Link: americamagazine DOT org/politics-society/2024/09/24/arizona-abortion-immigration-proposition-139-314-248866
‘Vote no on both’: Arizona Catholics oppose ballot initiatives restricting immigration, expanding abortion
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Sept 24, 2024 — A number of states will vote on expanding or maintaining access to abortion this November, but voters in Arizona will also weigh in on a ballot initiative restricting immigration.
Arizona’s Proposition 314 would make it a state crime to cross the Arizona–Mexico border except through an official port of entry, would empower state and local police to arrest those who cross the border unlawfully, and would allow state judges to order deportations. Proposition 139, called the “Right to Abortion Initiative,” would make abortion a “fundamental right” before “fetal viability.” Currently, abortion is legal in Arizona for the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.
The Arizona Catholic Conference opposes both ballot initiatives. The conference grounds its opposition in Catholic social teaching, which recognizes the inherent dignity of every human person created in the image and likeness of God.
Ron Johnson, the executive director of the conference, believes the language of Proposition 139 is intentionally vague. He fears it could be interpreted to expand access to abortion beyond the limits previously granted by Roe v. Wade.
As written, the proposition broadly defines a “fundamental right to abortion,” conceding few, if any, restrictions. The measure allows for abortion after “fetal viability,” often defined as 22 or 23 weeks of pregnancy, as long as the “treating health care professional” deems it “necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of a pregnant individual.” That language concerns pro-life advocates.
“It’s very likely to undo safety standards that girls and women have,” Mr. Johnson said of Proposition 139. “It won’t require a medical doctor to do abortions. It will likely eliminate any restrictions, like parental consent [and] informed consent, and even allow late-term abortions. So it goes far beyond what most people want.”
[…]
“We’ve got the best message on our side; it’s just we’re being outspent,” Mr. Johnson said, referring to the campaign behind Proposition 139. “We have a culture and a media that’s very much against us. But that doesn’t mean the bishops won’t speak out.”
[…]
[Mayra Rodriguez Villeda, a pro-life advocate who used to work for Planned Parenthood] believes parents, especially in the Latino community in which she works, should be concerned that the ballot measure could remove the parental consent requirement. That said, Ms. Rodriguez met many parents who brought their daughters to get abortions while working at Planned Parenthood. She believes it is not uncommon for minors to receive parental consent for abortions and is concerned about what the measure would mean for underage girls who are impregnated by an adult.
“They don’t want their parents to find out because their boyfriends will wind up in jail,” Ms. Rodriguez said, citing her experience. She added that removing parental consent might also have the effect of protecting sex traffickers and others who have abused minors.
But Ms. Rodriguez is not just concerned about abortion. She works in the immigrant community and reported a growing fear of immigration crackdowns that would result if Proposition 314 is passed. “The doors opened for me as an immigrant, so I cannot support this law. I tell people to vote ‘no’ to both!” she said of the ballot initiatives.
Over the last two decades, the Catholic bishops of Arizona have consistently opposed harsh immigration restrictions, Mr. Johnson said. And in 2022, they supported a ballot initiative that granted in-state tuition at Arizona universities for undocumented immigrants.
“We need comprehensive immigration reform,” Mr. Johnson said. The current system is “just a disaster. People want to do something, but [Proposition 314] is definitely the wrong thing.”
Kevin Appleby of the Center of Migration Studies in New York suspects that, if the immigration enforcement measure does pass, it will be struck down in court because it “goes beyond the purview of the state government.” The federal government, he said, is responsible for setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws. A federal judge recently blocked a similar law in Iowa.
“It will probably score political points and it keeps the issue out front, with the hopes of forcing the federal government to do something,” Mr. Appleby said. “But I think in the long run, it won’t make that much of a difference in terms of stemming the people coming in. The forces that are driving them are stronger than any barriers that we put up to prevent them from coming.”
An effective reform to the immigration system must come from Congress, he said. “We need to create a system that’s more workable, that provides legal avenues for people to come and fill jobs in important industries,” Mr. Appleby said. “But [congressional leaders] are happier to use immigration as a political weapon than to actually solve the problem.”
[…]
“We’re going to have labor shortages,” Mr. Appleby said. “It’s in our best interest to allow them to come legally and thus take some pressure off the border. But it’s become so polarized that it’s hard to create space for compromise.”
Some kind of compromise is urgently necessary, according to Eileen McKenzie, F.S.P.A., of the Kino Border Initiative. The binational Catholic ministry — based on the U.S.–Mexico border, with offices in Nogales, Ariz., and Nogales, Sonora — offers humanitarian assistance to migrants in Mexico and advocates for a humane and just immigration reform in the United States.
“They’re already fleeing from very fearful situations,” Sister McKenzie said of asylum seekers, who, she adds, are often fleeing together with their families. “And then for those who are going to be coming into Arizona, many to be reunited with family members, [Proposition 314] just creates another fearful environment.”
Sister McKenzie noted that families who are of “mixed status,” meaning some members are undocumented and others are legal residents or citizens, would be vulnerable if Proposition 314 passes.
President Biden’s executive action this summer effectively shut down asylum claims at the border except at official ports of entry, she said. Sister McKenzie estimates that, on average, asylum seekers wait eight to 10 months in Mexico before federal agents will hear their asylum claim. They must reapply every day.
“They’re kind of stuck in Nogales,” she said, explaining that the city’s port of entry is the only location on the Arizona border where migrants can seek asylum. There are only 200 appointments a day, and migrants often take short-term jobs when they can find them to pay rent.
“Many times they are waiting in the same country they are fleeing,” Sister McKenzie said, estimating that 70 percent of the migrants who arrive at Kino are from other parts of Mexico and are fleeing violence from the cartel or gang wars.
“They don’t feel free to have a life in Nogales because they know they can be found here,” she said. “There’s increasing desperation, and desperate people do desperate things.”
If they do cross the border and are caught by U.S. Border Patrol, she said, they are deported without having their asylum claims heard.
Sister McKenzie sympathizes with the many Americans who are frustrated with the current immigration system. “But this isn’t the answer,” she said.
