Abortion and the Constitution: Arizona's Legal Battle

Arizona's top Republican legislative leaders are defending existing abortion restrictions in court, arguing that current state laws remain constitutional despite voter approval of Proposition 139, which enshrined abortion rights in the state constitution last November.

House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-Goodyear) and Senate President Warren Petersen (R-Gilbert) have filed court documents defending multiple abortion-related statutes challenged by two abortion providers and the Arizona Medical Association. Attorney Andrew Gould argues that the contested restrictions fall within Proposition 139's allowance for limitations "justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means."

The lawsuit challenges several state requirements including a 24-hour waiting period, mandatory ultrasounds, in-person counseling, and prohibitions on prescribing abortion medication via telemedicine. Current law requires doctors to provide specific information during initial consultations, including details about fetal development and available benefits, which challengers characterize as "stigmatizing and irrelevant."

Additional restrictions include criminal penalties for doctors who perform abortions knowing the procedure is sought based on fetal sex, race, or genetic abnormalities.

The case highlights uncommon political alignment within Arizona government. Attorney General Kris Mayes, who would typically defend existing state laws, has instead sided with challengers, concluding that Proposition 139 renders the restrictions unconstitutional. This leaves legislative leaders to defend laws they helped enact.

Governor Katie Hobbs's executive order limiting abortion law enforcement authority to the attorney general creates additional complexity, effectively removing local prosecutors from potential enforcement while constitutional questions remain unresolved.

The defense emphasizes that laws prohibiting sex-selective and disability-based abortions address legitimate state interests in preventing discrimination. Gould argues these restrictions distinguish between general reproductive choice and discriminatory selection practices.

The lawsuit's outcome will determine which restrictions remain in effect for Arizona women seeking abortions and may establish precedents for balancing voter-approved rights with existing regulatory frameworks.

No hearing date has been scheduled for Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Greg Como to consider the competing arguments. The case's resolution may influence abortion access policies statewide while testing the scope of constitutional protections Arizona voters approved through Proposition 139.