Comment: What pregnant professor fears of Arizona’s abortion ban

There unease for women, even for wanted pregnancies, because of what the ban means for care.

By Caitlin Millat / For the Los Angeles Times

I am 19 weeks pregnant, a legal scholar and a resident of Arizona, whose highest court on Tuesday upheld a 160-year-old law banning nearly all abortions, even in the case of rape or incest. In doing so, the court held that Arizona’s 2022 law, which allowed abortion up through 15 weeks into pregnancy, was no longer valid after the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade that same year.

Many have already explained the obvious legal and common-sense deficiencies in the majority opinion, including its perplexing statutory analysis and its overreliance on archaic precedent. Even some pro-life advocates have opposed the absolute ban for going too far.

Perhaps most powerful among these criticisms is that the law at issue was passed in 1864, decades before women had the right to vote and Arizona existed as a state. And as the dissenting justices persuasively argued, the majority opinion erred in not reconciling the 2022 law with the pre-statehood law. The court’s decision declines to leave “both fully intact and operative,” even though it could have interpreted the 2022 statute as an exception or amendment to the 19th century one, continuing to allow physicians to provide this health care through 15 weeks without incurring criminal penalties.

After reading the decision, however, I realized that I had been unconsciously clutching my stomach; a sign that my objections went beyond legal analysis. I understood then that I was not just analyzing the court’s words as an academic. I was feeling them as a pregnant person in Arizona.

Three out of the four Arizona Supreme Court justices who issued the decision are men. They will not have to feel the loss of personhood that I and so many other Arizonans felt Tuesday morning. They will not have to plot a trip across state lines to access health care they may need. They will not be forced to set aside their bodily autonomy. And they will not be forced to choose what could be an agonizing life for their unborn child. As they wrote, their decision was not about their “morals” or “public policy views”: It was a sterile question of statutory interpretation.

To me, though, the court’s words were profoundly personal. When the court cautioned that “physicians are now on notice that all abortions, except those necessary to save a woman’s life, are illegal,” I couldn’t help but picture my doctor, a man with decades of experience and kind eyes who always calls me “professor” before an ultrasound. Each mention in the ruling of a “medical emergency” conjured up memories of my prior miscarriage years ago, and my fears of again losing our very much wanted baby. Discussions of gestation and conception brought to mind the joy I felt at the first positive pregnancy test and my first time hearing the reassuring thump of our son’s heartbeat. I both saw and felt him in every line.

Importantly, I had these experiences with the knowledge that my decision to become pregnant was my protected choice. Until Tuesday, I retained other choices in early pregnancy if my fetus was not compatible with life.

I am one of the lucky ones. Were complications to arise in my pregnancy requiring a procedure that Arizona may ban as an abortion, I am mobile and financially stable enough to travel out of state for care. But the compounded pain, anxiety and fear that those without such access are living with across the state will only grow in the coming months, as physicians, legislators, prosecutors and others navigate the ruling.

I am already considering some of these questions myself. Would the care I received for my earlier miscarriage, for example, qualify as the provision of an “abortion” under the court’s ruling? And as I make preparations for labor and delivery, I have to wonder: What qualifies under the majority’s sole exception permitting abortions “to save a woman’s life “? How close to death would I need to be in the coming weeks to trigger this protection? And who would make that call?

Though Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has vowed not to enforce the law, it will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on abortion providers, at best resulting in a chaotic and confusing care landscape that will of course most affect those lacking resources. In the meantime, the ruling may face further legal challenges, and abortion rights could end up a matter for the state Legislature; or for Arizona voters on this year’s ballot, where they may be able to repeal the ban.

I’m anticipating the November election with hope and fear in equal measure. If all goes right, I will be at the ballot box with my 2-month-old son, casting my vote.

Caitlin Millat is an associate professor at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. ©2024 Los Angeles Times, latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Friday, May 17

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Attorney General Bob Ferguson speaks to a reporter as his 2024 gubernatorial campaign launch event gets underway in Seattle, on Saturday, Sept. 9, 2023. ( Jerry Cornfield/Washington State Standard)
Editorial: Recruiting two Bob Fergusons isn’t election integrity

A GOP activist paid the filing fee for two gubernatorial candidates who share the attorney general’s name.

Schwab: Apparently, comparisons of Trump, Biden still necessary

While Biden is rebuilding infrastructure and economy, Trump is dealing for contributions and tribute.

Please continue reporting on hospital discharge backlog

I commend reporter Sydney Jackson’s story in the Weekend Herald on slow… Continue reading

State must provide more financial aid for college students

The costs of attending college have become increasingly more difficult throughout the… Continue reading

Foster parent abstract concept vector illustration. Foster care, father in adoption, happy interracial family, having fun, together at home, childless couple, adopted child abstract metaphor.
Editorial: State must return foster youths’ federal benefits

States, including Washington, have used those benefits, rather than hold them until adulthood.

Making adjustments to keep Social Security solvent represents only one of the issues confronting Congress. It could also correct outdated aspects of a program that serves nearly 90 percent of Americans over 65. (Stephen Savage/The New York Times) -- NO SALES; FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY WITH NYT STORY SLUGGED SCI SOCIAL SECURITY BY PAULA SPAN FOR NOV. 26, 2018. ALL OTHER USE PROHIBITED.
Editorial: Social Security’s good news? Bad news delayed a bit

Congress has a little additional time to make sure Social Security is solvent. It shouldn’t waste it.

Make your points without insults

Make your points without insults

toon
Editorial cartoons for Thursday, May 16

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Nicholas Kristof: Massacre of innocents has returned to Sudan

Twenty years ago protests and action stopped a genocide. The latest killings are barely registering.

Comment; Congress is broken, but term limits won’t fix it

Looking at term limits in state legislatures, such reforms have resulted in several drawbacks.

Michelle Goldberg: Cohen a cautionary tale for Republicans

Donald Trump’s former fixer now regrets the loyalty he paid to his boss. Are others paying attention?

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.