An Arizona judge on Friday struck down three state laws that had limited access to abortion, concluding the restrictions were incompatible with a right to abortion enshrined in the state constitution last year.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gregory Como found that the contested measures failed to advance patient health, interfered with personal decision-making, and violated the constitutionally protected - "fundamental right to abortion under Arizona law," the ruling said.
The statutes challenged in the lawsuit included a ban on the use of telemedicine to provide medication abortion, a requirement that patients give a reason for seeking an abortion, and a prohibition on abortions performed because of a "genetic abnormality" detected in the fetus. Additional provisions struck down mandated that every patient seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound at least 24 hours before the procedure and imposed a minimum one-day waiting period that required patients to make a separate, second visit to a provider before receiving care.
All of the laws the judge reviewed had been enacted before Arizona voters approved a constitutional amendment in November 2024 that guarantees a right to an abortion under state law.
The legal challenge was brought by two obstetrician-gynecologist physicians together with the Arizona Medical Association. One of the plaintiffs, Dr. Paul Isaacson, said the court's decision removes barriers that had impeded patient care. "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.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat who won election after the contested laws were enacted, characterized the ruling as a victory for women, families, and medical professionals in the state. "This ruling affirms that Arizona women have a constitutional right to access the reproductive healthcare they need, without unnecessary government interference," Mayes said in a statement. "Doctors must be allowed to provide care based on their medical judgment, not on the beliefs of anti-abortion politicians."
The court's decision removes specific statutory limits on how medication abortions may be provided, the circumstances patients must articulate to obtain care, and prohibitions tied to fetal genetic findings, as well as procedural requirements intended to delay or add additional steps to obtaining abortion services. The ruling rests on the determination that these requirements are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee adopted by voters in November 2024.
The lawsuit and the judge's ruling focus on the compatibility of existing statutes with the state constitutional amendment rather than introducing new statutory language. The case was argued by physicians and a medical association representing clinical interests; the attorney general addressed the decision from the standpoint of constitutional protection for reproductive healthcare and the role of clinical judgment in care delivery.
Reporting note: The court's findings are limited to the laws named in the complaint and the state constitutional provisions adopted by voters in 2024. The decision cites the absence of demonstrated health benefits from the contested restrictions as part of the basis for finding the statutes unconstitutional.