Mays, who fought to reinstate the territorial ban by his predecessor, Republican Mark Brunovich, has refused to defend his position. campaign. Instead, the appeal to the state Supreme Court is led by Dr. Eric Hazelrigg, medical director of Choices Pregnancy Centers, a chain of anti-abortion clinics in Silicon Valley. Hazelrigg was involved in the case in its early stages at Brunovitch’s request, as the unborn “guardian Adrite” created in 1971.

Jane Roe filed her first lawsuit in 1971 to challenge the state’s abortion ban and gain access to the proceedings. A doctor was appointed as her guardian to represent her unborn child and “all other similar circumstances.” The case was later abandoned after a High Court decision in 1973, Law vs Wade, last year’s event is back. But things are very different and Hazelrigg has no authority to appeal, Mayes said in a recent filing.

“Courts should be wary of overturning well-founded decisions on issues of very public importance when the appropriate parties are unwilling to reconsider,” she wrote.

First, Mayes argued that legal standards for guardianship advertising were narrowly defined in state law, and Hazelrigg’s position did not meet them. appointed to represent. For example, if a minor is asked to go to court, or if a minor asks for release or an abortion without parental permission. In some cases, they may be selected to represent multiple mutually consenting plaintiffs. But Hazelrigg claims to represent Arizona’s indeterminate fetal population, regardless of whether a conflict of interest exists. pointed out.

“…the class of fetuses is clearly not homogeneous,” she writes. It doesn’t mean there is.”

And the first guardian appointment in 1971 itself disqualified Hazelrigg. At the time, guardians were indicted on behalf of Roe’s fetus and other fetuses “in similar circumstances”, but no pregnant women sought abortion in the new case. filed and challenged by Planned Parenthood, an Arizona abortion provider.

“Because there are no plaintiffs seeking abortion, there are no individual fetuses or ‘like-for-like’ fetuses represented by (Hazelrigg). How can there be a guardian when there are no guardians? asked Mays.

In the end, Hazelrigg was just a bystander upset with the outcome of the state appeals court’s ruling, she said. And allowing his appeal sets a dangerous precedent for future challenges from those who would raise moral dissent from the court’s decision.

Mays said other parties with higher status had had the opportunity to intervene in the case, but chose not to do so.Arizona Senate Speaker Warren Petersen and Speaker Ben Thoma , took the state’s stance defending the law it helped pass when Mays refused. including abortion lawBesides Hazelrigg, only Yavapai County Attorney Dennis McClain has filed a petition representing the interests of the state, but Mays told the court that she was unfairly trying to overturn the actual position of the state she represented. I requested that it be dismissed as an unprofessional attempt.

“The fact that none of the parties involved in the legislative process or had a direct interest in seeking review in this case makes it difficult for the courts to accept requests to reinstate extreme laws from the days before women voted. should be given a serious pause,” she wrote.

Planned Parenthood of Arizona agreed with Mayes’ allegations in an emailed statement, adding that the initial conflict between the 2022 law and the 1864 ban was satisfactorily resolved by the Court of Appeals. Faced with confusion over which law should prevail supreme, a panel of three judges ruled that women had access to elective abortions for up to 15 weeks, and that the 1864 ban made abortions possible. It was applied to non-physicians who were pregnant and not to pregnant women themselves. The ruling reconciled two of her conflicting laws and avoided voiding decades of abortion regulation since the 1864 law came into force.

Hazelrigg said PPAZ spokesman Andrew Feldman had not raised any new issues and the state’s Supreme Court should refuse to accept his argument.

“As we have said before, the intervenor’s petition is a last-ditch effort to ignore the reasonable determination of the Court of Appeals to comply with Arizona law and what is best for the health and well-being of Arizona.” Feldman said. “There is nothing involving the Arizona Supreme Court.”

However, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Advisor Kevin Theriot refuted claims that Hazelrig’s allegations were baseless, saying his position as the unborn voice was essential.

“Those children deserve defense. Attorney General Mays has made it clear that he intends to pursue only extreme policies that benefit the abortion business, but Dr. Hazelrigg has said that Arizona’s unborn children should not be taken. I am ideally placed to represent and defend Arizona’s life support law,” he said.