>> GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO THIS AZ VOTES 2024 SPECIAL EDITION OF ARIZONA HORIZON.

I'M TED SIMONS.

TONIGHT WE LOOK AT PROP 314, WHICH MAKES IT A STATE CRIME TO CROSS THE BORDER ILLEGALLY INTO ARIZONA AND PROP 139 WHICH CREATES A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO AN ABORTION UNDER THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION, WE'LL TALK ABOUT HOW BOTH MEASURES ARE EXPECTED TO DRIVE VOTER TURN-OUT AND WE'LL LOOK AT IMPACT THESE PROPOSITIONS WOULD HAVE ON THE STATE IF PASSED.

>> I'M CATHERINE ANAYA, WE ARE JOINED TONIGHT BY A PANEL TO DISCUSS BOTH ISSUES AND WE'LL TAKE QUESTIONS FROM OUR STUDENT AUDIENCE GATHERED FOR TONIGHT'S SHOW.

>> AND WE'LL GET TO THE PANEL IN JUST A MOMENT BUT FIRST LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT PROPOSITION 314.

>> REPORTER: 314 HAS FOUR KEY COMPONENTS MAKING ILLEGAL FOR ANYONE TO CROSS THE ARIZONA/MEXICO BORDER AT ANY LOCATION OTHER THAN A POVERTY ENTRY AND ALLOWS STATE JUDGES TO ORDER DEPORTATIONS AND REQUIRES THE STATE TO USE A FEDERAL VERIFY PROGRAM TO DETERMINE SOMEONE'S STATUS BEFORE THEY RECEIVE FINANCIAL AID OR PUBLIC SINCE AND MAKES IT A CLASS 2 FELONY IF A PERSON KNOWINGLY SELLS FENTENYL AND IT RESULTS IN THE DEATH OF ANOTHER PERSON.

CLASS 2 FELONIES ARE PUNISHABLE BY UP TO 10 YEARS IN PRISON.

EVEN THOUGH IMMIGRATION IS USUALLY UNDER FEDERAL PURVIEW, SUPPORTERS OF THE PROPOSITION SAY THAT THE STATE MUST TAKE ACTION TO CURB ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, OPPONENTS SAY IT WILL MAKE THINGS MORE DIFFICULT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND DRIVE BUSINESS OUT OF THE STATE.

>> WE TURN NOW TO OUR PANELIST WHO HAVE JOINED US IN STUDIO TO DISCUSS PROP 314.

WE WELCOME POLITICAL CONSULTANT, ALEJANDRO GOMEZ, AND ALSO WITH US TONIGHT EDWARD VARGAS AND AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT ASU'S SCHOOL OF TRANSBORDER STUDIES.

THANK YOU TO BE HERE.

AGAIN, WE'LL GET TO THE MODERATOR'S QUESTIONS HERE A LITTLE LATER IN THE INTERVIEW BUT LET'S START.

EDWARD, WE'LL START WITH YOU.

HOW BIG OF AN ISSUE IS IMMIGRATION IN THIS ELECTION CYCLE?

>> HUGE.

HUGE.

ACROSS THE STATE.

THERE'S A DIFFERENCE, TED -- I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU ALL FOR HAVING ME HERE AND I'M HERE AS MYSELF AND NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF ASU AND MY OTHER POSITIONS BOTH FROM MY FUNDERS WHO FUND MY RESEARCH AND OTHER FOLKS THAT I WORK FOR.

SO THE DIFFERENCE IS WHAT WE SHOULD DO ABOUT IMMIGRATION.

I THINK THAT'S THE CRUX.

IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN WE ASK LATINOS AND ASK WHITE AMERICANS WHAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT YOU THINK CONGRESS SHOULD BE ADDRESSING, THEY SAY IMMIGRATION.

WHEN WE FOLLOW UP AND ASK, WELL, WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT IT, THAT'S WHERE WE SEE A DIFFERENCE.

FROM LATINO COMMUNITIES WE SEE FAMILY REUNIFICATION, A SYSTEM AND A WAY FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN IN THIS COUNTRY FOR GENERATIONS TO FIND A PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP, AND AS OPPOSED TO THE COUNTERPARTS WHO ARE PUSHING FOR A CLOSED BORDER, FOR EXAMPLE.

>> ALJANDRA, YOU AGREE WITH THAT HUGE ISSUE HERE IN ARIZONA.

>> IT IS HUGE, AND, YOU KNOW, FOR BORDERS THAT ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT'S HAPPENING, THEY ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS AN -- THIS IS GONNA BE A BURDEN ON THE POLICE FORCE.

AND WE HAVE ALREADY IN ARIZONA BEEN DOWN THIS PATH BEFORE WITH SB-1070, AND WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS THAT VOTERS ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO WHO IS PROPOSING FAMILY SEPARATION.

TO WHO IS PROPOSING DEPORTATION AND ALSO BURDENING TAXPAYERS WITH POLICIES THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE FOR ARIZONA.

>> WES, YOU'VE BEEN AROUND AT THE BLOCK A COUPLE OF TIMES HERE INCLUDING SB-1070, THIS RING ANY BELLS?

>> YEAH, IT DOES.

AND I COULDN'T AGREE MORE WITH WHAT MY FELLOW PANELIST HAVE SAID, AND THANK YOU, AGAIN, FOR INCLUDING ME TONIGHT.

WHEN WE SEE IMMIGRATION SPIKING AS IN THE POLLING AS TOP ISSUE, IT USUALLY PRETENDS FOR A BIG REPUBLICAN YEAR, EVEN THOUGH IMMIGRATION IS POPPING AS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT HAS THAT CARRY-ON IMPACT THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST.

BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE HAS BALANCED OUT.

SO I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE THAT GREAT A YEAR FOR REPUBLICANS.

>> WHEN YOU SAY EVERYTHING ELSE HAS BALANCED OUT, EXPLAIN, PLEASE.

>> WELL, WHEN I SAY THAT, I THINK THERE'S OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE ALSO DRIVING PEOPLE, AND NOT NECESSARILY TO THE POLLS, BECAUSE WHAT WE SEE ON THE -- THE LEGISLATURE PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT TO ENHANCE REPUBLICAN TURN-OUT.

THAT WAS THEIR GOAL.

IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT EFFECT.

THESE INITIATIVES, THE ABORTION INITIATIVE, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT ACTUAL FACTS OVER THE HISTORY OF OUR STATE, IT'S THE INTENSITY OF THE CONVERSATION AT THE TOP OF THE TICKET THAT REALLY DRIVES TURN-OUT.

>> DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

THAT PERHAPS THINGS ARE TO THE POINT WHERE IN YEARS PAST WOULD BE IN BRIGHT LIGHTS AND BIG FONT BUT MAYBE NOT SO MUCH RIGHT NOW?

>> I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT AS CITIZENS IS THE AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE IN THIS BILL, SPECIFICALLY THE KIND OF PUSHING A FENTENYL BILL UNDER THIS LEGISLATION.

KNOW THE AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE ABOUT PUBLIC BENEFITS.

I THINK THE FIRST COUPLE LINES FURYK READ THE BILL, IT TALKS ABOUT PUBLIC -- THE FIRST COUPLE OF LINES WHEN YOU READ THE BILL, IT TALKS ABOUT PUBLIC BENEFITS.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A JEWISH MOTHER OR FATHER WANTS TO GET BENEFITS FOR THEIR CHILD AND THEY'RE BORN HERE IN ARIZONA, IF THEY WANT TO GET MEDICAID, AND YOU KNOW THE BUNDLE SERVICES THAT ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTING.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THEY LOSE THAT BECAUSE THEY MOVE?

THE LANGUAGE WOULD PUT THEM IN A DEPORTATION SETTING.

SO I THINK THE AMBIGUOUS NATURE OF THE BILL -- IF YOU READ IT REALLY CLOSELY, THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW BILLS IN ARIZONA WHERE THE STATE OF TEXAS IS MENTIONED IN THIS BILL.

AND I LOVE MY STATE OF TEXAS BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT THEM IN OUR BILLS.

IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE AUTHORS MAYBE COPY AND PASTED THIS BILL.

>> THERE WAS DEFINITELY AN INSPIRATION THERE, AS I REMEMBER FROM THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

ALJANDRA, WE'VE HEARD THAT WE'RE BEING BAITED BY FOLKS ACROSS THE BORDER.

WE ARE HEARING THAT THERE'S A NATIONAL -- THIS IS A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT, AND WE'RE HEARING THIS A LOT.

IS THAT GONNA DRIVE VOTERS MORE AS WE GET CLOSER TO ELECTION DAY, IS THAT GONNA GAIN SOME STEAM?

>> YOU KNOW, THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT POINT IN ITEMS OF THE INVESTMENT ON A LOT OF THE MISAND DISINFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN SPREAD AROUND.

IMMIGRATION AND IMMIGRANTS IN GENERAL DURING THIS ELECTION, WHAT I REALLY WANT TO POINT TO IS A STUDY THAT THE ACLU CONCLUDED EARLIER THIS YEAR, WHERE IT WAS FOUND THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SPENT OVER $175 MILLION ON IMMIGRATION SPECIFIC TARGETING AROUND THE BORDER.

AND COMPARED TO DEMOCRATS THAT ONLY SPENT $1 MILLION.

AND SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT WHY THIS IS TOP OF MIND FOR VOTERS, IT IS BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN INVESTED IN, TO BE A WEDGE AND DIVISIVE ISSUE.

>> LET'S SAY IT DOES GAIN STEAM AND BECOMES THAT WEDGE AND DIVISIVE ISSUE, HOW DOES IT IMPACT NOT ONLY PROP 314 BUT EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE BALLOT?

>> WELL, IT -- IT'S ALREADY ARRIVED.

I'M A LIFELONG REPUBLICAN, AND I'VE HAD -- I GET AT LEAST 2 MAILER AS DAY FROM DONALD TRUMP SAYING THAT THIS IS A BIG ISSUE, AND I'VE GOTTEN THEM FOR WEEKS.

AND TO ME, I'VE LIVED ON THE BORDER FOR 35 YEARS.

AND 120 MILES FROM THE BORDER, AND I'VE NEVER BEEN WORRIED ABOUT IT.

I'VE NEVER BEEN WORRIED ABOUT THIS INVASION.

BUT WHEN YOU SEE IT EVERY DAY IN YOUR MAILBOX, ALL OF A SUDDEN IT TAKES ON A LIFE ITS OWN, AND YOU SORT OF KIND OF QUESTION YOUR OWN MIND.

AND I THINK THAT THAT'S THE DANGEROUS PART ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

AND I ALWAYS HAVE, THAT IT DIVIDES OUR COMMUNITIES AS OPPOSED TO BRINGING OUR COMMUNITIES TOGETHERS AND BUILDING UP THE THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT FOR MINIMUM GRACE.

MY FAMILY IMMIGRATED TO THIS COUNTRY, AND WE WERE IMMIGRANTS AT SOME TIME, A LONG TIME AGO, BUT NONETHELESS, WE'RE ALL IMMIGRANTS.

>> SUPPORTERS OF THE BILL WILL SAY THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THE STATE, AN OPEN BORDER IMMIGRATION SYSTEM IS JUST BROKEN.

IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

AND THIS IS MAKING A STATE CRIME, WHICH MEANS STATES AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN GO AHEAD AND PICK FOLKS UP IF THEY HAVE EVIDENCE OF CROSSING OVER THE BOARD.

I THINK A LOT OF FOLKS WOULD BE WATCHING THIS AND SAY, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?

>> WELL, IT'S AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE.

IT SAYS A BORDER CROSSING.

SO IT COULD BE -- THEY COULD COME FROM ANOTHER STATE.

I THINK THE WORDING HERE IS WHAT'S AMBIGUOUS TO ME.

WHAT WE DO KNOW FROM THE LITERATURE IS THAT AS WES WAS SAYING, THAT THE HEIGHTENED TALK OF IMMIGRATION IS ACTUALLY DANGEROUS FOR EVERYBODY, PARTICULARLY U.S. CITIZENS AND LATINOS.

WE KNOW AND MY OWN PUBLISHED RESEARCH SHOWS LEADS TO POOR HEALTH FOR CHILDREN AND PARENTS, SO I THINK OVERALL MY KIND OF WAY I THINK ABOUT IT IS THAT, LOOK, IF YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'RE IN COMPETITION WITH AN IMMIGRANT WHO HAD MAYBE THREE YEARS OF EDUCATION, IF YOU FEEL LIKE THEY'RE GONNA TAKE YOUR JOB, I THINK, ONE, YOU SHOULD LOOK IN THE MIRROR, AND FIRST, BRING YOURSELF FOR NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE -- BLAME YOURSELF FOR NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OUR SYSTEM, NOT ONLY SHOULD YOU BE GOING TO SCHOOL BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE IT IN THIS CULTURE.

>> AND I REMEMBER THE OLD BUMPER STICKER, WHAT IS IT BILLING THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND?

DOES THAT STILL HOLD TRUE IN THIS DAY IN AGE OR IS THAT AN OLD MOLDY BUMPER STICKER?

>> YOU KNOW, THE AZ THAT'S WE ARE NOW, FROM 2010, SB-1070 DAYS, IS A THRIVING ARIZONA.

WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY READY TO TALK ABOUT THE KITCHEN TABLE ISSUES THAT ARIZONANS CARE ABOUT LIKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PAID FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE, REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACCESS.

SO THESE ISSUES AND THIS DIVISION DOESN'T BELONG HERE, AND IT HAS NO PLACE.

WE HAVE SEEN ALSO WHAT SB-1070 DID TO THIS COMMUNITY.

I REMEMBER KNOCKING ON DOORS IN NEIGHBORHOODS, IN MARYSVILLE, AND AN ENTIRE ROWS OF COMMUNITY HAD LEFT.

OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM SUFFERED.

TEACHERS HAD MAYBE FIVE, 10 STUDENTS IN THEIR CLASSROOM BECAUSE OF THE FEAR THAT WAS POSSIBLE, AND POLICE OFFICERS WERE DOING CHECKPOINTS IN THE STREETS, WHEN THEY ACTUALLY SHOULD BE OUT PROTECTING THE COMMUNITY.

AND SO IF THIS IS A -- THIS IS A WASTE OF RESOURCES THAT WE WANT TO GO BACK TO AGAIN AND THE BOYCOTT THAT WE WANT TO SUFFER THROUGH ONCE AGAIN, THEN THIS IS WHAT BORDERS WILL -- VOTERS WILL CHOOSE.

BUT I DON'T THINK VOTERS ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

THEY CARE ABOUT COMMON SENSE SOLUTIONS.

>> INTERESTING.

I KNOW, WES, THAT SOMEONE WILL HEAR ALAJANDRA SAY WHAT YOU SAID AND THEY'LL SAY, THAT'S WHAT IT'S THERE FOR, LET'S NOT BRING THEM UP HERE, LET'S DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO INCENTIVIZE AGAINST THEIR ARRIVAL.

THAT IS THE REASON THAT 314 IS ON THE BALLOT.

THAT LINE OF THINKING AS A REPUBLICAN.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT?

>> YOU KNOW, IT'S ALWAYS HARD FOR ME TO ARGUE SOMETHING I DON'T AGREE WITH.

AND THIS IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE.

BUT THE REPUBLICANS IN THE LEGISLATURE REALLY THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS GONNA BE THE COUNTER-MEASURE TO THE ABORTION ISSUE ON THE BALLOT, AND THAT IT WOULD ENERGIZE PEOPLE.

AND ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS READ THE BALLOT BOOK.

IF YOU READ THE BALLOT BOOK, YOU CAN SEE IT'S THE TALKING POINTS FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT ARE IN THE ARGUMENTS FOR THIS INITIATIVE.

AND THE REASON THEY'RE DOING IT IS BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IT WORKS.

AND IT MAY, BECAUSE THE POLL SOMETHING VERY STRONG ON THE YES SIDE OF THIS ISSUE RIGHT NOW.

AND TINS INCUMBENT UPON PEOPLE WHO ARE READING THE BALLOT BOOK.

I'VE READ IT TWICE.

IT'S REALLY FASCINATING.

AND WE'VE GOT TO -- WE'VE GOTTA THINK ABOUT THIS.

THIS THING HAS, YOU KNOW, THREE FATAL FLAWS, AND IN AN INITIATIVE, YOU DON'T WANT ONE.

BUT IT IS SO -- WHEN THEY THINK IT'S GOING TO WORK AND THEY'RE GOING TO -- AND DONALD TRUMP CLEARLY THINKS IT'S GOING TO WORK BECAUSE THAT'S ALL HE TALKS ABOUT.

THE HURRICANE WAS CAUSED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

I DON'T KNOW.

IT'S CRAZY.

>> OH, YEAH.

WE'VE GOT FEMA SPENDING MONEY AND INSTEAD OF FEMA, THEY'RE SPENDING MONEY ON -- WE'LL GET TO THAT IN A LITTLE BIT, BUT YOU'VE GOT A QUESTION OUT HERE FOR US.

>> WE DO INDEED, TED.

WE HAVE AMY OVER HERE.

AND AMY HAS A QUESTION FOR OUR PANEL.

AMY, HOW ARE YOU?

>> TELL US WHERE YOU'RE FROM AND WHAT YOUR QUESTION IS, PLEASE.

>> I'M FROM BUCKEYE OUT ON THE IRIS VALLEY.

AND MY QUESTION IS, I'M INTERESTED IN THE PART, IF YOU GUYS CAN ADDRESS THIS, WHERE IT SAYS WHEN SOMEONE'S IN VIOLATION OF, YOU KNOW, THE THINGS THAT THEY'VE LISTED, THEY CANNOT BE ARRESTED UNLESS THERE'S PROBABLE CAUSE.

AND CAN YOU FLUSH OUT WHAT THAT MEANS, LIKE THE PROBABLE CAUSE PART OF THIS?

BECAUSE HOW WOULD OUR STATE ACTINGS LIKE BE FINDING OUT WHAT IS A VIOLATION?

>> AMY, WOULD YOU REMAIN STANDING, PLEASE?

>> EDWARD.

>> YEAH, I THINK THIS IS VERY REMINISCENT OF SOME PAST LAWS.

WHAT DOES MEAN TO LOOK IN A QUOTE -- UNDOCUMENTED IN WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE?

I DON'T NORMALLY DRESS LIKE THIS.

I DRIVE IN A OLD HOT ROD, WITH MY HAT ON BACKWARDS.

WILL PEOPLE SEE ME?

BECAUSE -- BECAUSE WE HAVE PAPERS.

THAT'S I THINK THE SCARY PART ABOUT HOW AMBIGUOUS THIS SOMETHING WRITTEN.

REMEMBER, IT'S NOT JUST BILL GRACE, IT'S ALSO FENTENYL HERE SO THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION.

SOMEBODY HAS TO EXTEND TO YOU.

BUT WE KNOW ABOUT OVERDOSES, MOSTLY SOMEBODY WHO GIVES IT TO YOU.

AND SO THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT THIS BILL IS NONSENSE.

IT'S A WASTE OF OUR TIME, A WASTE OF OUR ENERGY.

>> ALJANDRA, YOU WANT TO RESPOND?

>> I'LL BRING BACK SB-1070 AND HOW EGREGIOUS THAT PIECE OF LEGISLATION WAS IF THE HAD YOU A T-SHIRT THAT HAD THE SYMBOL OF VIRGIN MARY, IF YOUR VEHICLE HAD ANY FRINGE HANGING FROM THE REAR-VIEW MIRROR, IF YOU WERE WEARING BOOTS OR A HAT, IT REALLY -- ALL OF THESE STEREOTYPICAL WAYS TO IDENTIFY SOMEONE AS UNDOCUMENTED REALLY IS RACISM, AND SO WE DON'T WANT TO GO BACK THERE.

AND WHAT I WILL ALSO SAY IS THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS DEEMED THAT THIS WOULD BE A BURDEN, AND THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO BE IMMIGRATION OFFICERS.

>> ANOTHER QUESTION?

>> YES, INDEED.

WE HAVE CHER HERE.

CHER, WOULD YOU MIND STANDING UP AND TELLING US WHERE YOU'RE FROM.

>> PARISH VALLEY.

>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION?

>> I READ THIS BILL, AND IT REALLY IS MANY THINGS, ONE OF WHICH IS LINKING IT TO TEXAS STATE LAW.

I THOUGHT THE FIRST PART OF WEIGH READ WAS HARD, BUT I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT.

CAN YOU SHARE WITH ME WHY WOULD WE LINK A STATE LAW TO ANOTHER STATE'S LAW?

>> EDWARD, I THINK YOU COVERED THIS.

>> THIS IS NEW TO ME.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER SEEN AN ARIZONA LAW DEPENDENT ON ANOTHER STATE, TO PASS THEIR LAW, WHICH IS SB-4, WHICH IS THE STATE LAW THAT WAS PASSED FROM TEXAS.

GOING BACK TO, I THINK, THE CONVERSATION ABOUT RACIALIZATION, WE KNOW THAT LATINOS WHO FEEL LIKE THEY'RE BEING HUNTED, LIKE THEY HAVE A CROSSBOW ON THEIR BACK, ARE GONNA EXPERIENCE POOR HEALTH OUTCOMES.

A RECENT DATA CAME OUT LOOKING AT TRANSGENDER LAWS.

TURNS OUT THAT AS YOU INCREASE TRANSGENDER LAWS IN THE STATE, IT LEADS TO MORE SUICIDES.

SO I'M SAYING THERE IS A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN ANTI-IMMIGRANT CLIMATES AND WHERE YOU LIVE AND YOUR HEALTH AND YOUR FAMILY'S HEALTH, BECAUSE IT TRICKLES DOWN.

SO I CAN'T TELL YOU WHY THEY DECIDED TO COPY TEXAS LAW.

>> WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT, THIS TEXAS SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP GOING ON ALL OF A SUDDEN?

>> I THINK BECAUSE THE TEXAS LAW WAS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND THEY WERE TRYING TO SOMEHOW SHOOT ONE INTO A CONSTITUTIONALLY-APPROVED MANDATE, SO THEY SAID IF TEXAS CAN DO IT, WE CAN DO IT, AND WE'RE GONNA MENTION THE TEXAS LAW TO SOMEHOW SHOE HORN IT IN UNDER THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S ACCEPTANCE OF THAT TEXAS LAW.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHY THEY DID IT.

BUT IT'S ALSO -- WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS EARLIER, AND IT'S -- IT'S SOMETHING THAT I'VE NEVER SEEN EITHER.

>> AT THE LEGISLATURE WE WERE FIGHTING THIS BILL FOR A NUMBER OF MONTHS, SINCE THE MOMENT THAT WE HEARD THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING.

FIRST IT WAS IN THE HOUSE AND THEN IN THE SENATE.

AND THESE BILLS ACTUALLY HAVE DIED, AND WHAT THEN HAPPENS IS ARIZONA HAS A STRIKE-ALL, AND AT END OF THE LEGISLATURE, THEY DECIDED TO ADD ALL OF THE FAILED PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT DID NOT PASS IN THE LEGISLATURE, THAT WERE ANTI-IMMIGRANT, PLUS THIS FENTENYL PIECE, AND PUT IT INTO ONE PIECE OF A BALLOT MEASURE.

AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THIS HODGEPODGE OF UNFUNDED, UNSANCTIONED BY ANYONE AT -- INCLUDING POLICE OFFICERS THEMSELVES, THAT WERE GOING TO THE LEGISLATURE AND TESTIFYING AGAINST THIS, THAT THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

THAT'S WHY IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO YOU ALSO.

>> OKAY.

>> WELL, YEAH, IT'S REALLY HARD TO READ.

>> YEAH.

>> IT WAS INDEED HARD TO READ.

AND SINCE I'M STILL HERE, I'M GOING TO ASK ANOTHER QUESTION, WHICH IS THAT THE PREAMBLE WHERE I BELIEVE IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE ACCOMMODATION OF THE TEXT THAT FOLLOWS, FAIR BIT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT FENTENYL.

THE WORD FENTENYL IS IN THERE, WHICH BRIGHTENS ALL OF US.

-- WHICH FRIGHTENS ALL OF US.

AND BECAUSE MOST OF US HAVE SOME REASON TO DO RESEARCH AND READING ON THIS.

I HAVE.

AND EVERYTHING I KNOW ABOUT FENTENYL IS COMING THROUGH THE PORTS OF ENTRY.

AND MY QUESTION IS, THE FENTENYL PIECE IS IMPLYING THAT THE ILLEGAL PEOPLE ON FOOT ARE BRINGING IN OUR FENTENYL PROBLEM.

IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO -- >> WES.

>> THAT'S A TALKING POINT ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

IT WAS WRITTEN.

IT WAS STUDIED.

IT WAS -- IF WE LINK THESE, THEY WOULD BE POPULAR BECAUSE WE WANT TO LINK THIS AND WE WANT TO CREATE THIS FALSE NARRATIVE THAT THERE IS SOMETHING -- THAT THEY'RE COMBINED, AND IT'S A DEEP FAKE IS WHAT IT IS.

AND IT'S NOT TRUE.

AND SO WHEN THEY ADD THESE THINGS TOGETHER AND THEY CREATE THIS NARRATIVE, AND THEN THEY CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT IT, AND THEY SEND YOU 10 PIECES OF MAIL LIKE THEY DO ME, AND YOU'RE LIKE -- YOU START QUESTIONING WHETHER OR NOT YOU LOST YOUR MIND OR NOT.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

AND IF YOU READ THAT PREAMBLE CAREFULLY, IT LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE THE MAIL THAT YOU'RE GETTING IN YOUR -- AT YOUR HOUSE FROM THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT.

THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.

>> WE WERE TALKING A LOT ABOUT THE DETAILS OF THE MEASURE, AND THAT'S A GOOD THING.

BUT THE OVERWRITINGS -- BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T READ THAT CLOSELY, THEY JUST SEE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, IT SHOULD BE A CRIME, THIS SHOULD BE A CRIME, WE NEED TO STOP THIS, SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE.

HOW MUCH IS THAT A FACTOR?

AGAIN, IN THIS DAY IN AGE, AS OPPOSED TO YEARS PAST IN ARIZONA?

>> BY AND LARGE, WHAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM VOTERS, WHEN TALKING ABOUT IMMIGRATION IN A VERY REAL WAY, PEOPLE WANT A COMMON SENSE SOLUTION.

WE PEOPLE A PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP AS WELL AS THEY WANT SECURITY AT THE BORDER.

FOR US, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING NOW FOR YEARS TO ENSURE THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THIS.

AND THE STATE OF ARIZONA IS TRYING TO CREATE A NEW PROCESS THROUGH THE STATE TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH SOMETHING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO BE DEALING WITH.

>> BUT THEN AGAIN, THE PROPONENTS OF THIS MEASURE WILL SAY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISN'T DEALING WITH THIS, AND SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE.

WHERE DO YOU TAKE THAT ARGUMENT >> WE SAW A BIPARTISAN BILL THAT WASN'T SUPPORTED.

AND MAINLY TANKED BY REPUBLICANS AND THE TRUMP PARTY, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

I THINK IF YOU -- IF YOU HEAR THE TALKING POINT, I THINK PEOPLE WANT SECURE BORDERS.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S IN QUESTION.

WE NEED MORE STATS, WE NEED MORE AGENTS ON THE GROUND, WE NEED MORE STAFF.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY CAN DENY THAT.

I THINK THE PART THAT SCARES A LOT OF US, WHO HAVE BEEN DOING RESEARCH IN THIS AREA, WHO ARE TRYING TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF PEOPLE AROUND US, FROM A PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACH, THIS DOES NOT DO THAT.

IN FACT, THIS HURTS OUR COMMUNITY.

WE'VE SEEN THE ACADEMIC LITERATURE IS VERY CLEAR ON THIS.

ANTI-IMMIGRANT CLIMATES ARE NOT GOOD FOR THE HEALTH OF ARIZONANS.

>> LET'S GET BACK, AGAIN, TO THE IDEA OF -- WE HAVEN'T REFERRED TO IT TOO OFTEN HERE -- BUT THE COST OF IMMIGRATION.

AND THIS IS BROUGHT UP A LOT AMONG PROPONENTS HERE.

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT ON THOSE, THAT THEY SAY SHOULDN'T BE HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

IS THAT A STRONG ARGUMENT?

>> AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH ACTUAL FACTUAL DATA THERE IS, IT MAKES SENSE THAT PEOPLE COME HERE AND THEN THEY GET SERVICES.

BUT YOU CAN'T -- PEOPLE WHO ARE UNDOCUMENTED CAN'T GET SERVICES.

SO THEY HAVE TO BE HERE IN A LEGAL STATUS TO GET ANY KIND OF SERVICES.

AND MY QUESTION IS, I MEAN, WHAT ABOUT THE POOR KIDS THAT ARE BORN IN AMERICA THAT ARE U.S. CITIZENS AND THEN QUESTION WHETHER THEY CAN GO TO SCHOOL OR EVEN IF SOMEBODY CAME ACROSS IMPROPERLY, AND THEY CAN'T -- THE KIDS CAN'T GO TO SCHOOL?

WHAT DOES THAT DO FOR OUR SOCIETY?

IT CREATES THIS BIFURCATED, HATEFUL SITUATION WHERE WE CAN'T -- PEOPLE CAN'T SURVIVE.

AND THEN IT'S GOING TO COST US EVEN MORE.

SO I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE FAILURE OF IMMIGRATION, THAT NATIONAL IMMIGRATION POLICY REFORM, HAS COST US A HUGE FORTUNE.

AND THIS THING IS THE -- 314 -- IS GOING TO COST A LOT OF MONEY THAT COUNTIES -- ESPECIALLY COUNTIES ON THE BOARDER, LIKE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, HOW ARE THEY GONNA BE ABLE TO -- AND THEN THERE'S A CLAUSE IN THERE THAT SAYS SENDS THEM TO THE STATE PENITENTIARY, AWAITING TRIAL.

>> AND CORRECTIONS HAS ALREADY SAID THEY CAN'T HANDLE THAT.

THAT'S JUST TOO MUCH.

>> RIGHT.

THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE THE FACILITIES.

>> YES.

ALJANDRA.

>> YEAH.

I'D LOVE TO -- SO IN 2010 WE SAW A BOYCOTT AGAINST SB-1070.

ORGANIZERS HAVE SAID THAT THERE WILL BE A BOYCOTT AGAIN IF THIS PASSES.

THAT COST HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO ARIZONA.

WE LOST SOME SIGNIFICANT SPORTING EVENTS, AND CONCERTS, AND WE HAVE THE NFL COMING UP.

AND SO I AM PRETTY SURE ALSO -- ALSO THE NBA.

AND SO I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR IS THE BLOW-BACK THAT THIS WILL HAVE, BUT THEN ALSO THE OTHER PIECE IS LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT ARREST A PERSON THAT IS A CITIZEN -- BUS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR.

WHAT DOES AN UNDOCUMENTED PERSON LOOK LIKE?

AND SO IF THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ARRESTS A CITIZEN PERSON, AND THAT PERSON ATTEMPTS TO SUE FOR WRONGFUL ARREST, THAT POLICE OFFICER IS ACTUALLY IMMUNE.

THAT'S WHAT IS PUT IN THIS LAW.

>> YEAH.

THERE'S LIABILITY FOR IMMUNITY IN HERE.

AND EDWARD, I'LL GO QUICKLY ON THIS.

THE IDEA -- AND IT'S VAGUE, AS YOU MENTIONED.

BUT THE IDEA IS YOU CAN'T JUST WALK AROUND COTTONWOOD AND TRY TO FIND SOMEONE.

YOU CAN'T JUST WALK AROUND LAKE HAVASU.

YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THIS PERSON, EITHER VISUAL, OR STRONG EVIDENCE, YOUR EVIDENCE, YOU SAW THIS, THEM CROSSING.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> NO.

BECAUSE IT GOES -- PEOPLE THAT WILL BE STOPPED ARE NOT NECESSARILY AT THE BOARD.

PEOPLE TURNING THEMSELVES IN ARE GOING THROUGH AN AMNESTY PROCESS.

I THINK THERE'S A BIG MISCONCEPTION THAT THEY'RE COMING HERE, AND THE LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WHO FLY MAYBE FIRST CLASS, WHY NOT, HEY, ON A PLANE TO GET HERE WHO ARE STAYING.

SO I THINK THERE'S A MISCONCEPTION THAT THE BORDER -- AND IF YOU REMEMBER THE COMMERCIAL AD, THEY WERE JUST INVADING THE BORDER.

I MEAN, WHAT WORLD IS THIS IN?

BECAUSE IT'S NOT ARIZONA.

SO I THINK THAT THE RAMIFICATIONS ARE GOING TO BE THE LITTLE COMMUNITIES OF ALCOHOL OH, OF -- ALL THE LITTLE COMMUNITIES IN CROCES COUNTY, ALL THE COMMUNITIES WHERE SOMEBODY IS JUST FISHING.

MAYBE THEY DON'T HAVE A FISHING LICENSE WITH THEM, AND NEXT THING YOU KNOW THEY'RE IN DETENTION EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE U.S. CITIZENS.

>> ALL RIGHT.

I THINK WE'RE GOING TO WRAP UP THIS PART OF THE PROGRAM RIGHT NOW.

ALJANDRA GOMEZ, WES GULLET, EDWARD VARGAS, GOOD TO HAVE YOU ALL HERE.

GREAT DISCUSSION, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WE APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANK YOU.

THE CONSTITUTION DIDN'T WANT POLITICAL PARTIES TO EMERGE BECAUSE THEY CONSIDERED THEM DIVISIVE.

POLITICAL PARTIES ARE NOT MENTION IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, A DOCUMENT THAT PREDATES ANY PARTY FORMATION.

THE FIRST TWO PARTY SYSTEM HAPPENED DURING THE TIMING OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON AND THOMAS JEFFERSON, WHO DISAGREED OVER THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH SET THE STAGE FOR TWO POLITICAL PARTIES.

THIS DIVIDED AND HEATED DISCUSSION ABOUT WHICH POLITICAL PARTY WOULD BE BEST AT LEADERSHIP WAS THE VERY THING HAMILTON AND JEFFERSON WERE AFRAID WOULD HAPPEN JUST AS THEY HAD SEEN IN THE EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT.

IN THE 1830s THERE WAS THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY WHICH FACED OFF AGAINST THE NEWLY CREATED DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

IN 1855, U.S.

SENATOR WILLIAM SUEART, A LEADER WITHIN THE WIG PARTY, DECIDED TO JOIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WHICH HAD BEEN FOUNDED THE YEAR BEFORE.

A 19 CENTURY INFLUENCER LED TO THAT PARTY'S EVENTUAL DISILLUSION.

AND REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS HAVE STOOD AS THE COUNTRY'S PREVAILING PARTIES EVER SINCE.

TODAY NO THIRD PARTY HAS EVER WON THE PRESIDENCY, AND OF THE 535 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, ONLY A HANDFUL IDENTIFY AS SOMETHING OTHER THAN REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT.

>>> WE ARE BACK WITH OUR AZ VOTES 2024 SPECIAL, FOCUSING ON TWO MAJOR BALLOT ISSUES AND THEIR IMPACT ON ELECTIONS AND THE STATE ITSELF.

WE WILL TURN TO THE ABORTION ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN CHANGING THE TRAJECTORY OF ELECTIONS SINCE IT WAS OVERRULED BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO.

WE WILL TALK TO TWO POLITICAL CONSULT ACTS HOW ABORTION MAY MOTIVATE VOTERS AND HEAR FROM AN OBGYN HOW THE MEASURE WOULD IMPACT OUR STATE IF APPROVED.

WE WILL ALSO TAKE QUESTIONS FROM OUR STUDIO AUDIENCE WITH ARIZONA HORIZON HOST TED SIMONS.

BUT BEFORE WE GET TO OUR DISCUSSION, LET'S TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT PROPOSITION 139, WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO ABORTION IN OUR STATE.

>> REPORTER: PROPOSITION 139 WILL AMEND ARIZONA STATE CONSTITUTION BY ENSHRINING A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO ABORTION.

IT WOULD PROTECT ACCESS TO ABORTION UP UNTIL VIABILITY, FETAL VIABILITY IS DEFINED AS A POINT IN A PREGNANCY WHEN A HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL USES GOOD FAITH JUDGMENT TO DETERMINE FETUS' LIKELIHOOD OF SURVIVING OUTSIDE THE UTERUS.

THE PROPOSITION MAKES EXCEPTIONS PAST THE VIABILITY POINT WHEN A HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL DEEMS AN ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE LIFE OR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH OF THE PATIENT.

AND LASTLY, THE STATE CANNOT PUNISH ANY PERSON AIDING OR ASSISTING SOMEONE EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO AN ABORTION.

SUPPORTERS SAY ARIZONA MUST PROTECT WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOMS.

OPPONENTS SAY THE MEASURE GOES TOO FAR IN ITS SCOPE.

10 STATES, INCLUDING ARIZONA HAD AN ABORTION ACCESS MEASURE ON THEIR BALLOTS THIS NOVEMBER.

NOW LET'S GET TO OUR PANELISTS ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE OF ABORTION.

WITH US TONIGHT ARE TWO POLITICAL CONSULTANTS, MEGHAN COX, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR THE IMPACT ADVOCACY GROUP, AND STACY PEARSON, FOUNDER OF WOMEN'S STRATEGIES ARIZONA.

ALSO WITH US TONIGHT IS DR. SHARON THOMPSON, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL PHOENIX OBGYN.

LADIES, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING ME.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I'D LIKE TO START WITH VOTER IMPACT.

STACY, YOU RUN INITIATIVE CAMPAIGNS, MOST NOTABLY GETTING MARIJUANA LEGALIZED IN ARIZONA IN 2020.

HOW SIGNIFICANT HAS THIS EFFORT BEEN IN GETTING THE PROPOSITION ON THE BALLOT THIS?

HAS BEEN SUCH A SIGNIFICANT MOVEMENT.

AND PARTICULARLY FOR ARIZONA BECAUSE WE WERE CROSS, WE WERE CROSS WAYS BETWEEN A 15 WEEK BAN OR A BAN THAT DATED LIGHT BULBS.

SO WOMEN WE HAVEN'T HAD TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO IS, WHICH IS GOING BACK TO MEDICAL CARE THAT WAS BASED AT A TIME THAT COCAINE WAS USED AS AN ANESTHETIC.

WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE WILD WEST.

SO FOR ARIZONA WOMEN, THEY ARE DONE BEING A POLITICAL FOOTBALL, AND THEY'RE READY TO MAKE DECISION BESIDE THEIR OWN REPRODUCTIVE CARE.

>> THIS IS OBVIOUSLY AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE.

MEGAN, HOW MUCH HAS THIS PROPOSITION GALVANIZED VOTERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE?

>> FIRST OF ALL, CATHERINE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME HERE TONIGHT.

AND ARE YOU RIGHT, IT IS AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE FOR SO MANY VOTERS.

BUT IT'S NOT AS POLARIZING AS IT'S MADE OUT TO BE IN TERMS OF DRIVING DEMOCRAT SUPPORT.

WE'RE SEEING THAT BECAUSE ON POLL AFTER POLL, ABOUT 50%, WE'RE SEEING A SPLIT OF REPUBLICANS SUPPORTING THIS MEASURE.

>> WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

>> I CERTAINLY THINK THIS HAS SUCH A HUGE CROSS-SECTION OF SUPPORT, AND IT'S WHY IT TURNED IN MORE SIGNATURES THAN ANY CAMPAIGN IN ARIZONA HISTORY WITH 800,000 SIGNATURES, ALMOST 1 IN 5 VOTERS IN ARIZONA SIGNED THIS PETITION.

WHAT IT'S ALSO DOING IS MOTIVATING A YOUNG GENERATION OF VOTERS TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING.

MY DAUGHTER'S 22.

SHE VOTED AGAINST TRUMP IN THE LAST ELECTION.

SHE'S VOTING FOR CONTROL OF HER OWN BODY AND FOR KAMALA HARRIS THIS TIME.

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE MONEY BEHIND THIS PROPOSITION.

THE CAMPAIGN BEHIND THAT HAS A LOT OF MONEY BEHIND IT.

$23 MILLION AS OF JULY.

OPPONENTS HAVE LESS THAN A MILLION DOLLARS.

HOW INFLUENTIAL IS THAT IN GETTING VOTERS TO THE POLLS?

>> OH, IT'S WILDLY INFLUENTIAL.

MONEY SOLVES A LOT OF PROBLEMS.

THIS IS A RACE, THIS IS A CAMPAIGN THAT ALREADY HAD THE WIND AT ITS BACK.

THERE WERE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF VOLUNTEERS SIGNATURES THAT WERE COLLECTED, WE WERE AT A VOLUNTEER EVENT BEFORE TURN-INS, SO WE'RE TALKING LATE MAY.

IT WAS 400 MILLION DEGREES OUTSIDE, AND WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT HUNDREDS OF WOMEN WHO WERE COLLECTING IN FRONT OF THE SAFEWAY IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEIR PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

AND THEY RANGED FROM, YOU KNOW, 18 TO 80.

IT WAS SUCH A WIDE, INCREDIBLE BODY OF SUPPORT.

>> WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH THIS MEASURE IS DRIVING WOMEN TO THE POLLS OR TO, YOU KNOW, GO OUT AND PROTEST, WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THAT?

WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THAT KIND OF DRIVE AS WOMEN TO THE POLLS?

>> YOU KNOW, OVERALL, WOMEN ARE A HUGE IMPACT.

I THINK REGARDLESS.

I DON'T THINK IT'S ANY ONE ISSUE.

WE'RE GOING TO SHOW UP TO VOTE REGARDLESS.

THEY'RE VOTING BECAUSE THE FIRST WOMAN THAT'S ON THE BALLOT TO BE PRESIDENT, THEY'RE SURE TO VOTE REGARDLESS.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NECESSARILY AGAIN BRINGING OUT NEW VOTERS THAT WOULDN'T OTHERWISE BE THERE.

>> WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT, STACY?

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SEEING?

>> TO SOME DEGREE, YES.

IT'S THAT QUOTE, HALF OF MY MARKETING'S WORKING, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHICH HALF.

WE SEE A HUGE SURGE IN ENTHUSIASM, WE SAW POLLING TODAY THAT 87% OF REGISTERED VOTERS IN ARIZONA STATE ARE GOING TO VOTE, WHICH IS THE HIGHEST I'VE EVER SEEN IT.

IT IS ABORTION.

IT IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S IMMIGRATION THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT.

IT IS A VARIETY OF ISSUES.

BUT WE KNOW THE RACE IS GOING TO BE CLOSE, AND IF THIS DRIVES 20,000 MORE VOTES TO THE TOP OF THE TICKET, THAT COULD BE EVERYTHING WE NEED FOR KAMALA HARRIS TO WIN.

NEARLY 58% OF ARIZONA VOTERS SUPPORT PROP -- THIS PROPOSITION.

32% ARE AGAINST IT.

WHAT DO THESE NUMBERS TELL YOU ABOUT REPUBLICAN SUPPORT FOR THE MEASURE?

>> WELL, AGAIN, SO -- AND THIS POLL AT 58% -- A FOX POLL AT TIMES IT WAS AT 52%, 58%.

BUT WE ARE ALSO SEEING THESE CROSS PATHS OF REPUBLICANS THAT WERE GETTING SOME OF THOSE VOTERS, 49% THAT ACTUALLY SUPPORT PROPOSITION ACTUALLY SUPPORT TRUMP AS WELL.

SO YOU'RE SEEING A CROSSOVER OF SUPPORT WITH REPUBLICANS.

I WANT TO GO BACK AND SAY THAT THE POLLS ISSUING THE CHARACTERIZATION OF REPUBLICANS VERSUS DEMOCRATS DRIVER JUST ISN'T TRUE.

IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN TRUE ON -- YEARS AGO.

BUT TODAY I THINK YOU SEE A LOT OF CONSERVATIVES AND EVEN REPUBLICANS WHO MIGHT HAVE CLASSIFIED THEMSELVES AS BEING PRO-LIFE, SAYING THIS GOES TOO FAR.

I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA THAT THERE'S NO EXCEPTIONS IN THE CURRENT LAW, RAPE AND INCEST -- INCEST, IT SHOULD BE A HALLMARK THAT REPUBLICANS REPEAT OVER AND OVER, IF A MOTHER'S LIFE IS IN DANGER, RIGHT, SO NOW YOU'RE TAKING A LOOK BACK AT THE CURRENT BILL, THE CURRENT LAW IN ARIZONA, THAT'S ABOUT RAPE OR INCEST.

AND SO THOSE THAT MIGHT SAY I'M REALLY PRO-LIFE TAKE A PAUSE AND SAY, I'M FOR EXCEPTIONS.

I'M A HUMAN, AND EVEN IF, YOU KNOW, WHERE THEY'RE STANDING, AND SO EVEN THE PRO-LIFE VOTERS ARE SAYING THIS GOES TOO FAR.

>> IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE HEARING, STACY?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

AND PARTICULARLY WOMEN WHO HAVE NEEDED HEALTHCARE, AND THIS IS REALLY A CONVERSATION FOR THE TAXER THAN ME, BUT THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS THAT ARE COUCHED UNDER INFORMED CONSENT ARE SO MUCH WORSE THAN THAT.

YOU HAVE A WOMAN WHO IS 16 WEEKS PREGNANT, SO A WEEK PAST HER CURRENT BAN.

AND THAT FETUS IS NOT GOING TO CARRY TO TERM.

THE DOCTOR'S REQUIRED TO POINT OUT, TO GIVE AN ULTRASOUND AND THEN POINT OUT PORTIONS OF A DYING FETUS.

SO MANY OF US HAVE HAD FERTILITY ISSUES.

THE THOUGHT OF FORCING A WOMAN TO DO THAT IN SOME OF THE WORST MOMENTS OF HER ATTEMPT TO BECOME A MOTHER IS JUST CRUEL.

>> CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE VIABILITY LANGUAGE IN THIS MEASURE.

>> FIRST, I WANT TO SAY TO THE POINTS THAT WERE MADE EARLIER, THAT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR THIS INITIATIVE SHOWS THAT GOVERNMENTS SHOULDN'T BE INVOLVED IN MEDICAL PROCEDURES.

IT SHOULDN'T BE INVOLVED IN WOMEN'S BODIES.

AND I THINK ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE WE HAVE SUPPORT FOR THAT.

BUT TAKING GOVERNMENT OUT OF WOMEN'S BODIES AND HAVING HEALTHCARE NOT BE POLITICAL.

WE WANT HEALTHCARE TO BE SAFE.

WE WANT HEALTHCARE TO BE EVIDENCE-BASED, BUT WHAT WE DON'T WANT IT TO BE IS IN THE LEGISLATURE, BECAUSE THEY WANT OUR PROVIDERS TO THINK ABOUT WHAT IS MEDICALLY RIGHT FOR US AND NOT THINK ABOUT WHAT'S LEGALLY RIGHT.

THAT WAY WE SEE IN OTHER STATES, WE SEE SOME CASES OUT OF GEORGIA RECENTLY, WHERE THE PROVIDERS HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE LAW FIRST OF WOMEN DYING.

WE DON'T WANT THAT IN ARIZONA.

SO I THINK THE SUPPORT WE'RE SEEING FOR THE SOLUTION IS SPEAKS TO THAT.

>> IF THE INITIATIVE PASSES, HOW IS THAT GOING TO IMPACT ABORTION ACCESS IN THE STATE?

>> WELL, I THINK IT GOES SOME OF THE WAY TO REMOVING GOVERNMENT FROM THIS -- THIS DECISION THAT SHOULD BE BETWEEN A WOMAN, HER PROVIDER AND HER FAMILY.

AND I THINK MOST ARIZONANS WANT THAT.

THEY WANT WOMEN TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO THEIR PROVIDER ABOUT WHAT WILL BE BEST FOR THEM, WHAT WILL BE SAFEST FOR THEM, WHAT IS GOING TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THEIR FAMILY, AND LEAVE THE LEGISLATURE OUT OF IT.

AND I THINK THIS INITIATIVE GOES SOME WAY TO GUARANTYING THAT FOR ALL WOMEN IN ARIZONA.

>> GOING BACK TO THE VIABILITY LANGUAGE IN THE MEASURE, THE MEASURE WOULD PROTECT THE RIGHT TO ABORTION UP UNTIL VIABILITY.

WHAT EXACTLY DOES THAT MEAN?

HOW IS VIABILITY DEFINED?

>> SO VIABILITY HAD A MOVING DEFINITION.

AND I THINK THAT THE MEASURE HANDLES THAT QUITE WELL.

SO VIABILITY IS A WORD THAT REFERS TO, CAN THIS FETUS LIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB.

AND SO THE MEASURE TALKS ABOUT THAT PHASE, WHICH IS SOMEWHERE AROUND 24 TO 25 WEEKS OF PREGNANCY.

BUT IT ALSO SAYS LET'S NOT DEFINE THAT BY THE HEROICS THAT WE CAN DO, SIMPLY TO KEEP A FETUS ALIVE.

SO IF IT TAKES HEROICS TO KEEP THIS FETUS ALIVE, WE HAVE TO LEAVE THAT BETWEEN THE WOMAN AND HER PROVIDER.

ALSO THE MEASURE SAYS THAT EVEN AFTER THAT POINT, BECAUSE WE KNOW THE COMPLICATION OF PREGNANCY CAN ARISE AT ANYTIME -- MANY OF THEM ARISE IN THE THIRD TRIMESTER, 28, 30, 32 WEEKS.

THAT THAT DECISION ABOUT THE WOMAN'S HEALTHCARE NEEDS TO BE BETWEEN HER AND HER PROVIDER.

>> THE MEASURE ALLOWS FOR ABORTION'S PAST FETUS VIABILITY IF A HEALTH PROFESSIONAL DETERMINES IT NEEDED TO PROTECT THE LIFE OR MENTAL HEALTH OF A PREGNANT WOMAN.

WILL THERE BE A LOT OF ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION ON THAT PARTICULAR PART?

>> WELL, ALSO ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION AS THERE IS ANY MEDICAL PROCEDURE ABOUT WHATEVER RISKS AND BENEFITS THIS PROCEDURE BRINGS IN THIS SITUATION.

THAT'S HOW WE DEAL WITH EVERY OTHER MEDICAL PROCEDURE.

AND ALL THIS MEASURE SAYS IS WE'RE GOING TO TREAT PREGNANCY THE SAME.

SO IF A WOMAN HAS A COMPLICATION AT 28 WEEKS, SHE AND HER PROVIDER ARE GOING TO WEIGH THE RISKS AND THE BENEFITS TO HER LIFE, HER HEALTH, FETAL DEVELOPMENT.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS, AND THEN THEY'LL MAKE A DECISION.

THAT'S WHAT THIS MEASURE ALLOWS, THAT THIS IS TREATED LIKE EVERY OTHER PROCEDURE THAT WE DO IN MEDICINE.

>> WE'RE GOING TO PAUSE THIS CONVERSATION AND TAKE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FROM OUR STUDIO AUDIENCE.

TED, TAKE IT AWAY.

>> OKAY.

I BELIEVE STEVEN HAS -- WHERE IS STEVEN?

THERE HE IS.

STEVEN'S GOT A QUESTION.

LET'S SEE WHAT YOU GOT.

>> HI, STEVEN FROM SCOTTSDALE.

IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, THE STATE HAS -- IF THE STATE HAS A COMPELLING INTEREST, THE STATE CAN INTERVENE.

I'M WONDERING WHAT MIGHT BE THE STATE'S COMPELLING INTEREST TO INTERVENE IN AN ABORTION?

>> DOCTOR, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT?

>> WELL, I THINK THAT WHEN IT COMES TO WHERE WE ARE NOW IN TERMS OF THE LAW, WE WANT TO -- AGAIN, MEDICINE IS ALL ABOUT RISKS AND BENEFITS.

AND SO IT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION TO ASK, WHEN DOES THE STATE EVER INVOLVED IN DETERMINING THOSE RISKS AND BENEFITS?

I DON'T KNOW EITHER.

HOWEVER -- HOWEVER, I THINK THAT LEAVING THE DOOR OPEN FOR CONVERSATION OR DISCUSSION IS PART OF THE AMERICAN WAY, RIGHT.

WE DON'T LIVE IN A DICTATORSHIP WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHERE WE ALL COME TOGETHER AND TALK ABOUT THESE ISSUES AND THINK ABOUT THESE ISSUES AND THINKING OUT WHAT'S BEST FOR OUR COMMUNITIES.

AND SO THAT'S -- THAT HE IS STILL THERE FOR THIS MEASURE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT A DICTATORSHIP.

NO ONE IS TRYING TO STRONG-ARM ANYONE.

WE WANT TO LEAVE IT OPEN FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT IS GOING TO WORK BEST AND WHATEVER CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND OURSELVES IN.

>> OMAR.

ALL RIGHT.

HOLD ON A SECOND HERE.

>> MY NAME IS OMAR.

I WANT TO ASK HOW EFFECTIVE THE SENATE ELECTION WILL BE WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND TO -- WHAT EXTENT -- [ INDISCERNIBLE ] >> I CERTAINLY THINK HAVING THIS ON THE BALLOT KEEPS VOTERS ENGAGED FROM TOP TO BOTTOM.

AND IN ARIZONA WE'RE NOT REALLY JUST TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE OR THE SENATE RACE.

WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT WHO'S GOING TO CONTROL ELECTIONS IN MARICOPA COUNTY AND WHETHER OR NOT A MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER BELIEVES THAT BIDEN WON OR NOT.

I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY BELIEVE MAIL-IN BALLOTS SHOULD EXIST.

AND SO HAVING THESE BOOKENDS, HAVING A VERY STRONG TOP OF TICKET IN CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE AND THE WHITE HOUSE UP THERE AND HAVING THESE REALLY IMPORTANT RACES THAT PEOPLE OFTEN SKIP BY, IT'S -- THIS IS A VERY NICE, COMPELLING BALLOT, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S GONNA BE HUGE.

IT'S TWO PAGES.

EVERYBODY IS GONNA HAVE TO TAKE A TIME-OUT, OPEN THAT BIBLE THAT THEY GOT DELIVERED TO THEIR HOUSE, FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT 133 IS.

EVERYONE IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO THEIR HOMEWORK ON SOME OF THESE MEASURES.

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT MORE ON THE MEASURE.

IF TURN-OUT FOR THE MEASURE IS EXPECTED TO BE ENOUGH TO IMPACT THE RESULTS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, FOR EXAMPLE, HOW WOULD THAT PLAY OUT?

>> SO I COULD CERTAINLY SEE A SCENARIO WHERE FOLKS REGISTERED SPECIFICALLY TO CONTROL THEIR OWN DESTINY.

EVEN IF YOU ARGUE -- LIKE EVEN IF YOU'RE SITTING AT HOME AND YOU THINK 15 WEEKS IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT YOUR HEALTH OR THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD INTERVENE, WHAT THIS MEASURE DOES IS ENSHRINE AN -- ENSHRINE THE LANGUAGE INTO THE STATE'S CONSTITUTION.

IT -- THE WAY WE HAVE THIS CURRENTLY, THE LEGISLATURE NEXT YEAR, TWO YEARS FROM NOW, FOUR YEARS FROM NOW, CAN PING-PONG THIS ALL OVER THE PLACE.

VOTER PROTECTED MEASURES MEAN THE LEGISLATURE CAN'T USE IT AS A PING-PONG BALL.

AND SO I THINK FOLKS ARE LOOKING AT THAT AND MAKING DECISIONS TO REGISTER TO VOTE OR TURN OUT TO VOTE, MAYBE EVEN SKIPPING SOME OF THE MIDDLE OF THAT BALLOT, THAT THIS IS -- THIS COULD MAKE THE MERCHANT.

>> AND IF I CAN TOO, YOU ALSO HAVE A REALLY UNIQUE SENSE THAT YOU HAVE A TRUMP-BOTS GETTING POLLED.

I MEAN, I THINK I JUST SAW OVER 40 POLLS, WAS IT UP BY A POINT AND A HALF OR 5, 6 POINTS, AND ON THE OTHER SIDE 7, 8 POINT WITH KARI LAKE.

SO YOU HAVE AN ELECTORATE THAT IS SEEING THEY'RE VOTING FOR TRUMP AND GALLEGOS, AND IT ALSO AFFECTS THE CONGRESSIONALS.

SO YOU LOOK AT THE S HR IKER RACE.

HE'S NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT ABORTION.

'S FEARSLY CONTESTED ELECTION.

IT'S A VERY PURPLE DISTRICT NOW SO HE'S PROBABLY DOING THE POLLING HIMSELF TOO TO SEE THAT ABORTION IS NOT NECESSARILY WHAT HE WANTS TO BE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS ELECTION.

SO -- >> LET ME ASK YOU, THEN, WHAT IS YOUR OPINION, THEN, ON HOW THIS MEASURE COULD ULTIMATELY AFFECT THE MAKE-UP OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

>> THAT'S A GOOD ONE.

THESE ARE REALLY CLOSE RACES.

THE LEGISLATURE DID REALLY STRANGE THINGS.

WE ALMOST DIDN'T REPEAL THE BAN THAT PREDATES LABELS IN THIS.

THAT WAS HARD-FOUGHT.

PEOPLE SCREAMING AT EACH OTHER.

IT WAS NATIONAL NEWS.

IT TOOK ONE VOTE.

SO I THINK YOU LOOK AT THE KITCHEN TABLE ISSUES AND IT IS CONTROL OVER YOUR OWN BODY.

IT'S THE ABILITY TO MAKE YOUR OWN HEALTHCARE DECISIONS.

IT IS SCHOOL FUNDING.

IT IS THIS PACKAGE OF THINGS THAT FOLKS REALLY CARE ABOUT.

AND I THINK ALL OF THOSE VOTERS THEN BECOME PRO 139 VOTERS AND PRO A NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS RUNNING IN TIGHT DISTRICTS IN THE LEGISLATURE, AND WE REALLY ONLY HAVE A HANDFUL OF DISTRICTS, AND I THINK IT HELPS TURN-OUT.

>> WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT, DR. THOMPSON?

>> ONE OF THE THINGS I SEE IS WOMEN ARE NOT JUST THINKING ABOUT THEMSELVES.

THEY THINK ABOUT THEIR DAUGHTERS.

AND SO I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MANY WOMEN I TALK TO FIND SCARY IS THAT THEIR DAUGHTERS WILL HAVE FEWER RIGHTS THAN THEY DO.

AND THEY ARE KEENLY AWARE BEHALF THEY NEED TO DO IN TERMS OF A BALLOT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR DAUGHTERS HAVE RIGHTS THAT PROTECT THEIR HEALTH.

SO THEY'RE LOOKING -- TOP OF THE TICKET, THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

BECAUSE THE STATE LEGISLATURE CAN PASS THINGS LIKE REQUIREMENTS FOR COUNSELING OR MINOR CONSENT LAWS, ET CETERA.

SO THESE MOMS AND FAMILIES ARE REALLY PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT IS LIFE GOING TO BE LIKE FOR MY DAUGHTER, AND THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE GIRLS GROW UP IN A WORLD WHERE THEY GET TO CONTROL THEIR BODIES.

>> I WANT TO BRING UP A COUPLE OF ARIZONA SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.

WE'LL BE UP FOR A RETENTION VOTE ON THE BALLOT.

PROP 139, IS IT BAD NEWS FOR THEM IN TERMS OF WHO SHOWS UP TO VOTE?

>> YOU KNOW, HERE THE THING, I GO BACK -- I HAVE A LOT OF FRIENDS THAT ARE ATTORNEYS AND A LOT OF FRIENDS THAT ARE PROGRESSIVE ATTORNEYS, AND THEY WILL ARGUE THAT JUDGE HICKMAN AND JUDGE QUEN MADE THE BEST DECISION BASED ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAW.

NOT THAT THEY AGREE WITH IT.

BUT THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION WHETHER THEY AGREE WITH IT OR NOT, AND AS A JUSTICE HAVE YOU TO BE IMPARTIAL OF THE LAW.

AND SO I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FACT THAT THERE'S SOMETHING DIRECTED AT THEM THAT IS UNDESERVED IN THE SENSE THAT THEY WERE DOING THEIR JOB AS THE JUSTICES IN THE SUPREME COURT, ARGUING THAT SEPARATELY HOW DOES THAT SHAPE AND HOW DOES IT SET UP.

IT WILL IMPACT THE ELECTION.

AND THAT IS DEFINITELY THE CAMPAIGN THAT'S BEING RUN AGAINST THEM.

BUT ACROSS THE BORDER, I HAVE SEVERAL GOOD FRIENDS THAT ARE VERY PROGRESSIVE ATTORNEYS, AND THEY'RE LIKE, LOOK, THIS IS THE LAW.

IT'S NOT POLITICAL.

THIS IS WHERE WE PRACTICE LAW, AND IT'S AN IMPARTIAL SENSE.

AND PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> STACY, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

HOW DO YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO PLAY OUT?

>> I'VE NEVER SEEN STREET SIGNS FOR JUDGES BEFORE.

CERTAINLY NEVER SEEN SIGNS IN THE WAY WE HAVE AGAINST JUDGES.

SO THEY SHOULD BE NERVOUS.

BUT THIS -- THAT BODY, THE HIGHEST LAW OF THE LAND, SHOULD BE CARRYING OUT TO THE BEST OF ITS ABILITY WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE STATE.

AND WE CAN SAY IT'S BAD LAW, BAD LEGISLATURE, THEY UPHELD THEIR OWN BILL THE 1864 BAN, SORRY.

LIKE THAT'S HOW THIS COOKIE CRUMBLES.

THIS ENTIRE PACKAGE WAS BAD FOR WOMEN, IT WAS BAD FOR HEALTHCARE, IT WAS BAD FOR ATONIGHT ME, AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE BAD FOR FOLKS IN NOVEMBER.

>> OKAY.

HOLD THAT THOUGHT BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO TED.

ME ANOTHER QUESTION FROM THE AUDIENCE.

>> INDEED.

THIS IS ACTUALLY A STREAMING QUESTION.

AND WE GOT THIS ONE IN, AND IT INVOLVES OUR REPUBLICANS WHO HAPPEN TO NOT BE BIG FANS OF DONALD TRUMP AND WILL BE CROSSING OVER TO VOTE FOR KAMALA HARRIS.

HOW WOULD THAT CROSSOVER IMPACT THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSITION?

AND DOCTOR, WE CAN START WITH YOU.

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, I LOVE TO SEE THAT FOLKS ARE NOT TREATING HEALTH AS A POLITICAL ISSUE.

BECAUSE THEY SHOULDN'T BE.

YOUR HEALTH SHOULD BE IRRESPECTIVE FROM POLITICS.

IN FACT, I THINK IT SHOULD SIT ABOVE THAT, RIGHT.

SO SEEING REPUBLICANS THAT ARE VOTING FOR HARRIS OR VOTING FOR 139 BUT ALSO VOTING FOR TRUMP IS A BEAUTIFUL THING.

HEALTHCARE SHOULD BE ABOVE ALL THIS.

POLITICS IS ONE THING.

LAWS ARE IMPORTANT.

BUT HEALTH SHOULD BE ABOUT EVIDENCE AND ABOUT SAFETY.

AND SO I THINK THAT'S FANTASTIC >> STACY.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

ARIZONA HAS THIS BEAUTIFULLY INDEPENDENT ELECTORATE.

RIGHT.

WE HAVE SENATE VOTERS, CONTAIN/TRUMP VOTERS, McCAIN/TRUMP, ANTI-OHIO, WHICH WAS MY FAVORITE.

BUT WE'VE HAD PEOPLE ALL OVER THE PLACE THAT REALLY REFLECT THEIR VALUES AND WE CAN'T HOLD PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE VOTING FOR TRUMP IN' 16.

WE ALL REALLY HOPED THAT HE WOULD MODERATE AND BE A GOOD PRESIDENT BUT NOW I THINK FOLKS ARE REALLY LOOKING AT PAST PERFORMANCES AND THE ABILITY TO PERFORM ON A NATIONAL STAGE AND THIS HELPS.

I MEAN, FOLKS ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR MORE BENEFITS FOR FALLEN OFFICERS.

THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THE IMMIGRATION BILL.

THEY'RE GOING TO DO A PRO POLICE VOTE, AN ANTI- -- IT'S GOING TO BE A REALLY INTERESTING ELECTORATE, AND I THINK IT'S THE BEAUTY OF ARIZONA.

>> AND I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT THE OTHER PANELISTS JUST SAID.

I MEAN, ARIZONA IS -- WE ORIGINALLY WERE THE PARTY OF GOLD WATER.

WE HAD A HEALTHY LIBERTARIAN STREAK.

WE HAD A LOT OF HEALTHY STREAKS GOING ON.

AND WE HAD A UNIQUE, AGAIN, A -- I WAS A TRUMP VOTER THAT EXIST.

THAT SAID, YOU ALSO WERE GOING TO SEE VOTERS THAT MIGHT HAVE SAID THEY SUPPORT TRUMP AND THEY'RE PRO-LIFE OR THEY'RE PRO-CHOICE, AND THEY MIGHT BE OPPOSED TO TRUMP.

AND THEY MIGHT -- YOU'RE SEEING A DIFFERENT POLLING THAT ONE MIGHT BE A LOT HIGHER.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE KIND OF TOYING WITH IS THE FACT THAT IT MIGHT EVEN HAVE HAD VOTERS THAT LIKE TRUMP BUT THEY'RE ALSO PRO-LIFE, AND THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, I'M PRO-CHOICE, BUT OPPOSED TO TRUMP BECAUSE I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT THIS OTHER ISSUE, AND NOW ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE ACTUALLY TRUE.

>> ONE LAST QUESTION FOR THE THREE OF YOU.

IF THE MEASURE DOES INDEED PASS, THE FIGHT AGAINST ABORTION RIGHTS CONTINUE IN OUR STATE?

>> SO THERE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT REMAIN, EVEN WHEN THE RIGHT TO ABORTION IS PROTECTED IN THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE WE HAVE WAITING PERIODS.

WE SUBJECT WOMEN TO ULTRASOUNDS THAT THEY REALLY DON'T NEED.

WE SUBJECT THEM TO COUNSELING WHERE THE PROVIDER IS MANDATED WHAT THEY SAY IN THE COUNSELING.

SO THERE'S THINGS THAT REMAIN, WE MAY NOT BE FIGHTING OVER WHETHER A WOMAN CAN MAKE A DECISION OR NOT, BUT CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SHE CAN ACCESS THAT HEALTHCARE ARE IMPORTANT, AND SO THAT MAKES THE LEGISLATORS ELECTIONS IMPORTANT, AS WELL.

>> YES.

>> BECAUSE THOSE WILL SHAPE WHAT THOSE CONDITIONS ARE.

>> HMM-MM.

STACY.

>> I CERTAINLY EXPECT THE FIGHT TO CONTINUE, BECAUSE SO MANY OF THE OPPONENTS HOLD THIS AS SUCH A STRONG RELIGIOUS VALUE, BUT THEN DO A GOOD JOB PREVENTING AN UNWANTED PREGNANCY.

FIGURING OUT HOW TO TALK TO KIDS.

YOU KNOW, TALK TO WOMEN ABOUT WAYS TO PREVENT IT AND PROVIDE THEM CONTRACEPTION AND EDUCATION.

AND SO I'M HOPING THE FIGHT SHIFTS OVER TO JUST HEALTHCARE IN GENERAL.

>> MEGAN.

LAST WORD ON THIS.

>> YOU KNOW, I DO AGREE.

I THINK THAT LIKE ANY ISSUE, YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAVE DIFFERENT DIRECTIVES AT IT.

I DON'T THINK WE ALL HAVE THE SAME URGENCY AS IT DOES RIGHT NOW BECAUSE EVERY STATE KIND OF HAS TO DEAL WITH HOW TO LOOK AT ROW V WAY AND NOW WE'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE THE BIG -- [ INDISCERNIBLE ] >> I THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING ME AND TALKING WITH US ABOUT THIS.

WE WANT TO THANK, AGAIN, MEGHAN COX, STACY PEARSON AND DR. SHARON THOMPSON FOR JOINING US.

AND WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO TED NOW TO TAKE US AWAY.

>> ALL RIGHT.

YEAH, INDEED.

WE WANT TO THANK OUR PANELISTS, OUR STUDIO AUDIENCE, THANKS TO CATHERINE ANAYA, AND THANK YOU FOR JOINING US TONIGHT.

I'M TED SIMONS, YOU HAVE A GREAT