Rebuffed by a trial judge, Arizona Right to Life is trying to convince the state Supreme Court to block voters from deciding whether to put a right to abortion in the state Constitution.

In new legal briefs, attorney Jennifer Wright contends that some of the more than 820,000 people who signed the petition to put Proposition 139 on the ballot may have been misled. She told the justices the legally required summary that was attached to the petitions omitted certain information which “could materially impact whether a person would sign the petition.”

Wright does not say how many of those who signed the petition were misled. But she contends just the possibility that some people might not have signed is sufficient to keep the measure from appearing on the Nov. 5 ballot.

The arguments in the petition to the high court are not new. They are a virtual carbon copy of the arguments presented to and rejected by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Melissa Julian, an appointee of former Gov. Doug Ducey.

In her Aug. 2, ruling, Julian went through each of the arguments Wright presented. And, in each case, the trial judge said she was not persuaded that the verbiage in the summary was misleading or that it left out provisions that might have given signers second thoughts.

Now it is up to the Supreme Court to decide.

This comes as Secretary of State Adrian Fontes announced that the legally required random sample of the signatures turned in by Arizona for Abortion Access on July 3 found that 577,971 of them are valid. But that still leaves the initiative with far more than the 383,923 needed to qualify for the ballot.

All that, however, is based on the assumption that a majority of the justices find that the petitions and the summary are legally sufficient to send the measure to voters.

If approved, Prop 139 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide a “fundamental right to abortion.”

That specifically includes a prohibition against restrictions on that right before fetal viability, generally defined as between 22 and 24 weeks. But it also bars state interference after that point if “in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional” the procedure “is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.”

What’s wrong, said Wright, is that the summary, which state law requires to be attached to each petition, omits what she argues is information that a signer might find critical.

One, she said, is that the summary does not mention the verbiage in the actual initiative about “the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional,” which determines when a post-viability abortion can be performed. Instead, it mentions only that such procedures can be done based on determinations of “a health care provider.”

She contends that those words of “treating” and “good faith judgment,” which are in the amendment but not in the description shown to would-be petition signers, are crucial.

What they reveal, Wright said, are the objective and principal purposes of Prop 139 – “that the abortion provider may perform a post-viability abortion based solely on the provider’s subjective opinion.” And to emphasize that, she argued that decision would be made by the abortion provider who “generally will have a financial incentive to find that an unborn child is not viable or if the child is, that an exception applies.”

“Untold number of signers were mislead and signed believing the amendment relied on objective-based medical standards,” Wright said.

Julian didn’t buy that argument.

“Reasonable people understand that medical diagnoses and treatment plans are typically determined by the medical provider who is actively treating a patient whose health is at issue,” she wrote.

“For pregnant patients, this could include the patient’s primary care, obstetrical, or other medical providers, including one who provides abortions,” the judge continued. “In short, when read in context with the entire description, the word ‘health care provider’ accurately refers to those medical professionals who are treating pregnant individuals and are, therefore, in a position to make medical determinations regarding their health.”

Wright separately noted that the amendment itself spells out that the state cannot adopt any law or regulations that “penalizes any individual or entity for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the individual’s right to abortion.”

That, she said, is not mentioned in the summary. And Wright said that failed to inform would-be signers that the amendment, if approved, would invalidate existing abortion regulations and prevent new ones.

Julian disagreed.

She noted that the summary does use the phrase “compelling governmental interest” to describe what regulations would remain. And she said a “fair reading” of the summary suggests that there are areas where the state could still regulate, like requiring that abortions be performed by qualified medical professionals and that the procedure would be done in sanitary facilities.

Wright, however, told the justices that still fails to inform signers of other changes that would occur if Prop 139 were to become law.

One, she said, is that the current law limiting legal abortions to 15 weeks would go away.

And Wright contends that the wording guaranteeing the right to exercise the right to abortion also leaves signers unaware that it would invalidate the current law that says minors cannot have an abortion without parental consent or judicial approval.

Julian, for her part, did not see any of this as a legal bar to Prop 139 going on the ballot.

“Arizona courts have never required an initiative description to explain all potential effects of a measure,” she wrote. Anyway, the judge said, the question of whether the amendment would overrule any specific state law is one that would have to be worked out later, through separate litigation, if the initiative is approved.

Proponents of the measure have to file their response to the Arizona Right to Life pleadings later this week.