AZ Judge Blocks Pro-Life Laws

From the Center for Arizona Policy.

September 30, 2009

State Court Stops New Abortion Measures from Taking Effect!

Late Tuesday, Maricopa County Judge Donald Daughton agreed with Planned Parenthood and decided that key provisions of Arizona's new abortion laws should not go into effect as scheduled on September 30. The judge gave no reasons for his decision but simply accepted Planned Parenthood's assertion that portions of the law should not be enforced while the lawsuit continues. Judge Daughton further denied our motion to intervene in the lawsuit.

For now, the judge's ruling has the following result:
Non-doctors like nurse practitioners may continue to perform first trimester surgical abortions.
Women do not have a right to an in-person consultation with a doctor 24 hours before having an abortion.
A parent's consent to their minor daughter's abortion does not have to be notarized.
Arizona's law granting rights of conscience protection does not cover abortion medication or pharmacists and pharmacy owners.

Judge Daughton's ruling, however, does allow these provisions to go into effect:


24-hour waiting period after the woman is provided information by a "qualified staff member" (although not necessarily in person), including the name of the doctor performing the abortion, the nature of the procedure, its risks and alternatives.
Women cannot be coerced into having an abortion.
Women cannot be forced to pay for an abortion before the 24-hour waiting period.
Women have a right to sue if the information is not provided.
Parents have a right to sue if the abortion clinic violates the parental consent statute.

In contrast, U.S. District Judge David Campbell in the federal case filed by Center for Reproductive Rights issued a 23-page ruling that abortion advocates had not met the legal standard for him to keep the law from being enforced.


We are very disappointed that Judge Daughton appeared to give little consideration to the needs of women considering an abortion. The blocked provisions are common sense regulations intended to protect the rights of women, parents, and health care professionals. Yesterday's rulings, however, are only "Round 1" in what promises to be a long legal battle.


CAP and our allies will continue to work to defend and protect these laws in their entirety. Now is not the time to grow weary or faint. Rather, it is the time to persevere. We very much appreciate your partnering with us to defend these laws.

Cathi Herrod on Informed Consent Bill

Abortion bill empowers women on their choice
by Cathi Herrod - Jun. 20, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic, My Turn

Abortion is certainly a controversial issue, but there shouldn't be controversy about one thing: Women who are choosing to have an abortion should be making an informed decision based on accurate medical information. The Abortion Consent Act (SB 1206) makes that a reality.

In his "My Turn" column last Saturday on SB 1206 ("Bills threaten abortion care,"), Planned Parenthood CEO Bryan Howard alleges the bill was crafted without "talking to the affected women and their health-care providers." Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Abortion Consent Act is a product of years of testimony from women who have had abortions and from board-certified obstetrician/gynecologists. The proposed legislation clarifies and updates Arizona abortion statutes to remedy real-world problems.

For example, in the House Health Committee on Feb. 25, a board-certified obstetrician gave a first-hand account of Planned Parenthood's practices: A woman makes an appointment and is assigned to a morning or afternoon group. Upon arriving, instead of meeting privately with her doctor, she is forced to sit in a group to learn about her abortion by videotape.

Moments later when she is given an ultrasound, she is denied the opportunity to see her preborn child. The woman is thoroughly confused and uncertain as the doctor finally enters the room. Seeing her doctor for the first time, moments before the procedure, the woman starts crying uncontrollably. Instead of offering comfort, the doctor sternly says, "If you can't calm down, I can't get this done."

In other testimony, a woman who had an abortion herself and who has counseled many post-abortive women talked about their shared experiences. "Why didn't they tell us?" she asked. Why didn't abortion providers tell them about the risks, the alternatives and the accurate medical information?

Whether it is current medical risks, future medical complications, or the possible psychological consequences that accompany such an important decision, women deserve to hear the truth. The Abortion Consent Act solves this problem by requiring that doctors inform their patients of the details, risks and alternatives to the procedure 24 hours before the abortion takes place.

None of these provisions change the fact that women have a legal right to choose an abortion. It is unlikely that this legal right will change anytime soon, but that doesn't mean we can't help protect women and their preborn children by allowing them to make informed decisions. Over 30 other states have passed similar laws, and the provisions continue to be upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Abortion Consent Act empowers women to make informed choices about whether or not to have an abortion. As long as abortion is legal in this country, we should be making sure that women are protected and empowered to make informed decisions.


Cathi Herrod is president of the Center for Arizona Policy.

Iowa Supreme Court Redefines Marriage

Iowa Supreme Court Redefines Marriage


From Cathi Herrod,
President,
Center for Arizona Policy



Today, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Iowa's 1998 state law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is unconstitutional. Iowa now becomes the first Midwestern state and fourth state nationwide to have courts redefine marriage by judicial fiat. Once again, we're very grateful for the tremendous victory garnered by last November's Prop 102 passage to define marriage in the Arizona Constitution as only between one man and one woman.

CAP Opposed to Gambling Expansion in AZ

From Cathi Herrod, Center for Arizona Policy.


CAP Asks Governor and Arizona Legislature to Oppose Gambling Expansion


Today, Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) asked Governor Jan Brewer and state legislators to oppose any expansion of gambling in Arizona. Expanding gambling would have harmful consequences for Arizona families and communities, while doing nothing to help the ailing state economy. Two major new gambling enterprises are being considered by elected officials.

First, gambling proponents at state dog and horse racetracks and some state legislators have suggested expanding gambling to solve our state budget deficit. The proposed expansion apparently would allow racetracks to build casinos or to have slot machines and table games. Because many of these discussions have been brewing behind closed doors at the Capitol, gambling expansion could slip into the budget under the radar. That is why CAP is speaking out now to oppose any such proposals.

Expanding off-reservation gambling would break the agreements that Arizona currently has with the Indian tribes. As a result, the tribes could expand their gambling operations all across the state with no limits - making Arizona far worse than Las Vegas or Atlantic City. Gambling will not help our economy, our families, or our communities. Studies repeatedly show that the costs of gambling outweigh the benefits by at least a 3:1 ratio.

Additionally, the Tohono O'odham tribe has announced plans to build a casino in the heart of Glendale's major economic development area and directly across the street from a local high school. CAP is urging state legislators and Gov. Brewer to voice opposition to this new casino. For the casino to become a reality, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior must authorize the tribe's land to be placed in trust.

Breaking News From Center for Arizona Policy

Arizona Supreme Court Strikes Down Two School Choice Programs

PHOENIX - Today the Arizona Supreme Court struck down two school choice programs that were helping Arizona families. The Arizona Scholarships for Pupils with Disabilities Program and the Disabled Pupils Choice Grant Program allowed parents of foster children and parents of children with special needs to send those children to the school that best meets the children's needs.

"This is a terrible result for Arizona students and their parents," said CAP President, Cathi Herrod. "The Arizona Legislature acted to provide meaningful education options for students who have special educational needs. Today's opinion from the Supreme Court ignores the needs of students and penalizes parents for choosing religious schools that meet their children's needs."

Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), along with school choice allies, was instrumental in passing the school choice programs in the Legislature in 2006. In December of last year, CAP attorneys filed a "friend of the court" brief with the Arizona Supreme Court in support of the school choice programs.

The Arizona Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have upheld other school choice programs like these because the private choices of the parents determine which school will receive the tuition money and the ultimate beneficiaries are the students. Today's decision goes against that line of decisions and concludes that the Arizona Constitution provides "a clear prohibition against the use of public funds to aid private or sectarian education."

"The Court's decision ignores the previous rulings that the private choices of parents nullify any constitutional concerns about the use of state money to fund private education," Herrod explained. The case is Cain v. Horne, CV 08-0189. The opinion is available online. CAP's amicus brief is also available online.

CAP is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting and defending the family by influencing policy, communicating truth, and empowering families to promote timeless values.

Breaking News From Center for Arizona Policy

BREAKING NEWS: Victories at Arizona House

Today, the Arizona House of Representatives passed four important pro-life and pro-family bills!

HB 2564, the Abortion Consent Act, passed 36-19..

HB 2400, the state ban on partial-birth abortion, passed by a vote of 37-19.

HB 2286, the charitable tax credit simplification, passed 55-1.

HB 2288, allowing the corporate scholarship tax credit to continue beyond 2011, passed 33-23.

The Arizona House sent a strong message that a strong majority of the House is committed to Arizona families. These bills now go to the Senate for further consideration.