Latest news with #Prop.139
Axios
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Lawsuit challenges Arizona abortion limits
A new lawsuit seeks to overturn a trio of abortion restrictions based on the sweeping reproductive rights measure Arizona voters approved last year. The big picture: Voters in November overwhelmingly passed Proposition 139, which guarantees the right to an abortion through fetal viability, which is generally around 24 weeks. The amendment to the Arizona Constitution also prohibits any law that "denies, restricts or interferes" with abortion access before fetal viability, unless it's justified by a compelling state interest and "achieved by the least restrictive means." Yes, but: The abortion rights guaranteed by the measure don't go into effect automatically, and laws restricting abortion rights must be challenged in court before they can be struck down under Prop. 139. Why it matters: Abortion rights advocates have long argued that many state laws are unnecessarily restrictive and needlessly make it more difficult to get an abortion. Catch up quick: Under Prop. 139, abortion rights advocates quickly targeted the state's 15-week abortion ban, which a judge struck down in March, and pledged future lawsuits against other restrictions that Arizona enacted through the years. Driving the news: A lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court on Thursday by two doctors and the Arizona Medical Association argued that various laws and sets of restrictions are in violation of Prop. 139. Those laws: Prohibit abortions because of nonfatal genetic abnormalities in the fetus Require patients to get an ultrasound at least 24 hours before an abortion, which forces them to make multiple trips to a provider, and require doctors to provide information about abortion alternatives Ban telehealth for abortion and prohibit the mailing of abortion pills What's next: The Arizona Attorney General's Office is reviewing the new lawsuit and hasn't decided yet whether it will defend the laws, spokesperson Richie Taylor told Axios. The Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), a conservative nonprofit that champions anti-abortion laws, also has not yet determined whether it would intervene in the lawsuit if Attorney General Kris Mayes declines to defend the laws, president Peter Gentala told Axios. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative group that recently defended the genetic abnormalities law and a fetal personhood law in court, couldn't immediately be reached for comment. Mayes agreed the 15-week ban violated Prop. 139. What they're saying: "Arizona voters took back the power to make their own reproductive health care decisions. Yet they still must jump through hoops to get abortion care," Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights which represents some plaintiffs in the case, said in a press statement. "These burdensome restrictions have been in place for far too long, so we're going to court to strike them down once and for all."
Axios
20-04-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Abortions spiked in Arizona in 2024
Arizona clinicians performed about 3,000 more abortions last year than in 2023 — a 21% spike, per a new report from the Guttmacher Institute. Why it matters: The increase in abortions could be a result of state leaders clarifying laws last year and more people from states with total abortion bans traveling to Arizona for care, abortion advocates told Axios. Catch up quick: Until last year, Arizona's abortion laws were in flux following the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022. A smattering of contradictory state laws required court interpretation to determine if and when abortion was still legal in Arizona, culminating in a controversial state Supreme Court decision last April that reinstated a near-total ban from 1864. The state Legislature repealed that law in May, affirming that abortions were legal through 15 weeks of pregnancy. In November, voters overwhelmingly supported Prop. 139, which expanded access to the procedure through fetal viability (typically 24 weeks). Zoom in: Attorney and reproductive rights advocate Chris Love told Axios that last year's legal and legislative action provided clear guidance for the first time since the overturning of Roe, probably resulting in more women seeking care in Arizona instead of traveling elsewhere. Neighboring states New Mexico and Colorado — where laws remained broad and consistent after Roe's reversal — saw abortions decline slightly last year, possibly because patients in Arizona were no longer traveling for care, she said. Zoom out: Athena Salman, Arizona director of campaigns for Reproductive Freedom for All, said she also heard from abortion providers who reported seeing more out-of-state patients last year. Even though Arizona had a 15-week ban in place for most of the year, abortion was still more accessible here than in Texas, Oklahoma and other states with near-total bans. What's next: Now that abortion access has further expanded through the passage of Prop. 139, Arizona could see procedures increase even more among locals and visitors. The other side: Legislative Republicans are still pushing abortion restrictions. This year, they've pitched bills that would require in-person exams before doctors can prescribe abortion medication and would withhold funding from clinics that perform abortions. What's next: Legislative Democrats proposed bills to repeal existing laws they believe contradict Prop. 139, including a ban on using telehealth for abortion appointments and a measure punishing providers who advertise their services. Republicans have blocked the bills from moving forward, and advocates are considering challenging the laws in court instead. The bottom line:"Securing the right to abortion in Arizona's state constitution … [has been critical] in stopping the government from interfering in people's health decisions and reducing the barriers Arizonans face to accessing reproductive health care," Erika Mach, chief external affairs officer of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, said in a statement to Axios.
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Voters added abortion rights to the Constitution. Republicans want abortion pill restrictions.
Photo via Getty Images Republicans in the Arizona Legislature want to put increased restrictions on medication abortions, in direct contradiction to a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to abortion that voters approved in November. Sen. Mark Finchem, R-Prescott, claimed during a Wednesday Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee meeting that there was no way to know exactly why voters favored the Arizona Abortion Access Act. More than 61% of those who voted in the Grand Canyon State's 2024 general election chose to enshrine the right to abortion into the state constitution. But that hasn't stopped Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives and the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee from voting for House Bill 2681, which would impose a long list of new restrictions and requirements on those seeking medication-induced abortions. Finchem and Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Prescott, both argued that HB2681 would protect unborn children who cannot protect themselves. Pro-choice advocates described it as a backhanded way to place additional hurdles in the way of abortion access, defying the will of the voters, and making the most widely used way to carry out an abortion more difficult. 'I do hope you respect the will of the voters,' said Jodi Liggett, a lobbyist for Reproductive Freedom for All. 'They've spoken loudly, and they don't want politicians involved in their access to care.' In response, Finchem told Liggett that voters only indicated whether they were for or against the Arizona Abortion Access Act, and that no data existed to explain why, adding that it 'disturbs' him to hear Liggett make 'missassertions' about voters' motivations. Liggett answered that the abortion rights campaign did extensive polling before gathering signatures to put Prop. 139 on the ballot, and those polls indicated that voters don't want politicians making medical decisions for them. The Arizona Abortion Access Act, as the constitutional amendment was officially known, prohibits any law, regulation or policy that would deny, restrict or interfere with the fundamental right to abortion before fetal viability (generally around 24 weeks) unless it is for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining the health of a person seeking an abortion, consistent with clinical practice standards and evidence-based medicine. It also prohibits any law or regulation that would interfere with access to abortion after fetal viability if the patient's health care provider believes it is necessary to protect the patient's life, physical or mental health. Additionally, Prop. 139 bars any law that penalizes a person for aiding or assisting someone in exercising their right to an abortion. House Bill 2681, sponsored by Republican Rep. Rachel Keshel, a member of the far-right Arizona Freedom Caucus, would place numerous restrictions on abortions prior to fetal viability. Keshel's bill would require a doctor who prescribes medication to induce abortion to examine the patient in person, test the patient's blood and inform them of the 'possible physical and psychological aftereffects and side effects' of taking the medication. The physician would also be compelled to inform the patient that they 'may see the remains of the unborn child in the process of completing the abortion.' The proposed legislation would also force the doctor to schedule a follow-up visit with the patient, to make 'all reasonable' efforts to ensure the patient attends that appointment and include a record of those attempts in the patient's chart. A medical provider who violates HB2681 could be held civilly liable by the patient who obtained the abortion — their parents if they're a minor — or by the person who impregnated them. Any of them could file a lawsuit against the physician to recover monetary damages for psychological, emotional and physical injuries, statutory damages up to $5,000 and attorney fees. Marilyn Rodriguez, a lobbyist for Planned Parent Advocates of Arizona, called HB2681 'fear mongering based on junk science.' She accused Republican lawmakers on Wednesday of trying to make the process 'as difficult and scary as possible to put abortion out of reach for as many Arizonans as possible.' As abortion restrictions have been for decades, Keshel's bill is couched in language about patient safety. It ignores that the drugs widely used to induce abortion in early pregnancy, mifepristone and misoprostol, are considered safe for use up to 10 weeks of gestation, according to the FDA. Elizabeth Lee, a reproductive medicine expert who spoke on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All, said that the measure would make it more difficult for women in rural areas to get abortions since in-person visits to a physician could be out of reach for them. Currently, doctors can prescribe medication for abortion through a telehealth visit. If doctors' offices are too far away, or appointments aren't available, rural women could be pushed past 11 weeks of gestation and have to undergo a more invasive surgical abortion that comes with an increased risk of complications. Lee added that the blood testing requirement in the proposed legislation, for RH incompatibility, was completely unnecessary. RH incompatibility is a potentially dangerous condition that happens when a mother's immune system attacks the red blood cells of her fetus, but Lee said that patients typically aren't treated for it until 20 weeks of gestation. Before voting to forward House Bill 2681 on to the full Senate, Rogers said that the legislature should 'protect those that cannot protect themselves' adding that everyone will have to answer to God for their decisions. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
