by Matthew Holloway | Nov 11, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
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.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Garrett Riley | Jan 2, 2025 | Opinion
Counteracting the abortion culture requires us to celebrate the gift of children, and to uplift and empower the families who choose life.
By Garrett Riley |
As Arizona grapples with the implications of Proposition 139, a new dynamic in the state’s legislative landscape is emerging. Passed in 2024, the Arizona Abortion Access Act radically expands abortion rights beyond viability, through nine months and up to birth for virtually any reason. We are looking at a future in Arizona that enshrines unrestricted and nearly unregulated abortions.
Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, and a key figure in the pro-life community, expressed concerns about the broad and ambiguous language of Prop 139. Herrod and her organization fear that such terms may overturn well-established measures like informed consent and parental consent laws, which are reasonable safeguards. These laws ensure that women fully know the implications and alternatives before making an abortion decision.
From the pro-life perspective, these measures are not merely legal hurdles but essential ethical considerations that respect both the life of the unborn child and the informed autonomy of women. Herrod’s commitment to challenging vague terms within the proposition underscores a broader dedication to engaging in the democratic process, ensuring that all voices are heard and considered.
The legal battles anticipated over Prop 139 are not solely about restricting rights but are seen as a necessary defense of life and ethical medical practices. Of course, the emphasis on legal challenges to abortion laws must stem from the science that proves life begins from conception, and human rights must be conveyed to the unborn.
Tragically, the potential for existing laws to be swept away without thorough public discussion or consideration of the implications will begin unfolding in 2025 and beyond. As Arizona navigates these complex legal and ethical waters, all pro-life voices play an essential role in representing the electorate concerned with real healthcare, medical ethics, and human rights.
The passage of Prop 139 marks a critical juncture in Arizona’s history of abortion laws. This event not only triggers legal disputes but also offers our pro-life community a chance to promote a society that deeply values human life. Our advocacy transcends legal arguments, aiming to foster a culture committed to life’s intrinsic value, and the importance of the foundational roles children and family play in a healthy society. As we engage in these efforts, the goal is to nurture a community ethos that respects life from conception to natural end, thereby influencing legislative and policy frameworks.
Counteracting the abortion culture requires us to celebrate the gift of children, and to uplift and empower the families who choose life. Arizona Life Coalition (ALC) is dedicated to changing the culture by encouraging pro-life choices through education, collaboration, and acts of charity. We believe that to be pro-life is to be pro-family. By supporting pregnant women and struggling families, we stand as a community that affirms life, strengthens families, and nurtures hope, advocating that one life saved from abortion is worth all our time, money, and efforts.
Garrett Riley is the executive director of the Arizona Life Coalition, with a mission of inspiring pro-life choices through charity, education, and unifying collaboration.
by Corinne Murdock | Mar 9, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Planned Parenthood of Arizona (PPAZ) expanded its services last week to include vasectomies after months in limbo awaiting court battles over the state’s existing abortion laws.
The medical director of PPAZ, Jill Gibson, revealed that vasectomy requests increased following the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling last June in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturning Roe v. Wade.
“We just started hearing that these patients really wanted to step up at this time,” said Gibson. “They recognized that, with their ongoing protected bodily autonomy, they still had a right to participate in preventing pregnancy in ways that maybe didn’t have the same importance as before the Dobbs decision.”
Planned Parenthood’s Southern Arizona Regional Health Center in Tucson will be the first clinic to offer these expanded services. PPAZ plans to roll out these services to other locations in the near future, with the Phoenix area slated to receive them next.
Gibson told The Arizona Republic that PPAZ hadn’t offered vasectomies for at least a decade. The renewed service costs $750 without insurance; PPAZ won’t offer reversals of these procedures.
PPAZ expanded their services despite the move of Arizona’s major cities to effectively decriminalize abortion. Tucson, Phoenix, and, most recently, Flagstaff all passed resolutions opposing the SCOTUS decision and encouraging their local law enforcement to deprioritize violations of abortion law.
Additionally, both the governor and attorney general support opposition to any restrictions on abortion. Gov. Katie Hobbs said on the campaign trail last October that she wouldn’t put any limits on abortion, even up to birth. Attorney General Kris Mayes has repeatedly promised to not uphold the law and go so far as to prevent county attorneys from enforcing abortion law, even as recently as last week.
State law currently bans abortions after 15 weeks’ gestation. The pre-statehood law banning abortion completely was nullified in the Arizona Court of Appeals in December after it declared the law unenforceable, though the court refused to repeal the law.
While PPAZ has modified its business model to offer more services, other abortion providers have resorted to crowdfunding to stay afloat. Desert Star Family Planning, an independent Phoenix abortion clinic, has requested $80,000 to remain open.
They have raised over $9,200 so far from just over 100 donors since launching the crowdfunding effort in early January.
Brittany Fonteno, the president of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona (PPAZ), said in a January interview that despite the ruling nullifying the pre-statehood abortion ban, lawmakers were infringing on constitutional rights, which she claimed included abortion.
“They don’t want people to know what their rights are, they don’t want people to be able to make their own decisions about their bodies,” said Fonteno.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
