matters related to pregnancy.

The measure would bar state and local governments from interfering with that right, which would range from contraception to elective termination of a pre-viable fetus, defined as one with a reasonable chance of surviving outside the womb with or without artificial support.

It also would allow abortions at any stage of pregnancy “if necessary to preserve the individual’s health or life.’’

Backers have an uphill fight.

It takes at least 356,467 valid signatures on petitions to put a measure on the November ballot. Given the normal error rate, most groups give themselves at least a 25% margin, making the actual total closer to 450,000.

And the filing deadline is July 7, just 51 days from when the initiative drive started. That translates to having to gather more than 8,800 signatures each day.

But Shasta McManus, treasurer of Arizonans for Reproductive Freedom, said abortion rights advocates have no choice but to shoot for a November vote rather than wait until the 2024 election.

“Women in Arizona, they don’t have two years to wait,’’ she told Capitol Media Services. “This is something that needs to be done now.”

If abortion again becomes illegal in Arizona — the result if Roe v. Wade is no longer considered precedent — McManus said “we’re going to have lost lives, we’re going to have lost livelihoods.”

The filing comes two weeks after Politico published a leaked draft opinion showing that a majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices are ready to void the historic 1973 ruling, which said women nationwide have a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy prior to the point a fetus is viable. That is generally considered under current medical standards to be somewhere between 22 and 24 weeks of pregnancy.

A court ruling is expected by late June.

If the court follows through with its draft position, it would return the right to regulate abortion to each state.

In Arizona, it would immediately reactivate the law that was on the books when Roe was decided in 1973 — and remains there — but which the state has since been unable to enforce, said Cathi Herrod, president of the anti-abortion Center for Arizona Policy.

That law, a version of which dates back to territorial days, says anyone who uses any method to cause a miscarriage must be sent to state prison for at least two but not more than five years. The sole exception is to save the life of the woman.

“The laws on the books right now in Arizona are archaic and are barbaric,’’ McManus said. “If we don’t do something about it now, women in Arizona will be put at risk. And so will health providers.’’

Republican Gov. Doug Ducey previously told Capitol Media Services he believes a law he signed earlier this year outlawing abortion after 15 weeks would supersede that statute, a contention disputed by Herrod.

But either case would be more restrictive than the rights Arizona women now have because of the 1973 ruling.

“Our coalition, which comprises of activists, physicians, patients and community members all across the state, we couldn’t just sit by and do nothing and let this happen,’’ McManus said.

There has not been a poll about abortion rights released in Arizona since the leaked court decision.

But a national poll released Sunday by NBC News found that more than 60% of those surveyed said they believe abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances. That included 37% who want it legal at all times and another 23% who said it should be legal most of the time.

By contrast, the NBC poll found 32% surveyed want abortion illegal with exceptions. Only 5% said there should be no exceptions.

Herrod, however, said she believes this specific initiative proposal would fail at the ballot box in Arizona — if it gets that far.

She is focused on its language that says an abortion would be allowed at any point during the pregnancy “when necessary to preserve the individual’s health or life.’’

“The exceptions basically would allow an abortion for any reason,’’ Herrod told Capitol Media Services. “The terms are vague and undefined.’’

Herrod acknowledged that more than two generations of Arizona women have come of age during a time they had the legal right to terminate a pregnancy. But she said she remains convinced Arizonans, given the chance to weigh in on what the law should be here, would choose to reject this proposal.

“The nearly 50 years have taught us that life is a human right, that life does begin at conception. And everyone knows someone who was hurt by abortion,’’ Herrod said.

McManus, however, said it is the experience of Arizonans since 1973 that will convince them they do not want to return to the way things were before.

“We believe that this is something that gets people up and gets people moving,’’ she said. “Women of all generations, those that have worked on this in the past, those who never even realized that it could be taken away, are ready to hit the battlegrounds on this. And we believe that push and that attention is what’s going to carry us over the finish line.’’

If the measure makes the November ballot it will not be the first time Arizonans have been able to weigh in on the issue.

Abortion foes put a measure on the 1992 ballot that would have prohibited all abortion except to save the life or the mother or in cases where rape or incest had been reported. It was defeated by a margin of greater than 2-to-1.

Gubernatorial press aide C.J. Karamargin said Tuesday he would not answer whether Ducey, an abortion foe, supports the right of Arizonans to decide if they want to keep abortion legal here.

“Why would you be asking a question like that of a governor whose views on abortion are well known?’’ he asked.

Karamargin also said that, at this point, the question of the ballot measure is hypothetical.

“We’re not going to comment on hypotheticals,’’ he said.