A Maricopa County judge ruled this week that Arizona doctors may proceed with their legal challenge to certain abortion restrictions following the passage of a constitutional amendment last year.
Superior Court Judge Greg Como denied a motion from House Speaker Steve Montenegro and Senate President Warren Petersen to dismiss the lawsuit. The lawmakers had contended that the medical providers needed to demonstrate the laws' unconstitutionality as a prerequisite for bringing their challenge to court.
Judge Como disagreed, referencing voters' approval of Proposition 139 in November, which established that "every individual has a fundamental right to abortion" in Arizona's constitution.
Laws Under Challenge
The Arizona Medical Association and two abortion doctors are challenging several existing restrictions they claim conflict with the constitutional amendment:
- Current law requires women to wait 24 hours between an initial consultation and the abortion procedure, necessitating two separate visits.
- Doctors cannot prescribe abortion medications without examining patients in person, preventing remote consultations.
- State law prohibits doctors from performing abortions if they know the procedure is sought solely due to fetal genetic abnormalities.
Current Ruling
Proposition 139, which took effect on November 25, 2024, allows abortions until the fetus could potentially survive outside the womb on its own. After that point, abortions are still permitted if doctors determine the procedure is needed to protect the woman's life or health.
The amendment permits post-viability abortions when healthcare professionals determine they're necessary to preserve the patient's life or physical or mental health.
The constitutional provision also prohibits the state from penalizing those who assist with abortion care and blocks laws that restrict abortion rights unless justified.
Upcoming Case
The case is scheduled for November, when medical providers will present arguments that the challenged restrictions violate constitutional protections. Judge Como's ruling allows the case to proceed but doesn't pause any current restrictions.
Specific requirements remain in effect, including parental consent for minors and the contested 24-hour waiting period, pending the court's final determination on the constitutional questions.
