Planned Parenthood seeks Arizona Supreme Court justice recusal in abortion case

Planned Parenthood of Arizona is seeking to force the recusal of state Supreme Court Justice William Montgomery in a case that could reinstate a near-total abortion restriction.

Planned Parenthood of Arizona filed the motion for recusal on Thursday, citing a 2017 statement from Montgomery saying Planned Parenthood is “responsible for the greatest generational genocide known to man” and a 2015 statement saying the group is engaged in “profit-driven atrocities.”

INFLATION HOLDS STEADY AT 3.4% IN SEPTEMBER IN FED’S PREFERRED GAUGE

“What we are seeing is a pattern we’ve seen in many places, which is Planned Parenthood wanting their cases to only be heard by judges who support Planned Parenthood,” SBA Pro-Life America’s State Policy Director Katie Daniel told the Washington Examiner. “Planned Parenthood doesn’t like these laws, so they go into court to try to get them overturned — going back to the tradition started with Roe v. Wade, the abortion industry and its proponents try to circumvent the will of the people by running into court and taking away the ability to have a policy-making process.”

Planned Parenthood of Arizona believes Montgomery’s statements, which were made when he was an attorney in Maricopa County prior to taking the bench, would “prejudice” his treatment of their organization in a case involving an 1864 law that would ban abortion in nearly every instance.

“Planned Parenthood Arizona believes that all litigants in Arizona are entitled to have their cases heard by judges who are not biased against them, and that includes Planned Parenthood Arizona,” PPAZ senior director of public policy and government relations Kelley Dupps said in a statement. “After carefully evaluating the recent reporting showing Justice Montgomery’s bias against Planned Parenthood Arizona as an organization, we believe recusal is necessary in our case.”

While the Arizona Supreme Court Communications Director Alberto Rodriguez told the Washington Examiner that “because the pleading has just been filed, it has to be reviewed.” Montgomery has signaled he has no intention of stepping down.

All parties “are entitled to a fair and impartial adjudication of the legal issues presented,” he told the Arizona Capitol Times earlier this week.

“As with any other case involving an issue I may have previously taken a position on while serving as an executive branch official, I will consider the facts and the law to determine the merits of any legal argument presented without regard for any prior position and without passion or prejudice,” Montgomery continued. “My oath of office requires no less.”

The case before the Grand Canyon State’s high court involves the 1864 law, as incorporated in 1901, prior to its admission into the Union as a state in 1912. The law carries a two-to-five-year prison sentence for those who assist in the procurement of an abortion through any method. An initial challenge to the law was filed by Planned Parenthood in 1970, prior to the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade.

While it became obsolete because of Roe, last summer’s overturn of the abortion ruling raised questions as to whether the law would come back into effect. Earlier in 2022, then-Gov. Doug Ducey signed a 15-week limit to the procedure, which is currently in effect. However, abortion opponents say the pre-statehood law should take precedence.

In December, an appellate panel sided with abortion activists, ruling that the 15-week restriction supersedes the older law but that the 1864 law could apply only to nondoctors. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument in the case on Dec. 12.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The case and Montgomery question have a notable corollary in Wisconsin, where an 1849 near-total abortion restriction is blocking the procedure, and Justice Janet Protasiewicz was elected having made openly pro-abortion statements.

Daniel said the similarities in the two states are two sides of the same coin, telling the Washington Examiner, in the case of Wisconsin, “it means Planned Parenthood is spending money to put a judge on the bench, and in Arizona, they’re trying to pull one off the bench.”