Too often, we hear that constituents and politicians vote for something and then review the content afterward. That appears to be the case with Proposition 139. Let’s look at what exactly is in this proposition.
An Associated Press article last month publicized that this abortion measure allows women to terminate a pregnancy without state interference until the point of fetal viability. This is incorrect. In layman’s terms, Prop 139 will allow abortion, up to birth, which includes late-term abortion.
So, what else does Prop 139 do?
The proposition takes away parental consent for a minor to have an abortion. How can we exclude parents from this life-changing decision?
Perhaps most chilling is that the doctor and the requirement for an ultrasound have been eliminated from the abortion procedure. The subject matter expert — a medical doctor — is no longer required for an abortion. Any “healthcare professional,” which is vaguely defined, can perform an abortion with no certification or hospital privileges. Elimination of the ultrasound means that there is no way to tell the gestation of the baby or if there is an ectopic pregnancy. If the “healthcare professional” cannot detect an ectopic pregnancy and initiates an abortion, the woman’s life is at risk. This is not healthcare.
Why was the ultrasound eliminated? Because 60% of women who see their baby with an ultrasound choose life.
Thanks to Prop 139, abortion providers stand to make millions more, especially by eliminating the need to pay for doctors. This is the reality of what our state just passed.
But the battle is not over. As chair of Arizona Right to Life, our team will continue to speak the truth about abortion. We remain committed to the protection of the unborn and the health and safety of women, because every human being is valuable.
Editor’s note: Former Arizona state representative Jill Norgaard chairs Phoenix-based Arizona Right to Life. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office website states that Prop 139, which took effect Nov. 25 and is in flux due to conflicting statues, allows for abortion after fetal viability “when necessary to preserve the life or physical or mental health of the mother based on the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional.” The website also addresses Norgaard’s other points. Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at AzOpinions@iniusa.org.
