Arizona voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 139, which enshrined a woman’s right to an abortion and included provisions to protect healthcare providers from prosecution. However, the legal challenges between medical experts and anti-abortion advocates just began.
After years of turmoil within the state, it was a temporary victory for abortion-rights advocates who are now seeking to expand it.
The amendment, which passed with 61% of votes in its favor, was officially certified on Nov. 25. Since then, litigation which would remove the state’s current 15-week abortion ban in favor of the new proposition was filed on Tuesday.
A spokesperson for the ACLU, Amanda Mollindo, said the litigation was prompted because the new constitutional amendment enshrined a woman’s right to an abortion in the state constitution, however it did not automatically repeal the current laws which limit abortion access.
Mollindo also acknowledged the possibility of subsequent interferences from anti-abortion organizations, however she also said any intervention would “show a clear disregard for the will of the people.”
Doctors along with Planned Parenthood Arizona filed a lawsuit against the state’s 2022 ban. Represented by the ACLU, Arizona Obstetrician and Gynecologists Dr. Eric M. Reuss and Dr. Paul Isaacson challenged the state to enact the proposition.
“For two years, physicians’ hands have been tied when a patient needs to end a pregnancy after 15 weeks, including when they face serious pregnancy complications. But today we can once again provide care to people who want to end their pregnancy.” Reuss said in a press release.
The litigation was also supported by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes who called the new legislation “a cause for celebration” in a Nov. 25 press release. She also promised to work with both healthcare providers and the court to legalize the new amendment.
Mayes kept her promise, signing a stipulation on Tuesday which ruled the state’s 15-week abortion ban unconstitutional while the case was ongoing and said it could not be enforced until 30-days after the trial concluded.
“The Ban is unconstitutional … The State, its agents, officers, and successors will not enforce the Ban in any manner against any person during the pendency of this litigation,” Mayes said.
Edited by Shi Bradley and Wendy Maddox
