Arizona Shows Abortion Amendment Invalidates Good Laws
Last week, the Arizona Court of Appeals agreed to hear arguments in a case that will decide whether a long list of the state’s pro-life laws stay on the books.
The laws were struck down in February by a judge citing Prop 139’s abortion amendment language that was approved (61% to 38%) by voters in 2024.
Voters were told the state constitutional amendment would only protect “reproductive rights.” Now, less than two years later, it’s been used to eliminate safety laws meant to protect women and preborn babies.
The lawsuit, Isaacson v. State of Arizona, was initiated in May 2025 by two abortionists and the Arizona Medical Association. They argued that several existing laws were a violation of Arizona’s Constitution because they restricted the “fundamental right to abortion.”
In February 2026, the Arizona Superior Court of Maricopa ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
Judge Gregory Como struck down Arizona laws that required informed consent, an ultrasound before getting an abortion, a waiting period before getting an abortion and counseling about a diagnosed fetal condition.
The ruling also invalidated a law prohibiting abortions sought solely because of a fetal genetic abnormality, like Down syndrome, as well as abortion clinic regulations and restrictions on telemedicine abortions.
Judge Como wrote in his opinion that “virtually every regulation of abortion ‘interferes’ with a woman’s right to seek an abortion.”
He also declared,
The state’s interest in protecting potential life is not a legitimate justification for a law that interferes with a woman’s right to seek pre-viability abortion.
Judge Como said he was using the plain language of the text of the abortion amendment, now in the constitution, to make his interpretation.
Arizona legislative leaders filed a notice to appeal the lower court’s decision in February and their opening brief in June.
Last week, the Arizona Court of Appeals granted their request for oral argument.
On October 15, the Thomas More Society filed an amicus brief on behalf of Arizona Right to Life supporting the state laws.
Thomas More Society argues the ruling goes beyond what Arizona voters approved when they passed Prop 139 in 2024.
The constitutional amendment requires strict scrutiny for review of laws only when the laws deny, restrict, or interfere with the right to abortion. Thomas More Society contends that the judge interpreted the language too broadly and failed to establish how informed consent, ultrasound and waiting period requirements interfered with a woman’s “right” to abortion.
Prop 139 said the state could not enforce a law that “denies, restricts, or interferes with” abortion before viability unless it serves a “compelling state interest.”
Abortion activists often tell voters the amendment is only about “protecting abortion rights.”
Arizona shows abortion amendments are used to overturn commonsense laws that protect life and ensure women’s safety.
Once an amendment like this is written into a state constitution, laws that inform women, guard against mail-order abortion pills and protect babies from discrimination can be struck down one after another. That’s why defeating abortion measures on the ballot matters so much.
A constitutional amendment is hard to undo. It shapes every law that comes after it and even the ones that came before.
This fall, voters in Idaho, Nevada, Virginia, and Missouri will be asked to vote on an abortion ballot measure. If you live in one of those states, please vote to protect life.
More details on statewide ballot measures are linked below.
Related articles and resources:
Constitutional ‘Right to Abortion’ on Nevada Ballot This Fall
Prop 1 Would Create a Statutory ‘Right’ to Abortion Under Idaho Law
Abortion and Marriage Amendments on Virginia Ballot This Fall
Missouri Voters Can Protect Life, Stop ‘Transgender’ Procedures for Minors
