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.
On Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a lawsuit arguing against the state’s ban on abortions solely for genetic defects.
In the case, Isaacson v. Mayes, pro-abortion doctors and groups appealed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against Arizona’s ban on abortions based on genetic defects.
The legislature passed the ban, SB 1457, back in 2021.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the ban are abortionists Paul Isaacson and Eric Reuss, along with the National Council of Jewish Women, Arizona National Organization For Women, and Arizona Medical Association.
Isaacson was a Phoenix-based abortionist with Family Planning Associates. Reuss was a Scottsdale-based OBGYN and former board member for Planned Parenthood of Arizona.
Judges Roopali Desai, Ronald Gould, and Andrew Hurwitz heard the oral arguments. While Desai and Hurwitz were engaged in the arguments with their questions, Gould hardly spoke except to request an adjustment of the livestream audio.
In March, House Speaker Ben Toma (R-LD27) and Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) stepped up to defend the ban after Attorney General Kris Mayes said she would refuse to enforce the law. Mayes is acting as the defense in the lawsuit currently.
During Monday’s oral arguments, the main question at hand was whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing. Article III of the Constitution, as held by the Supreme Court, requires plaintiffs to prove an actual or imminent alleged injury that is concrete and particularized.
Jessica Sklarsky with the Center for Reproductive Rights argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that they suffer undisputed economic harms and threat of prosecution due to the abortion ban. The district court determined that the plaintiffs failed to meet the standard set by the 2014 Supreme Court case Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, which determined that pre-enforcement challenges satisfy the Article III standard and are justiciable when a statute’s enforcement is sufficiently imminent.
Sklarksy also argued that the abortion ban qualified as a vague law, and therefore violated due process rights.
“Vague laws force those they govern to either avoid doing anything that is arguably covered by the law, or to engage in that conduct with the constant threat of arbitrary enforcement,” said Sklarsky.
Denise Harle with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), counsel on behalf of Toma and Petersen, countered that no Article III injury exists due to the lack of a credible threat of enforcement.
Harle pointed out that all 15 county attorneys have acceded their authority to Mayes, and that Mayes has disavowed enforcement of abortion law. Harle also pointed out Gov. Katie Hobbs’ executive order in June usurping all county attorneys’ authority on abortion law and conferring it to Mayes.
Hurwitz and Desai pushed back against Harle’s reference to Mayes and Hobbs’ conduct, arguing that Mayes didn’t issue a disclaimer in this case specifically detailing her intent to not enforce the law.
Hurwitz indicated that Toma and Petersen’s support of the law, as well as the private enforcement aspect of the law, indicated a credible threat of enforcement.
“Does the law really require that a credible threat be communicated? If the state of Arizona passes a statute and the two leaders of the legislature are here defending its constitutionality, isn’t that enough to show there is a credible not a certain but a credible threat of enforcement?” asked Hurwitz.
Harle disagreed, saying the potential for private enforcement constituted a hypothetical. She alluded to the arrangement by Hobbs and Mayes to not enforce abortion law.
“[T]he theoretical possibility of an injury sometime in the future is too conjectural when it’s not imminent,” said Harle.
Desai followed up by stating that the court’s decision in Tingley v. Fergusoncould apply to this case. In that case, a family counselor challenged the state of Washington’s ban on conversion therapy as a violation of free speech and religious practice. Harle responded that the existence of a law alone wasn’t sufficient for direct injury.
“Virtually anyone could look at a law, say ‘I’m not sure what that means, I’m going to do something or not do something’ [and] that would be enough for a federal court to weigh in and adjudicate the merits of that claim on a facial challenge,” said Harle.
Watch the full hearing here:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
