PHOENIX โ€” Backers of a measure to guarantee the right to abortion turned in what they said was more than 800,000 signatures Wednesday, more than twice the number needed to put the issue on Arizonaโ€™s November ballot.

If approved by voters, whatโ€™s dubbed the Arizona for Abortion Act would insert a provision in the state constitution guaranteeing the right to terminate a pregnancy. That would be absolute up until fetal viability โ€” generally considered between 22 and 24 weeks โ€” and permitted in certain circumstances beyond that.

It would most immediately override current law that permits abortions until 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions beyond that for โ€œmedical emergencies.โ€™โ€™

State election officials will review a random sample of signatures to determine if the measure has at least 383,923 valid signatures, which it needs to qualify for the ballot.

Proponents say the gathering of 823,685 signatures shows the measure already has strong support, amounting to about one of of every five registered voters.

Organizers of the campaign have said they figure the entire effort, from paying petition circulators through the costs of advertising and promotion, could run $50 million. They had already raised $12 million by the end of March.

They are getting a fight from a group named It Goes Too Far, which says the wording is misleading and will open the door to unqualified medical practitioners performing abortions and to allowing minors to terminate a pregnancy without parental consent, both forbidden under existing law.

And while the foes are not as well funded as initiative organizers, they contend their network of 3,000 volunteers will help convince those going to the polls to reject the initiative.

Supporters of the initiative say women should be able to make medical decisions in consultation with doctors and family, unfettered by artificial limits.

โ€œFifteen weeks is a completely arbitrary point that doesnโ€™t relate to any specific milestone in fetal development,โ€™โ€™ said Dr. Paul Isaacson, a Phoenix obstetrician and gynecologist who also performs abortions.

โ€œMany of the medical complications that can lead to the need for an abortion donโ€™t occur or might not be discovered before 15 weeks,โ€™โ€™ he said. โ€œUltrasound, 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.โ€™โ€™

What it comes down to, Isaacson said, is that โ€œevery pregnancy is different.โ€™โ€™

Foes, meanwhile, point to language in the measure governing what happens after viability.

It says the state could not deny, restrict or interfere with an abortion that a โ€œtreating health care professionalโ€™โ€™ says was 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 could perform the surgical procedure or dispense the abortion pill, even chiropractors.

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

โ€œIn Arizona, only a licensed physician, someone with more than a decade of post-secondary education and training, may perform an abortion,โ€™โ€™ he said. โ€œThis initiative does nothing to change that.โ€™โ€™

But attorney Dawn Grove, who is working with initiative foes, said she sees other legal โ€œloopholesโ€™โ€™ in the ballot measure. One is the definition of viability โ€” 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 โ€œsignificant likelihood of the fetusโ€™s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.โ€™โ€™

Grove said that is too loose a standard, something she said โ€œsubtly redefines viability into the ninth month of pregnancy.โ€™โ€™ โ€œThe undeniable reality is that babies born before 37 weeks โ€” pre-term babies โ€” need extraordinary medical measures,โ€™โ€™ she said.

Grove cited her own experience with two of her three children born in the eighth month of pregnancy. โ€œThey needed oxygen, they needed to be in incubators ... to have their temperatures regulated,โ€™โ€™ she said.

She also contends the language is too broad that says post-viability abortions could be performed when a health care professional determines it is necessary โ€œto protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.โ€™โ€™

โ€œIt can include protecting the womanโ€™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,โ€™โ€™ Grove said.

Isaacson accused foes of fear mongering.

โ€œExtremists would have you believe when abortion is highly accessible that women will have abortions frivolously,โ€™โ€™ he said. โ€œThis is so absurd that it hardly requires an answer. But let me just say that in 30 years as a physician I have never seen this.โ€™โ€™

Grove also pointed to the language creating a โ€œfundamental rightโ€™โ€™ to abortion. She asserts it would open the door to demands for taxpayers to 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 ACLU contends it violates that stateโ€™s own newly enacted constitutional protections for reproductive freedom.

Potentially less clear is what would happen 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 โ€œjudicial bypass.โ€™โ€™

Dawn Penich, spokeswoman for the initiative campaign, acknowledged the measure says โ€œevery individual has a fundamental right to abortionโ€™โ€™ and is silent on the question of parental consent.

Proponents are backed by those telling of their own experiences. They include Pamela Hill, who said she was a teen in 1964 โ€” before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that women had a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, the ruling the high court then overturned in 2022. Hill said she had to obtain an illegal abortion and that it resulted in injuries to her uterus that complicated her ability to get pregnant when she was ready.

โ€œWe cannot go backwards,โ€™โ€™ she said.

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

The survey by Noble Predictive Insights found 40% of registered voters questioned said the procedure should be legal under any circumstances. At the other extreme, it found 11% who said abortions should not be allowed at any time. That leaves the 49% in the middle.

Become a #ThisIsTucson member! Your contribution helps our team bring you stories that keep you connected to the community. Become a member today.