UPDATE, 10/29/23: Planned Parenthood Arizona has reportedly filed an official motion for recusal for Justice William Montgomery based on Montgomery’s “public comments and his participation in a protest outside PPAZ headquarters in 2015,” because of which, they imply “would impact his ability to be impartial in the case.”
10/27/23: After the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed states to make their own laws concerning abortion, an Arizona county judge sided with that state’s attorney general, ruling that an 1864 law restricting almost all abortions was valid and should be enforced.
Planned Parenthood, however, sued to block enforcement of the law, arguing that a 2022 law permitting abortions up to 15 weeks superseded it. An appellate court stayed enforcement of the older law until the courts sorted the matter out.
This December, the Arizona Supreme Court will hear the case. And Planned Parenthood and some of its allies are taking issue with Justice William Montgomery’s refusal to recuse himself – because he is pro-life and has been critical of the abortion corporation.
Justice Montgomery reportedly stated in a 2017 Facebook post that Planned Parenthood “is responsible for the greatest generational genocide known to man.” He has also written that “PP encourages the very behavior that leads to STDs and abortions. Their business model relies on it.”
In addition, he argued a case in 2012 in which he asserted that Arizona had a right to ban abortions. “I would recognize the inherent human dignity in a life at the moment of conception,” he stated, adding that the procedure should be prohibited “unless [the pregnancy] impacted the health and welfare of the mother.”
Kelley Dupps, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of public policy and government relations, said in a media statement that “Planned Parenthood Arizona believes that all litigants are entitled to have their cases heard by judges who are not biased against them,” adding, “We are evaluating the recent reporting that may impact our case in front of the Arizona Supreme Court.”
However, Justice Montgomery has repeatedly insisted that he can remain unbiased in hearing the case. “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 told Capitol Media Services in a statement. “My oath of office requires no less.”
Planned Parenthood has never expressed any concern over judges who support them overseeing their cases.
Perhaps most notably, Planned Parenthood argued against the forced recusal of Judge William H. Orrick III from its case against the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), which produced undercover videos exposing the abortion corporation’s trafficking of fetal body parts.
Orrick wasn’t just pro-abortion; he founded an organization that works in partnership with and provides referrals to Planned Parenthood, and thereby has a direct financial interest therein. His wife has repeatedly expressed praise for Planned Parenthood and condemnation of pro-lifers, including CMP. What’s more, Orrick consistently acted in ways that demonstrated bias in favor of Planned Parenthood during court proceedings, regularly ruling in their favor and stymying the speech and defense of the CMP.
Orrick was never disqualified from the case, either voluntarily or by higher courts.
Clearly, Planned Parenthood is not interested in actual justice or judicial impartiality – only in their own legal and financial successes. Unless Justice Montgomery disregards actual law or twists it to fit his own agenda, as pro-abortion judges often have, Planned Parenthood’s protestations against him should not be taken seriously.
