PHOENIX (CN) - A state judge struck down more than two dozen laws that infringed on the state's newly-gained constitutional right to abortion, leaving nothing left between Arizonans and bodily autonomy.
After a three-day evidentiary hearing in November, Maricopa County Judge Greg Como ruled Friday that Arizona laws requiring extended waiting periods, prohibiting telehealth abortions and restricting abortions based on reasons such as race or fetal abnormality can delay necessary care, push patients past legal deadlines, and discourage honest communication with providers.
Dr. Paul Isaacson, an OB-GYN who supported Arizona's 2024 constitutional amendment protecting abortion access, sued in May to challenge three groups of laws, known as the reason ban, the telehealth ban and the two-trip scheme.
"This is a relief. For the first time in a long time, my patients will not have to jump through hoops to get the care they need," Isaacson said in a Center for Reproductive Rights press release. "I became an OB-GYN to provide compassionate care to my patients, but these restrictions have stood in the way of that. Finally, I can help patients as they decide what's best for themselves without interference from the state."
Because Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes has already vowed not to enforce the challenged laws, State Senator Warren Petersen and State Representative Steve Montenegro, both Republicans, intervened to defend them.
In a 29-page ruling published Friday morning, Como said the intervenors failed to do so
"It is the challenged laws' universal suppression of medical judgment and choice that renders them invalid in all circumstances," Como wrote.
The reason ban restricts abortion access if the patient's stated reason is based on race, gender or fetal abnormality. In November, plaintiffs focused on the third reason, arguing many patients may elect to receive an abortion after a fetal diagnosis.
Como found no compelling state interest to support the laws as applied.
"The reason ban infringes on a patient's autonomous decision-making in all situations because it applies across the board, thereby removing abortion as an option before the patient may even consider it," Como wrote.
The telehealth ban barred patients from consulting about abortion care remotely or receiving prescription abortion pills by mail. Plaintiffs argued abortion should be treated like any other medical service, many of which are routinely provided via telehealth in Arizona.
In November, expert witnesses for intervenors argued in-person abortion consultations are needed to ensure patients are not coerced into unwanted abortions.
Como found some merit in that concern but ruled that a full ban went too far.
The Telemedicine Ban does not "improve or maintain" the health of a woman seeking an abortion," he wrote. "To the extent there is any medical benefit to the telemedicine ban, Intervenors have not shown that a complete ban is the least restrictive means to achieve that end."
Arizona's two-trip scheme required patients to wait at least 24 hours after an initial appointment before returning for the procedure. It also mandated an ultrasound, blood test and counseling on alternatives before abortion care is provided.
Plaintiffs said the rules made an already limited process even less accessible, forcing patients to make multiple long trips to providers concentrated in Phoenix and Tucson.
Como agreed in part, finding that ultrasounds and blood tests are not always medically necessary to determine the gestational age of a fetus and that mandating them in every case is unduly restrictive. He also struck down the state-mandated information requirement, concluding it serves no legitimate medical purpose.
"Mandating that the disclosure be in-person and at least 24 hours before an abortion causes delay, which increases the risk of abortion and sometimes prevents a woman from having an abortion altogether," he wrote.
The plaintiffs say the ruling brings Arizona "many steps closer" to the promise of the 2024 constitutional amendment and removes unnecessary stigma for women seeking care.
"As a physician, I am relieved that I no longer will be forced by Arizona's restrictions to undermine my patients' decisions," Dr. Laura Mercer, OB-GYN and Arizona Medical Association board member, said in the press release. "My patients will no longer be forced to make additional unnecessary visits for care, nor will I be required to give them disinformation that stigmatizes abortion. And as an Arizonan, I am proud that the abortion protections we fought so hard to win are bringing reproductive freedom closer to reality."
The intervening defendants told Courthouse News they plan to appeal.
Source: Courthouse News Service
