Government

Ducey, governors ask Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade

Posted 7/29/21

PHOENIX — Gov. Doug Ducey wants the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn it’s historic decision in Roe v. Wade and leave the question of whether to allow abortion in Arizona to state lawmakers …

To Our Valued Readers –

Visitors to our website will be limited to five stories per month unless they opt to subscribe. The five stories do not include our exclusive content written by our journalists.

For $5.99, less than 20 cents a day, digital subscribers will receive unlimited access to YourValley.net, including exclusive content from our newsroom and access to our Daily Independent e-edition.

Our commitment to balanced, fair reporting and local coverage provides insight and perspective not found anywhere else.

Your financial commitment will help to preserve the kind of honest journalism produced by our reporters and editors. We trust you agree that independent journalism is an essential component of our democracy. Please click here to subscribe.

Sincerely,
Charlene Bisson, Publisher, Independent Newsmedia

Please log in to continue

Log in
I am anchor
Government

Ducey, governors ask Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade

Posted

PHOENIX — Gov. Doug Ducey wants the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn it’s historic decision in Roe v. Wade and leave the question of whether to allow abortion in Arizona to state lawmakers — and to him as an unapologetic foe of the practice.

Ducey is among 12 governors who filed a brief Thursday with the nation’s high court in support of a Mississippi law that bans terminating a pregnancy after the 15th week. Enforcement of that law has been blocked by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
But the brief goes beyond arguments by Mississippi that the law is a permissible regulation of abortion as it does not ban the practice outright.

Instead, Ducey and his fellow governors want the justices to revisit the original 1973 decision and subsequent rulings that say the government has no authority to decide a woman’s decision about whether to keep or terminate a fetus before viability. That, in turn, would leave the issue to the legislatures and governors in each of the states.

Potentially more significant, it might not even require a public debate or vote in Arizona on the question of the rights of a woman to an abortion.

That’s because legislators never repealed many of the laws that predate Roe v. Wade, meaning they remain on the books, albeit are currently unenforceable. That leaves the question of whether they would automatically take effect again if Roe is overturned.

If nothing else, it would again make the question of abortion rights front and center in future statewide and legislative political races, something that until now hasn’t been necessary given the Supreme Court ruling.

But that, according to the governors, is exactly what they want.

“The Constitution preserves the rights of the states by specifically enumerating the authority granted to the federal government,”

Ducey said in a prepared statement explaining his decision to seek to overturn Roe. “Unfortunately, almost 50 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to ignore the Constitution and created policy which has led to the over-politicization of this issue for decades.”

And the governor made it clear where his sentiments lie if Arizona gets to decide whether abortion remains legal here.

“Every single life has immeasurable value,” he said.

“That includes children who are preborn,” Ducey continued. “And I believe it’s each state’s responsibility to protect them.”

But Rep. Athena Salman, D-Tempe, called Ducey’s legal efforts “patronizing, sexist and extreme.”

“Here we have yet another man who will never become pregnant, who will never be faced with a choice of whether or not they need to get an abortion, abusing the position of his elected office to deny this fundamental piece of health care to the millions upon millions of people who will need it at some point in their lives,” she said, citing figures that one in four women will terminate a pregnancy. And Salman said this is a fundamental — and national — constitutional right, not something that should be decided on a state-by-state basis.

“It is fundamentally wrong for your ZIP code to determine whether or not you can have access to a safe, regulated form of health care and abortion,” she said.

Whitney Walker, a vice president of Planned Parenthood Arizona, questioned Ducey’s desire to get involved in the issue.

“Instead of focusing on the rising COVID-19 case numbers or educating the public to get vaccinated, Gov. Ducey is concerned with denying access to essential health care to the state’s residents, all in the middle of a global pandemic,” she said in a prepared statement. “Ducey needs to stop playing politics and start doing what is right for Arizona.”

In blocking the Mississippi law, the 5th Circuit said Roe held that the right to privacy “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

The judges said that was reaffirmed in a 1992 case, saying “the state’s interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman’s effective right to elect the procedure.”

Ducey and the other governors want the current crop of Supreme Court justices to conclude these decisions were an illegal infringement on state sovereignty. That, they said, would let the states “serve as laboratories of democracy for establishing and implementing suitable abortion regulations based on the latest scientific knowledge.”

But Ducey, in his six years as governor, has never said he wants some sort of examination of when abortions should be legal.

Instead, citing his pro-life stance, he has signed every bill restricting abortion that has reached his desk. And a panel of appointees hand picked by the governor even went so far as blocking state employees from making payroll deductions to Planned Parenthood yet allowing donations to Alliance Defending Freedom, an openly anti-abortion public interest law firm that has gone to court to defend legislation to restrict abortion rights.
In their legal brief, the governors said the question of whether to allow or outlaw abortion is one for the states to decide.

“Once voters cast their ballots, it is up to a state legislature to decide how the state will regulation abortion,” Ducey and his colleagues told the court.

“And if voters do not like what a legislature does, then they have democracy’s ultimate check: the ballot box,” they continued. “There is nothing wrong with giving this issue back to the people.”

What that also would do is shift the debate stage.

“No longer would the issue dominate presidential campaigns,” the governors said. Instead, the focus would shift to the state level, which they said “better allows those differing voices to be heard and to shape policy.”

For the most part, though, the makeup of the Arizona Legislature has tilted toward adopting more and more restrictions in a bid to get around — if not directly challenge — Roe v. Wade.

For example, a 2012 law, signed by Ducey predecessor Jan Brewer, sought to ban abortions at 20 weeks. A federal appeals court struck it down as conflicting with Roe and the constitutional right of women to terminate a fetus that is not yet viable outside the womb.

Just this year, the legislature approved and Ducey signed a measure to make it a crime to abort a child because of a fetal genetic defect despite claims by foes that interferes with the rights of women to make decisions before the point of viability. That same law also:

• Allows the husband of a woman who seeks such an abortion, or the woman’s parents if she is younger than 18, to sue on behalf of the unborn child.

• Outlaws the ability of women to get otherwise-legal drugs to perform a medical abortion through the mail or other delivery services.

• Declares that the laws of Arizona must be interpreted to give an unborn child the same rights, privileges and immunities available to anyone else.

That law takes effect at the end of September. Planned Parenthood said no decision has been made whether to challenge it in court as violating the rights set forth in Roe and the subsequent court rulings.

Comments