Abortion laws may tighten in state

Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, said Tuesday his goal to use the law to persuade women to decide against an abortion, even as he acknowledged Arizona already has fairly substantial laws requiring that women give "informed consent" before terminating a pregnancy.

Existing requirements include a discussion of the risks, a 24-hour waiting period and offering to let the woman see an ultrasound of the fetus.

The most significant part of Smith's SB 1494 is that it would alter Arizona law to define human life as beginning at conception, which could pave the way for abortion foes to use the Arizona statute to challenge the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade declaring that women have a constitutional right to an abortion.

A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood, which traditionally opposes such restrictions, said her organization is still studying the measure and had no comment.

Smith said there's a legitimate purpose behind the definition of human life. "It clearly tells the woman that what they're aborting is a human being," he said.

His legislation hammers that point home with a requirement that a woman be told, at least 24 hours in advance, that the abortion "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." And a pregnant woman also would have to be informed she "has an existing relationship with that unborn human being" which is protected by the U.S. Constitution and state laws.

Smith said the legality of a similar law is being considered by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If that law is upheld and Smith's measure becomes law, he expects a challenge to the 9th Circuit, which has purview over Arizona statutes.

Ultimately, he expects the question to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"If the Supreme Court now decides that language is correct and what you're killing is a human being, well, we have a little law that you can't kill human beings," Smith said. At that point, he said it forces the high court to re-examine the rationale behind Roe v. Wade.

But Smith said he sees a benefit in the legislation regardless of whether it ultimately leads to abortions once again being illegal in Arizona. He said the current informed-consent requirements go only so far.

"But when they see what you're killing is a human being in front of them, I think that's hopefully just one more stopgate in their mental processing to say, 'Oh, it's not just an amalgamation of cells and globs of this and plasma this and blood this,' " he said.

Smith's legislation would apply in cases of surgical and medical abortions, the latter involving the use of RU-486, which induces a woman to miscarry.

Less clear is how a law defining life as beginning at conception might affect the legal use of the "morning-after pill."

One theory is that the pill, essentially a large dose of hormones, prevents a woman from ovulating. Smith said he subscribes to an alternate theory that the hormones prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

"This bill was not written for that," he said. "It's written for your typical walking-into-an-abortion-clinic case."

The first-term lawmaker said if it were up to him, all abortions would be illegal.

"I guess I'm a purist," he said, attributing his reasons to his religious beliefs.

"God doesn't make mistakes," he said. "I believe that God is still on the throne and that's happening for a reason, whether we get it or not."

Besides defining life, SB 1494 adds to the list of things prospective abortion patients are to be told ahead of time, which now include "immediate and long-term medical risks," the probable gestational age of the unborn child as well as its "probable anatomical and physiological characteristics."

The new requirements include specific warnings of depression and related psychological distress, the risk of infection, hemorrhage, danger to subsequent pregnancies and infertility.