Arizonans have made their stance clear by voting in favor of making abortion a fundamental right. However, it is important to note that this does not automatically overturn the state’s current 15-week gestational ban, as well as several other anti-abortion laws that are still in effect.
Just an hour after joining Gov. Katie Hobbs, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, and Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ann Timmer on Monday to certify the results of the 2024 general election, Attorney General Kris Mayes stated that nullifying the 15-week ban would have to be done through the courts. Mayes also acknowledged that while her office considers the certification of Prop. 139, the abortion rights ballot measure that received over 60% of the vote, as sufficient to restore access to the procedure, some providers may still be hesitant until legal protections are more firmly established.
During a news conference held to celebrate the success of the ballot measure, she stated that the state of Arizona firmly believes that the passage of Prop. 139 renders the 15-week ban unconstitutional. She emphasized that the certification signed by the governor at 10:12 am marked the moment when it became unconstitutional. It is important to note that the comfort level of doctors and providers regarding performing abortions after 15 weeks is a separate matter.
The gestational ban has made it illegal to have abortions after a certain deadline, unless a doctor determines that it is necessary to protect a woman’s life or prevent a major bodily function impairment. Doctors who violate this law, which was passed by legislative Republicans in 2022, could have their medical license suspended and face a class 6 felony charge, potentially resulting in a prison sentence of 4 months to 2 years.
On the other hand, Prop. 139 prevents the prosecution of abortion providers and allows the procedure to be performed until fetal viability, typically around 23 to 24 weeks. It also includes an exception for abortions performed after that point if a provider believes it is necessary to protect a woman’s life, physical health, or mental health.
Dr. Paul Isaacson, co-owner of one of the few private abortion clinics in the Valley, anticipates the filing of a lawsuit in the near future with the aim of reversing the gestational ban.
Isaacson has been involved in numerous legal challenges against Arizona’s anti-abortion laws, including the temporary revival of the near-total abortion ban from 1864 earlier this year, and a 2021 law prohibiting abortions due to fetal genetic abnormalities.
He approaches the future of abortion care in Arizona with caution, emphasizing the significance of court outcomes.
According to him, the legal advice he is receiving suggests that they will file a strong lawsuit and anticipate a prompt resolution.
Isaacson expressed a desire to overturn several laws following the approval of Prop. 139. These laws include the ban on abortions for fetal genetic abnormalities, the mandatory 24-hour waiting period, and the “informed consent” law which requires healthcare providers to discuss alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, as well as the financial responsibilities of the father with patients.
According to Mayes, a lawsuit contesting the 15-week law’s legality is anticipated to be filed on Monday. She mentioned that the state of Arizona would support the efforts to reinstate access.
However, the process of unraveling and nullifying the remaining anti-abortion laws in Arizona is expected to take several years. Mayes also stated that her office intends to defend reproductive rights against potential challenges from the federal government.
Allies of President-elect Donald Trump have expressed interest in utilizing dormant federal laws from 1873 to eliminate abortion care nationwide, despite Trump’s stance that abortion decisions should be determined by individual states.
One such law is the Comstock Act, which forbids the mailing of abortifacients and could potentially be employed to impede the transportation of abortion pills. In Arizona, over half of all abortions are medication abortions. Furthermore, Trump has indicated a willingness to reconsider the FDA approval of mifepristone, the predominant abortion pill used in medication abortions.
Mayes, who promised to safeguard abortion access and has previously rallied her office to support mifepristone through lawsuits, firmly stated her opposition to any attempts by the incoming administration to disregard the desires of Arizona voters.
Arizona’s state officials have vehemently expressed their opposition to the proposed changes. In a strong statement, the Attorney General stated, “We will fight that tooth and nail, and we will not allow that to happen.” The state’s determination to resist these changes is unwavering.
Arizona voters’ decision to safeguard abortion care remains unaltered, eliciting jubilation among state leaders and local providers.
According to Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, the people of Arizona have sent a clear message in this election. They are tired of politicians who are disconnected from their concerns and who try to impose their own beliefs on them. Through the power of their votes, Arizonans have made their voices heard.
After the federal protections were removed, reproductive rights advocates cautioned about the potential decrease in the number of medical providers in states with hostile stances on abortion. Studies supported these concerns, with the Association of American Medical Colleges finding that anti-abortion states received significantly fewer residency applications from aspiring OB-GYNs and emergency physicians. In Arizona, for instance, the number of OB-GYN applications dropped by 26.4% in the 2023-2024 application year, marking the highest decline in five years.
Dr. Misha Pangasa, an OB-GYN based in Mesa, was convinced to return to her home state after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The early support for Prop. 139 played a significant role in her decision-making process.
“I had serious doubts about whether I could pursue a medical career in a place where politics had such a significant influence over healthcare,” she expressed. “I questioned if this was the environment where I could confidently establish my own family.”
Morgan Finkelstein, who had to travel outside of Arizona to access abortion care, believes that Prop. 139 is a vital safeguard for women in the state who may face complex pregnancies in the future. Despite abortion being a federally protected right in 2020, the proposition offers crucial protection for Arizona women.
Finkelstein personally experienced the challenges of accessing abortion care in Arizona. When she discovered that one of her twins had a fatal heart defect, the only in-state provider who could help her was unable to accommodate her. Eventually, Finkelstein had to travel to California to obtain a multifetal pregnancy reduction, but not without enduring days of stress while waiting for an appointment and spending a significant amount of money on the necessary medical care.
“My pregnancy and birth were already traumatic, and the added burden of having to travel out of Arizona for necessary medical care made it even more challenging,” she expressed. “We felt a profound sense of vulnerability and loss of our basic human rights in the state we hold dear.
However, the situation could have been far worse. Thanks to the approval of Prop. 139, numerous expectant mothers facing circumstances similar to mine will be spared from enduring the same nightmare or worse.”