SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"We cannot afford to celebrate or lose momentum. The threat to our reproductive freedom is as immediate today as it ever was," said the campaign behind the ballot initiative.
While Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs on Thursday signed legislation repealing an 1864 abortion ban, reproductive rights advocates in the state reiterated that fuller freedom over family planning requires passing a November ballot measure.
In response to an
Arizona Republic opinion piece noting that there is no emergency clause in House Bill 2677, the law repealing the ban, "which means it won't go off the books until 90 days after the Legislature adjourns," Arizona for Abortion Access stressed that "Arizonans will still be living under a law that denies us the right to make decisions about our own health."
"We cannot afford to celebrate or lose momentum. The threat to our reproductive freedom is as immediate today as it ever was," the campaign behind the ballot initiative said, adding that only passing the Arizona Abortion Access Act "changes that for good."
The Arizona Abortion Access Act is a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prohibit many limits on abortions before fetal viability and safeguard access to care after viability to protect the life or physical or mental health of the patient. Arizonans were fighting for it even before the state Supreme Court reinstated the 160-year-old ban.
Even Hobbs recognized that the battle for reproductive freedom is far from over, saying Thursday that "today, we should not rest, but we should recommit to protecting women's bodily autonomy, their ability to make their own healthcare decisions, and the ability to control their lives."
"Let me be clear: I will do everything in my power to protect our reproductive freedoms, because I trust women to make the decisions that are best for them, and know politicians do not belong in the doctor's office," the Democrat pledged.
Her signature came just a day after the Arizona Senate approved H.B. 2677, following its state House passage last month. In both cases, a couple of Republican lawmakers voted with Democrats to advance the legislation—defying not only party members in the state but a national GOP that is hellbent on ending access to abortion care.
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said Wednesday that the Senate vote "to repeal the draconian 1864 abortion ban is a win for freedom in our state" and she was looking forward to Hobbs signing the bill.
"However, without an emergency clause that would allow the repeal to take effect immediately, the people of Arizona may still be subjected to the near-total abortion ban for a period of time this year," Mayes acknowledged. "Rest assured, my office is exploring every option available to prevent this outrageous 160-year-old law from ever taking effect."
Law Dork's Chris Geidner pointed out that "on Tuesday—though technically unrelated—Mayes' office asked the Arizona Supreme Court to stay the issuance of the mandate in the case holding the near-total ban enforceable."
According to Geidner:
If granted, that would push the issuance of the mandate to July 25—90 days beyond the date when the Arizona Supreme Court denied Mayes' request for reconsideration—which would then block enforcement to at least 45 days beyond that, to September 8.
At that point, the repeal law passed on Wednesday likely will have gone into effect—meaning that the 15-week ban would remain the applicable law throughout this entire time—and the expected vote on the proposed constitutional amendment will be less than two months away.
Planned Parenthood Arizona took similar action after the Senate vote on Wednesday. The group's CEO, Angela Florez, explained that "we have said all along that we will use every possible avenue to safeguard essential care for our patients and all Arizonans, and that's exactly what we're doing with today's motion."
"While anti-abortion extremists in the state Legislature will continue to do everything in their power to undermine Arizonans' freedom and criminalize essential healthcare, Planned Parenthood Arizona is taking action to prevent a harmful total ban on abortion from taking effect in our state," Florez continued. "The court's April 9 ruling was both tragic and wrong, but it rested on trying to discern legislative intent. The Legislature has now spoken and clearly does not want the 1864 ban to be enforced."
"We hope the court stays true to its word and respects this long-overdue legislative action, by quickly granting our motion to end the uncertainty over the future of abortion in Arizona," added Florez, whose group supports the ballot measure.
"The majority of Arizonans agree: People who can become pregnant deserve the freedom to decide for themselves when to become a parent or grow their families," said one state lawmaker. "Let's do this, Arizona."
Following the success of pro-abortion rights ballot initiatives in several states last year, organizers from across the nation are zeroing in on Arizona as the next state where the question of whether the right to abortion care should be codified should be posed directly to voters.
Groups including NARAL Arizona, the ACLU of Arizona, and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona (PPAA) on Tuesdayfiled proposed language for a new amendment to the state constitution which, if passed in the 2024 election, would guarantee the right to abortion care up until about 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy—the point of fetal viability.
Pregnant people whose lives or health would be put at risk by continuing a pregnancy would also be guaranteed the right to abortion care after the 24-week point.
The groups are among those forming a new political action committee called Arizona for Abortion Access, more than a year after the right-wing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, paving the way for abortion bans in more than 20 states and restrictions in at least six, including Arizona.
Former Republican Gov. Doug Ducey signed a law months before Roe was overturned that bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
Since taking office in January, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs has made protecting abortion access a centerpiece of her legislative agenda, signing an executive order in June to prevent the state from prosecuting people for obtaining an abortion or assisting someone in getting care. She has also expressed support for a voter-approved constitutional amendment affirming that Arizonans have a right to abortion care.
After filing the proposed amendment on Tuesday, Arizona for Abortion Access will have about 11 months—until July 3, 2024—to gather the required 383,923 signatures from residents in order to place the question on next year's ballot.
Chris Love, a senior adviser to PPAA, toldThe Washington Post that the coalition plans to get at least half a million signatures.
A 2022 poll by the Public Religion Research Institute showed that 62% of Arizonans believe abortion should be legal in most or all cases.
The coalition launched its initiative as voters in Ohio went to the polls in a special election that could be a deciding factor in whether the state's own proposed constitutional amendment guaranteeing reproductive freedom will pass in November.
In Tuesday's special election in Ohio, voters are being asked whether the threshold for passing a new constitutional amendment should be raised from a simple majority to 60% of voters. Just under 58% of Ohio residents support the proposed constitutional amendment being put to voters in November, meaning the rule being proposed on Tuesday's ballots could harm the chances of passing the abortion rights measure.
Republicans in the Arizona state Senate have also passed a constitutional amendment requiring a 60% supermajority for future amendments. If passed by the state House, the proposal could appear on ballots in 2024.
Arizona "has been ground zero of MAGA attacks on our rights and our democracy," said the national progressive advocacy group Indivisible, which pledged to mobilize its local chapters across the state to help gather signatures supporting Arizona for Abortion Access' efforts.
Last year following the overturning of Roe, voters in states including Kansas and Kentucky rejected proposed constitutional amendments that aimed to restrict abortion care, and voters in California, Vermont, and Michigan approved amendments to affirm the right to abortion.
Advocates in Arizona are predicting voters will do the same next year.
"The majority of Arizonans agree: People who can become pregnant deserve the freedom to decide for themselves when to become a parent or grow their families," said state Rep. Analise Ortiz (D-24). "Let's do this, Arizona."
"The only way to solve the long-term shortage on the Colorado River is to take a lot less water out of the system," said one agricultural economics professor. "Which necessarily means permanent reductions in crops grown."
California, Arizona, and Nevada on Monday struck a deal with the Biden administration in which the states agreed to take less water from the dangerously overdrawn Colorado River—an agreement cautiously welcomed by conservationists, who warned that the cuts are insufficient to stabilize a system upon which tens of millions of people rely.
Monday's breakthrough agreement follows nearly a year of negotiations and missed deadlines and involves the Biden administration, the three states, Indigenous tribes, water management districts, and agribusinesses. Under the plan, the federal government will distribute around $1.2 billion worth of Inflation Reduction Act funds to cities, tribes, and water districts if they cut back on water use. The three states agreed to use 3 million acre-feet less water between them by the end of 2026. This would amount to 13% of their total Colorado River allocation.
"There are 40 million people, seven states, and 30 tribal nations who rely on the Colorado River Basin for basic services such as drinking water and electricity," U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a statement. "Today's announcement is a testament to the Biden-Harris administration's commitment to working with states, tribes, and communities throughout the West to find consensus solutions in the face of climate change and sustained drought."
"The agreed-to cuts are significantly less than what federal scientists and officials had said were necessary to stabilize the river system on which tens of millions in the Southwest rely."
Last August, amid extreme drought driven by the climate emergency and warnings of a possible "catastrophic collapse" of the Colorado River, the U.S. Interior Department announced the first-ever tier 2 shortage for the waterway, triggering water-use cuts in Arizona, Nevada, and the country of Mexico for 2023.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Camille Calimlim Touton called the agreement "an important step forward towards our shared goal of forging a sustainable path for the basin that millions of people call home."
Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, hailed the "partnership with our fellow Basin states and historic investment in drought funding," while asserting that "we now have a path forward to build our reservoirs up in the near-term."
\u201c\ud83d\udca7\ud83d\udca7\ud83d\udca7.... and that's how you get it done: @GovernorHobbs just announced a bold plan with California & Nevada to conserve 3 million acre-feet of water over the next 3 years. \n\nOur Colorado River is precious, and we must all do our part to protect our finite water supplies. \ud83c\udf0a\u201d— Andr\u00e9s Cano (@Andr\u00e9s Cano) 1684768812
"From here, our work must continue to take action and address the long-term issues of climate change and overallocation to ensure we have a sustainable Colorado River for all who rely upon it," Hobbs added.
Luke Runyon, president of the Society of Environmental Journalists, noted on Twitter that "the agreed-to cuts are significantly less than what federal scientists and officials had said were necessary to stabilize the river system on which tens of millions in the Southwest rely."
John Entsminger, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, toldE&E News that "the plan set forth by the Lower Basin states is not a panacea for the river, but rather a consensus solution that will help manage near-term water demands while serving as a bridge to negotiate the post-2026 operating criteria."
"The Colorado River Basin has a warmer and drier future ahead and reducing water use, increasing water efficiency, and maximizing water recycling and reuse is paramount to a sustainable future for the 40 million people that depend upon this critical water supply," he added.
\u201cThis is only 1/3 of the cuts needed, according to the federal gov last summer\n\nThe basin has had a wet winter, but enough to make \nup for 2/3 of the shortfall? I think we need to see some serious updated projections from Interior before getting too excited about this agreement\u201d— Nick Hagerty (@Nick Hagerty) 1684777740
As Common Dreams reported last month, advocacy groups including Food & Water Watch also criticized proposed deals between the administration and states for failing to address the overexploitation of water resources by corporate agriculture and fossil fuel companies.
While unusually heavy snowfall and subsequent spring meltwater have helped temporarily avert what experts warned last year could be a "doomsday scenario" for the Colorado River Basin in 2023, the vital waterway remains in danger of running too low to provide enough water for all who rely upon it.
The Colorado River historically ran about 1,450 miles from its headwaters high in the Rocky Mountains of northern Colorado into Utah, through the Grand Canyon in Arizona, and then along Nevada and California's southeastern borders before flowing into the northernmost tip of the Gulf of California in Mexico.
The river—which is an oasis in the unforgiving desert that surrounds it for much of its course—long sustained Indigenous peoples both before and after the genocidal colonization of the Southwest, and since the U.S. conquered the region from Mexico it has been a lifeline for American settlers and cities as well as Native tribes.
Western states began dividing the river's water between them around a century ago, and throughout the 20th century, massive dams and channels diverted water hundreds of miles away to sprawling, thirsty farms on previously desert lands and to rapidly expanding cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Diego, and Las Vegas.
Under the Colorado River Compact, states sidestepped Indigenous tribes and agreed to annual water allocations that they must use in full or face usage-based cuts the following year. This "use it or lose it" system has created what critics call "perverse" incentives for farmers to grow water-intensive crops in the desert.
\u201cWhat's using all that water? Cows. Pretty simple. \n\nAs #western states reach historic water use deal we should be having a conversation if feeding cattle is really how we want to use our limited and shrinking resources. #coloradoriver \n\nhttps://t.co/zUS8AP4uQ6\u201d— Andrew deCoriolis (@Andrew deCoriolis) 1684773208
Today, around three-quarters of the river's flow is siphoned off to irrigate more than five million acres of farmland, according to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Hydroelectric plants along the Colorado also generate more than 12 billion kilowatt hours of electricity annually.
The river has been running especially low in recent decades as worsening droughts driven by the climate emergency have gripped the Southwest and as the population of the nation's driest region explodes. The Colorado no longer empties into the sea, and models predict that by the year 2100 its flow could be further reduced by more than half.
"The only way to solve the long-term shortage on the Colorado River is to take a lot less water out of the system," environmental and resource economist Nick Hagerty stressed in reaction to Monday's announcement. "Which necessarily means permanent reductions in crops grown. That's where the focus needs to be."