Arizona Judge Strikes Down State Abortion Laws, Citing 2024 Amendment

An Arizona judge voids abortion laws, citing a 2024 amendment affirming a fundamental right to abortion before viability.
Court ruling voids numerous of Arizona abortion restrictions

In a landmark decision, an Arizona judge has invalidated several state laws restricting abortion, citing a constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2024. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Greg Como, in his 29-page ruling, nullified laws that imposed various restrictions on abortion procedures.

The invalidated laws included:

  • A 24-hour waiting period before a woman can undergo an abortion;
  • A prohibition on performing abortions if motivated by a fetal genetic abnormality;
  • A requirement for patients to receive potentially irrelevant information before the procedure;
  • A mandate for Rh blood testing;
  • A stipulation for an in-person visit before prescribing medication for abortion.

Judge Como emphasized that these restrictions violate Proposition 139, which affirms the “fundamental right to abortion” for individuals. The amendment further stipulates that the state cannot implement laws that “deny, restrict or interfere with that right before fetal viability unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means.”

According to Como, such a “compelling state interest” can only be justified if it serves to improve or maintain the health of the individual seeking an abortion without infringing on their decision-making autonomy.

House Speaker Steve Montenegro expressed disagreement with the ruling, asserting that the laws were designed to safeguard women’s health and adhere to evidence-based medical standards. Montenegro, a Goodyear Republican, announced plans to appeal the decision, arguing that the court made significant factual and legal errors.

This stance was at odds with Attorney General Kris Mayes, who declined to defend the laws, agreeing that they were unconstitutional. Mayes highlighted that the constitutional amendment aimed to protect abortion rights.

Dr. Paul Isaacson, an abortion provider and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, welcomed the ruling. “For the first time in a long time, my patients will not have to jump through hoops to get the care they need,” he remarked in a statement.

Judge Como dismissed arguments from Republican legislative leaders that the laws should be assessed based on whether they impose an “undue burden” on women, a standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1992 case. He pointed out that Arizona’s constitutional amendment supersedes that standard.

The ruling emerged amid a broader legal landscape, with a new lawsuit challenging a law that restricts abortion procedures to doctors, excluding advanced practice nurses. No date has been set for a hearing on that matter.

Historically, Arizona had an absolute ban on abortions until 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled such bans unconstitutional. Subsequent restrictions, including waiting periods and testing requirements, faced legal challenges, but none succeeded until the approval of Proposition 139 in 2024.

Ruling on Specific Laws

In his ruling, Judge Como addressed specific laws, such as the “reason ban,” which criminalizes performing an abortion solely due to a genetic abnormality of the fetus. He noted the law’s inconsistency with patient autonomy, as it discourages open discussion between patients and doctors.

Similarly, the 24-hour waiting period law was criticized for requiring patients to make multiple visits, presenting logistical challenges. The required information, deemed immaterial to specific patients, violates autonomy and serves to discourage abortions, Como argued.

The judge also invalidated the ban on telemedicine for medication abortions, stating that clinical standards and evidence-based medicine do not support such a restriction. He acknowledged potential complications but affirmed that telemedicine can effectively address these issues.

Como rejected claims that abortion is inherently risky, describing it as “one of the most extensively studied treatments in medicine” with rare serious complications. He noted that “abortion is safer than carrying a pregnancy to term,” citing a significantly lower mortality rate for abortion compared to childbirth.


Read More Arizona News

Share the Post:

Subscribe

Related Posts