In Arizona, abortion was declared legal after voters approved a 2024 state constitutional amendment that guarantees abortion access. In March 2025, a judge permanently blocked the state’s 15-week ban, saying it violated the new constitutional right.
Now, the question of whether there can be any restrictions on access to an abortion before fetal viability is being contested in court.
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge heard final arguments on Monday.
Center for Reproductive Rights attorney Caroline Sacerdote argued the state’s restrictions are “unacceptable and antithetical to patients’ autonomous decision making.”
The defense countered by asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed since Arizona’s Democratic attorney general has shown no interest in prosecuting abortion-related cases.
The prosecution responded that the threats persist since state Senate President Warren Petersen, a Republican, is running for the office of attorney general.
Kris Mayes, the Democratic attorney general of Arizona, took a significant stance on the enforcement of abortion laws after the 2024 constitutional amendment. She said her office wouldn’t prosecute violations of the state’s abortion laws.
This prompted Petersen and state Rep. Steve Montenegro to intervene in the legal case to defend the preexisting abortion laws.
What’s the abortion lawsuit centered around?
Health care providers argue the state’s new constitutional right to abortion access is being violated because of laws on the books that predate the 2024 mandate.
The lawsuit contests three regulations, including a 24-hour mandatory waiting period for someone seeking an abortion and a requirement to make at least two visits to a health care provider.
The ban on the use of telehealth for abortion services prevents health care providers from prescribing abortion medication via telemedicine as well as restrictions based on the specific reason for the abortion, such as fetal genetic abnormalities, sex or race, opponents to the law argue.
Petersen and Montenegro’s lawyer Justin Smith argued, “Abortion doesn’t mean telemedicine abortion doesn’t mean material or pamphlets.”
“Abortion is that specific procedure and that specific procedure is still allowed under each one of these provisions,” he said, as one local news outlet reported.
The Center for Reproductive Rights’ Caroline Sacerdote, a senior attorney for the prosecutors, said, “The three sets of laws we’re challenging here plainly deny, restrict and interfere with Arizonans’ fundamental right to abortion prior to viability.”
What happened during the last court proceedings?
During testimony given in November, Dr. William Richardson, a plaintiff and medical director of Choices Women’s Center in Tucson, said, “The laws we are challenging are preventing me from providing the care my patients want and deserve and that they are constitutionally entitled to.”
The plaintiffs argued the restrictions are unnecessary and obstruct constitutionally protected care while Petersen and Montenegro’s lawyers defended the laws as protective measures, as the Arizona Mirror reported last year.
At the time, the judge asserted that the 2024 constitutional amendment gives Arizonans a fundamental right, making any restrictions on it invalid. He directed the government to bear the burden of proof to justify the restrictions as necessary.
The final decision is expected to come in 30 days.