Arizona judge allows lawsuit challenging preborn protections to proceed

An Arizona judge said last Tuesday that a lawsuit challenging several of the state's pro-life protections may proceed.

Key Takeaways:

• In May, two abortion businesses and pro-abortion doctors filed a lawsuit against several of the state's abortion restrictions, citing the adoption of Proposition 139, which declared abortion a constitutional "right" in Arizona.

• Republican leaders asked a judge to halt the lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs had to prove that the current restrictions are unconstitutional.

• In his ruling, Judge Greg Como rejected the lawmakers' request and said that the lawsuit may proceed.

The Backstory:

In May, two abortion businesses filed a lawsuit to overturn several pro-life protections in the state. They argued that a state amendment passed last fall in which abortion was enshrined as a constitutional “right” means that there should be no restrictions on abortion at all.

The lawsuit targeted a number of laws, including those that prohibit abortion due to the preborn child having genetic anomalies, informed consent laws requiring a 24-hour waiting period and an ultrasound prior to the abortion, and laws prohibiting mail-order abortion pills.

House Speaker Steve Montenegro and Senate President Warren Petersen fought to defend the state's restrictions, stepping in after Attorney General Kris Mayes sided with the abortion industry and refused to fight on behalf of the state.

“Instead of protecting women’s health and safety, Attorney General Mayes has chosen to side with abortion activists and refuses to defend Arizona’s long-standing pro-life laws — despite that being a core responsibility of her office," Montenegro has said.

WARNING: What They Don't Tell You About The Abortion Pill

The Details:

In defending their state laws, Montenegro and Petersen argued that the abortion businesses who filed the lawsuit must first prove that the current laws are unconstitutional before the lawsuit can be heard in court. However, that argument was firmly rejected by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Greg Como, who cited the adoption of Proposition 139, which made abortion a constitutional 'right.'

“In fact, the opposite is true here,” Como wrote. “Intervenors have the burden of proving that the challenged laws are constitutional.”

“Because the right to abortion is fundamental, any restrictions on that right are presumptively invalid,” Como said.

The duo also argued that the doctors challenging the law had no standing to do so because there was no chance of them being prosecuted, thanks to a 2023 executive order issued by Governor Katie Hobbs who declared that Mayes was the only attorney in the state with the power to prosecute abortion law violators. As noted, Mayes has stated she will not defend any abortion restrictions.

Como also rejected that argument.

“Plaintiffs detail numerous examples of how compliance with the challenged laws are currently requiring them to violate their medical judgment, perform unnecessary medical procedures, and provide biased and inaccurate information to their patients,” he said.

Because of Como's ruling, the case is now expected to be heard in court in November.

 The Bottom Line:

Arizona's pro-life protections are in place largely to keep women, as well as their preborn children, safe. A prohibition on mail-order abortion pills is a common-sense safeguard meant to ensure that women have physical interaction with a doctor before taking these dangerous drugs, while the 24-hour waiting period and ultrasound requirement also ensure women are fully-informed before consenting to a life-altering decision.

The abortion industry's attempt to use a constitutional amendment to undo any and all protections on human lives in the womb demonstrates that it deliberately discriminates against certain human beings, failing to provide equal protection under the law. Instead, it is willing to ignore science to advance the killing of preborn humans at all costs.