A coalition of groups is working to include the right to abort in the Arizona Constitution.

The measure announced Tuesday is intended to be the final backstop for the procedure to remain legal, regardless of the ruling that the Arizona Supreme Court will likely make later in the year.

The justices are weighing up whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year to overturn Roe v. Wade restores the state’s territorial-era abortion ban except for saving the life of the mom or if a state law from 2022 allowing abortions through 15 weeks pregnancy takes priority.

The initiative would also act as a roadblock to future legislative attempts to implement further restrictions.

The deadline for collecting the 383,923 signatures required by law is July 3.

A realistic goal would be to have more than 500,000 valid signs.

The proposal would, however, not grant an unlimited right to abortion if it were approved by 2024.

It would instead guarantee that women could terminate a pregnancy up to the viability of the child, without any restrictions from the state. This is usually between 22 and 24-weeks of pregnancy.

Jodi Liggett is a senior advisor at NARAL Arizona. She said that the decision to protect viability constitutionally was a compromise.

Liggett said that some people would argue against any restrictions. She said that this was not politically feasible in the United States.

Liggett called this line “operationally realistic” and said that they were looking at what the Arizona voters want.

Chris Love, senior adviser for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona (the political arm of the group), said, “We conducted some very thorough research and polling.” The language we filed today reflects the language that is popular with Arizona voters.

Love said that the language used should be able to attract signatures.

She said, “I think we’ll win,” and she was right.

Cathi Herrod is the executive director of Arizona Policy, an anti-abortion center.

Herrod has already begun to highlight the problems she sees with this measure.

She said that the amendment would go beyond simply enshrining a right to an abortion before fetal viability. The state would be prohibited from restricting, denying or interfering in an abortion after this point if a health professional deemed it necessary to protect a pregnant woman’s life, physical or mental well-being.

Herrod stated that this could be “too broad” and could allow abortion up to the time of childbirth.

Her organization would oppose it even if the initiative only guaranteed the right to an abortion up to viability. Herrod admitted that it wants Arizona to return to the old law, which allowed abortions only for the sake of saving the mother’s life.

Herrod stated that “we support protecting both babies and mothers as much as possible from the tragic effects of abortion.”

Love stated that if approved, the language would ensure abortions are legal and unrestricted at least up to viability.

This could also remove some of the restrictions put in place by anti-abortion legislators who have been unable to ban this procedure since 1973. This includes everything from waiting times to regulations on where abortions are performed.

Love stated that the language we used was very limited in terms of what the Legislature could do to restrict the fundamental rights.

It is not clear where the line will be drawn.

Herrod stated that the language could potentially undermine existing “commonsense state laws” on informed consent and parental consent.

Liggett replied, “Good question”, noting that there is essentially no mention of this in the initiative.

Liggett explained that “nothing here automatically strikes down” the provision. It would be necessary to litigate if anyone wanted to challenge this specific provision of Arizona law under the standard and rights.

All of this will cost a lot.

Liggett stated that even with positive polling results, it would cost between $40 and $50 million to not only gather the signatures necessary but also run the type of campaign required.

Liggett stated that the majority of this money will come from parent organizations like Planned Parenthood Arizona and groups such as hers.

She also expects financial assistance from progressive groups, labor unions and others with political agendas that go beyond the constitutional amendment.

Liggett stated that it was in the interest of both parties to get those same voters out on the polls. This could potentially flip the control of Arizona’s legislature.

The last time Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress was 1964.

Abortion — and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year to return the abortion issue to the States — has already had an effect.

Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs who ran last year as a pro-life candidate and promised to protect abortion rights beat Republican Kari Lake who called herself “pro-life”.

In the race for Attorney General, Kris Mayes narrowly defeated Abe Hamadeh.

Mayes said during the election that she would not enforce any existing laws because, in her opinion, a state constitution right to privacy is already superior to state laws. Hamadeh said, on the other hand, that he would enforce laws and prosecute doctors for violating them. Women are already exempt from prosecution due to a change in 2021 state law.

The positions of Hobbs, Mayes, and others became even more relevant when in June the Governor issued an executive ordering stripping 15 county attorneys from the right to prosecute anyone who violates any law. This was regardless of whether the State Supreme Court rules that the 15-week measure or the territorial period law is the law. Hobbs admitted that she had given Mayes this right knowing that it would guarantee that no charges would be filed.

Arizona’s legal system is complicated.

The first thing to note is that in Arizona, abortions were only legal if they saved the mother’s life. It wasn’t until 1973 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that women in the United States have a constitutionally protected right to end a pregnancy before the fetal stage.

This overrode territorial law and prevented its enforcement in Arizona. The statute was never repealed by state legislators and remains in place to this day.

The decision by the United States Supreme Court to review a Mississippi Law that attempted to ban abortions beyond 15 weeks last year was what changed things. Anticipating a favorable decision, abortion foe