Arizona’s legislative leaders issued a statement of support for a federal action establishing a new level of parental rights to access their children’s medical records.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced earlier this month further protections for parental rights in healthcare. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., cited an incident in which a Midwestern school allegedly ignored a religious exemption and vaccinated a child without parental consent.
That school remains under investigation by the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for potential violation of the Vaccines for Children Program (VFC), which requires providers of vaccines received federally to comply with state laws on religious and other exemptions.
In addition to Kennedy’s announcement, the Health Resources and Service Administration (HRSA) issued an advisement to its health center grant recipients of their required compliance with federal and state laws on parental rights. OCR also issued a letter to healthcare providers advising of their duty to provide parental access to children’s medical records.
“If a provider is standing between you and your child, HHS is going to step in,” said Kennedy in an announcement video.
House Majority Whip Julie Willoughby (R-LD13) published a statement expressing gratitude for the HHS action to assist parents in Arizona and nationwide.
“Arizona parents know this problem because they’ve lived it. Families have been locked out of online medical portals and forced to fight for access to records needed to schedule appointments, refill prescriptions, and communicate with doctors,” said Willoughby. “Parents should not need a lawyer or a lawsuit to see their child’s medical records. This problem was identified years ago. It’s time for the state to stand with parents.”
Republican lawmakers attempted to offer a similar remedy last year (House Bill 2183) and this year (House Bill 2126), but Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed both.
Both bills would have required health care entities to provide parents with access to any electronic portal and delivery platform of their child’s medical records, even in cases where the medical treatment given didn’t require parental consent.
Hobbs cited health, safety, and privacy rights as reasons for vetoing the bills.
“The measure as written could put the health and safety of vulnerable Arizonans at risk,” said Hobbs in her House Bill 2183 denial letter.
“Patient privacy is a longstanding tenet of American healthcare and this bill would create legal ambiguity for healthcare providers who have existing obligations to patient privacy,” said Hobbs in her House Bill 2126 denial letter.
The only community member to speak on the latest vetoed bill during its House committee hearing was a representative of the ACLU of Arizona and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, Marilyn Rodriguez with Creosote Partners.
The two activist organizations argued the existence of a distinct class of children — “mature minors” — which should be exempt from parental oversight in their medical care. Rodriguez claimed the bill would be “impacting mature minors’ confidentiality when accessing critical care.”
There is no statutory language that distinguishes “mature minors.” Rodriguez further argued that medical providers should decide whether a minor qualifies as a “mature minor,” not the legislature.
On behalf of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona specifically, Rodriguez argued that minors should have the ability to access abortions without their parents knowing or consenting.
Again, during the Senate committee hearing on the bill, only a representative of Planned Parenthood was present to speak against the bill. Aven Kelley, a policy analyst with Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, argued that minors should have autonomy and privacy when it comes to obtaining abortions.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona GOP leaders are in court defending three abortion restrictions they say protect women and deter coercion after Attorney General Kris Mayes declined to defend the state laws. The Plaintiffs, supported by the Center for Reproductive Rights, argue that the statutes defy the 2024 constitutional amendment legalizing abortion up to fetal viability.
The lawsuit, Isaacson v. Arizona, was filed in May 2025 by Phoenix obstetrician-gynecologist Dr. Paul Isaacson, a Proposition 139 supporter. Isaacson was joined by Dr. William Richardson and the Arizona Medical Association in the lawsuit, which challenges:
A “reason ban” barring abortions based solely on fetal abnormalities (non-lethal or otherwise), gender, or race.
A “two-visit requirement” requiring a second clinic visit and 24-hour delay after viewing an ultrasound.
A telehealth ban prohibiting diagnosis, prescription, or mailing of abortion medication via phone or video.
Isaacson dropped a related federal case in April 2025 to advance this state challenge and was joined by the Arizona Medical Association and two other OB-GYNs.
Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro intervened to defend the laws, represented by attorney Emily Gould of Holtzman Vogel, after AG Kris Mayes declined to defend them, according to KJZZ. In June 2023, Governor Hobbs signed an executive order centralizing abortion-related prosecutions in the Attorney General’s office, a move Mayes said underscores their shared commitment to “fight … to protect the rights of Arizonans to make their own private medical decisions without interference.”
The case is before Judge Greg Como in Maricopa County Superior Court, who denied a motion for dismissal from Petersen and Montenegro, and ordered a three-day evidentiary hearing to explore the laws’ impact on abortion in Arizona.
Defendants’ witness, Phoenix OB-GYN Dr. Steven Nelson—who manages miscarriage care but has not performed abortions—backed the telehealth ban, stressing in-person exams detect coercion via nonverbal cues like facial expressions in trafficking scenarios. Gould, representing Petersen and Montenegro, cited American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists data and argued that at least 10% of abortion patients later report coercion. Nelson urged limiting telehealth to emergencies, as it “prohibits all of this,” and said he would provide such services only in the most dire cases.
Plaintiffs’ Wednesday witnesses—including Isaacson and experts from the Center for Reproductive Rights and ACLU—argued the laws burden low-income and rural patients with over two-hour drives and confidentiality risks in abusive settings. They argued that pre-abortion ultrasounds are unnecessary for early dating with reliable menstrual tracking. Experts clashed on the 24-hour delay’s health value, with one testifying that it undermines women’s autonomy and timely care.
Isaacson claimed the restrictions “create unnecessary barriers to essential reproductive health care,” echoing concerns from the Arizona Medical Association about access for vulnerable groups.
On ultrasounds, Nelson countered these arguments and described them as “essential to dating” pregnancies, estimating 60% of patients misjudge gestational age due to implantation bleeding. He noted ultrasounds pinpoint asymptomatic ectopic pregnancies, often undetected until seven weeks, requiring specific interventions. Nelson suggested local physicians could handle initial visits to ease rural travel burdens.
On day two of the hearing on Thursday, Judge Como indicated he may treat the record as sufficient for a permanent injunction, with closing arguments pending, according to Courthouse News. The hearing was set to continue on Friday, but as of Monday, no additional information was publicly available regarding the case.
The Phoenix Union High School District (PXU) is set to vote on a proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Chicanos Por La Causa (CPLC), an Arizona-based nonprofit, at its upcoming school board meeting.
The agreement, effective from July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2027, aims to provide substance abuse prevention and mental health services to students at Carl Hayden High School, Bostrom High School, and Maryvale High School.
However, the proposal sparked debate among board members and community advocates, with concerns about the scope of services and their alignment with student needs.
The MOU outlines CPLC’s role as a subgrantee of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) under the federal Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant (SABG). The SABG targets groups such as pregnant women, drug users, and individuals with HIV/AIDS, alongside primary prevention services for substance abuse.
Good morning. Tomorrow at @PhoenixUnion school board meeting, we'll be voting on contracts with leftist activist group Chicanos Por La Causa.
Reason: to help self identified males and likely abortion services as part of "wrap around" services to students.
Under the proposed agreement, CPLC would deliver primary substance abuse prevention services and counseling to referred PXU students, with a specific mention of “Health Masculinity Services for Self-Identified Males.”
The proposed MOU has drawn criticism from some PXU board members, notably Jeremiah Cota, who announced via X his intent to vote against the contract.
Cota expressed concerns that the agreement prioritizes services for self-identified males and potentially includes abortion-related support under the guise of “wrap-around” services, labeling CPLC a “leftist activist group.”
His stance has been amplified by Arizona State Representative Teresa Martinez, who praised Cota’s advocacy while criticizing PXU for ignoring student safety, particularly in light of recent discussions about reinstating school resource officers (SROs).
So what about SROs? Will @PhoenixUnion ever vote on that?!!! So sad that they continue to ignore student safety! Especially after recent events! @jeremiahcota keep advocating for our students!!!!! You seem to be the only one! https://t.co/3Ank4fIau9
The SROs were removed from PXU campuses in 2020 following concerns about police interactions with minority students.
Despite recommendations from the district’s student safety committee in March 2023 to reinstate SROs, the board postponed the decision, opting for further study sessions and maintaining an off-duty officer model.
No SRO vote is scheduled for the upcoming meeting, intensifying the frustration among advocates, who argue student safety is being pushed aside.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Let’s start with a very simple truism: you can’t have prosperity without people.
Human beings are the most valuable resource, because it is human ingenuity that creates and cultivates all other earthly resources. We as human beings are the custodians and protectors of the planet, not its destroyers, as the radical environmentalists would have you believe.
The richer and more technologically advanced we become, the more likely we are to avert a catastrophic event like a giant meteor crashing into the planet and destroying all life.
Which brings us to a potentially ruinous trend: many countries are literally running out of people.
This alarming chart on births and deaths in Europe is a terrifying glimpse into the future of a new dark age of the western world, if birth rates don’t start rising — and quickly. Europeans are becoming extinct.
Negative population growth is a sure killer of prosperity and human flourishing. It’s also contrary to Christianity and most other religions, which instruct us to “be fruitful and multiply.”
It’s not just Europe. Japan and Korea will cut their populations in half over the next 80 years if they don’t start moving away from one child per couple rates of propagating.
Why are rich countries depopulating the planet?
For 60 years, prophets of doom like Paul Ehrlich (“The Population Bomb”) and governments around the world — including our own — warned that we all had a moral obligation to save the planet by having fewer babies. There were periods of forced abortions, forced sterilizations, forced birth control, and — in advanced nations like in Europe and the U.S. — a cultural sneering at families with four or five or six kids.
That mendacious propaganda campaign worked all too well. Look what it has wrought.
There are other explanations. As we have gotten richer — and especially as women’s earnings have risen — the “cost” of having a child in terms of lost income, has risen. Women are less likely to have more than one or two children. To be clear: I’m NOT suggesting that women should be paid less!
Marriage rates have declined, and vows are coming later in life, so the median year for a woman to have a child keeps rising — leaving fewer fertility years left for multiple children.
Religiosity has declined somewhat in our more secular “me first” society. That’s sad because childless couples tend to be less happy. And why have kids if you don’t believe there is a divine reason we were put on this planet?
The solutions to this problem aren’t obvious. Pro-natalist government policies, like paying people to have kids and offering free childcare have had spotty levels of success.
The U.S. has delayed the demographic crisis happening in Europe and much of Asia through immigration of young workers. Not only do immigrants increase the population, but they tend to have more kids than native-born Americans.
But even with immigration, we in America have an obvious aging problem.
One simple step is to start celebrating as a society the virtues and the self-sacrifice of motherhood. Our schools and our teachers and our clergy and our political leaders need to keep pushing the message that the greatest contribution men and women can give to saving our species is to have more kids — as soon as possible.
Stephen Moore is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, a cofounder of Unleash Prosperity, and a former senior economic advisor to President Donald Trump.
This week, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen delivered a clear message: Arizona will not stand by while abortion providers try to dismantle the protections that defend women and children in our state. At the center of the lawsuit Isaacson v. Arizona is a basic truth: our laws were written to protect the vulnerable, not to support the bottom line of the abortion industry.
President Petersen made it plain that this case is about one fundamental question: will women keep their right to informed consent before an abortion? In every other area of medicine, informed consent is a non-negotiable standard of care. Women deserve the right to know their medical situation fully, to see an ultrasound, and to hear their baby’s heartbeat before making a life-altering decision. To deny them that right is not empowerment, it is exploitation.
But the stakes go even further. Arizona’s Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act makes it illegal to end a child’s life simply because of their race, sex, or disability. Just as America rejected slavery and other injustices that denied whole classes of people their humanity, we must not allow a new form of discrimination to take root in the womb. Every life has value, and no child should be targeted for elimination simply for who they are.
President Petersen is a champion for life, and he is willing to speak on hard truths and act to defend laws that reflect the dignity of every human being. His courage stands in sharp contrast to our current Attorney General Kris Mayes, who has made “reproductive rights” one of her central causes and even gone so far as to file consumer fraud reports against pregnancy resource centers that offer help and hope to women.
As Petersen runs to be Arizona’s next Attorney General, voters will have a choice between two very different paths. One leads toward a state where the powerful and profitable abortion industry writes the rules. The other leads toward a state that defends women’s health, protects children, and affirms that equality must extend to every human life, born and unborn.
Discrimination in the womb is still discrimination. Arizona must not go backwards. We must continue to stand on the side of life, justice, and truth. President Petersen has shown he is ready to fight that battle, and Arizona’s future depends on it.
Here’s where the case stands: on September 15th, there will be a motion to dismiss certain aspects of the lawsuit without even needing a hearing. And a trial is scheduled for November 5th through 7th.
Katarina White serves as Board Member for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed, visit the Arizona Right to Life website.
