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.
An alleged altercation with pro-life advocates in June has led to renewed concerns regarding Dr. Ronald Yunis, a Phoenix physician who pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, a class six felony, after being charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in 2019.
Civic action group Red State Reform stated that the “alleged pattern of violence raises public safety concerns.”
Sharing a video of the June altercation, documentation of the prior firearm incident, and Medical Board findings, the group raised questions about the doctor’s accountability and presented the alleged pattern of behavior:
“Dr. Ronald Yunis, a local physician, was recently captured on video allegedly assaulting a peaceful protester on June 3, 2025. Despite eyewitness testimony and clear video evidence showing what appears to be an unprovoked physical assault—which under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 13-1203) could constitute probable cause for arrest—and notwithstanding his prior conviction involving a firearm, the Phoenix Police Department did not place him under arrest at the scene.
“Instead, officers issued only a citation requiring him to appear in court. The Phoenix City Prosecutor’s Office has since declined to pursue even misdemeanor assault charges, and the case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning it could still be re-filed.”
Phoenix abortionist Ronald Yunis punched a peaceful sidewalk counselor this week. Targeting a Christian who was lawfully pleading for life and sharing the gospel outside his abortion mill. A police investigation is underway! pic.twitter.com/z69xSaETy8
A witness to the incident, James Baird of P24 Ministries, said in a statement, “No one should be above the law — especially when patient and community safety are at stake.”
The organization added that “while there was an allegation that the victim may have trespassed, there is no justification under Arizona law for the use of physical force without imminent threat or danger. Both the video and eyewitness testimony corroborate that the protester neither threatened nor committed any violence against Dr. Yunis.”
In the 2019 incident, Yunis was captured on body-worn camera footage by a pro-life protester visibly pointing a gun at them from his vehicle. In a similar circumstance to the June incident, the Phoenix Police Department initially declined to arrest Yunis.
Red State Reform noted that “it was only after the video footage was posted online and sparked numerous public complaints that an arrest was made seven days later, resulting in Dr. Yunis pleading guilty to disorderly conduct, a class 6 felony.”
WATCH: 2019 Incident
Yunis was later stripped of his Medicare billing privileges until 2031 after he allegedly failed to report the felony conviction as required by law and served two years of probation.
According to Health and Human Services documentation, the Doctor claimed, “his criminal attorney assured him that conviction pursuant to the plea agreement would not be considered a felony because it was an undesignated offense and would not be reported to any regulatory body.”
Red State Reform observed, “The Administrative Law Judge found that Dr. Yunis failed to report his felony as required by federal law, exhibited reckless disregard for those around him, and demonstrated an inability to exercise sound judgment. As a result, Dr. Yunis was barred from reenrolling in Medicare through 2031, underscoring serious concerns about his professional conduct and reliability.”
In October 2023, Dr. Yunis was brought before the Arizona Medical Board in a response to the 2019 incident as well as other complaints, including “multiple reports of unprofessional interactions between Respondent and nursing staff occurring between 2018 and 2019,” and “review of Respondent’s care and treatment of five obstetrical patients (MR, CB, BL, GCU, and KB) identified by the Hospital’s investigation.“
The Board found as “Conclusions of Law,” that “the conduct and circumstances described in MD-19-1001A and MD-20-0925A above constitute unprofessional conduct pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1401(27)(r) (‘Committing any conduct or practice that is or might be harmful or dangerous to the health of the patient or the public.’)”
An appeal by Dr. Yunis was denied by the Board two months later.
In a statement, Red State Reform Vice President Daryl Groves summarized his concerns regarding the non-prosecution of Dr. Yunis for the alleged June altercation, saying, “The public deserves to know that everyone is held to the same standard under the law.”
