Arizona’s Abortion Laws Face Legal Scrutiny
In Arizona, a legal battle is unfolding over the state’s requirements surrounding abortion. House Speaker Steve Montenegro and Senate President Warren Petersen are defending existing abortion restrictions, arguing they are constitutional under the state’s laws.
The legislators, represented by Andrew Gould, are urging the court to uphold statutes requiring a 24-hour waiting period, in-person counseling, and an ultrasound before an abortion can proceed. The laws also prohibit prescribing abortion medication via telemedicine and criminalize abortions sought due to genetic defects or the sex of the fetus.
Gould argues these laws align with Proposition 139, which voters approved, embedding the right to terminate a pregnancy in the state’s constitution. However, the proposition allows restrictions if justified by a “compelling state interest” using the least restrictive means.
The case, presented to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Greg Como, faces opposition from two abortion providers and the Arizona Medical Association. They contend the laws are unconstitutional under Prop 139.
Gould maintains the case is premature, noting no abortions have been denied under these laws since Prop 139’s enactment. He also suggests the doctors filing the lawsuit face no prosecution risk, as Governor Katie Hobbs has issued an executive order centralizing prosecution power to Attorney General Kris Mayes, who opposes enforcing these laws.
Gould points out that the responsibility to defend these laws now falls on Montenegro and Petersen, especially as Mayes supports the challengers’ perspective that Prop 139 renders these laws unconstitutional.
Central to this legal challenge is the “fundamental right to abortion” established by voters. The proposition limits state interference with abortions prior to fetal viability, which is typically between 22 and 24 weeks, unless the state demonstrates a compelling interest.
Gould argues the contested laws do not infringe on Prop 139, as they enhance informed decision-making through mandatory information sessions and ultrasounds. The National Abortion Federation guidelines support verifying gestational age by ultrasonography for fetuses estimated to be more than 14 weeks old.
Further, Gould defends the requirement for in-person consultations, emphasizing the state’s interest in preventing coercion into taking abortion pills, which could be facilitated remotely.
On the topic of abortions based on fetal characteristics, Gould argues these laws do not contravene Prop 139. He states the proposition protects the decision to bear a child but does not allow selecting a child based on discriminatory reasons.
No hearing date has been set for this case, which could significantly impact abortion regulations in Arizona.
—
Read More Arizona News
