Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 02/10/2026 10:16:45 AM PST by Morgana
An Arizona judge on Friday struck down three of the state's pro-life laws, claiming that they violate the state constitution. Arizona voters approved an amendment enshrining a "right" to abortion in the state's constitution in 2024, and since then, pro-abortion organizations and lawmakers have worked diligently to overturn the state's pro-life protections.
Key Takeaways:
* Judge Gregory Como overturned state laws prohibiting the use of telemedicine for abortion pill distribution, a 24-hour waiting period with a mandatory ultrasound, and a ban on discriminatory abortions.
* Como cited Prop 139, the state's pro-abortion constitutional amendment, as his reason for overturning the laws.
* A spokesperson for Senate President Warren Petersen said Republican lawmakers plan to appeal the ruling.
The Details:
In his Friday decision, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gregory Como struck down the following three laws:
* a restriction on the use of telemedicine for abortion pill distribution.
* a 24-hour waiting period requirement, which also mandated that a woman must undergo an ultrasound at least 24 hours before the procedure.
* a law protecting preborn children from discriminatory abortions due to gender, race, or fetal abnormalities.
The laws, which all went into effect prior to the 2024 constitutional amendment vote, were challenged last May by two abortion businesses that cited the pro-abortion constitutional amendment in their lawsuit.
In his ruling, Como said that the laws violated a woman's “fundamental right to abortion under Arizona law.”
“Each of these laws infringe on a woman’s ‘autonomous decision making’ by mandating medical procedures and disclosure of information regardless of the patient’s needs and wishes,” Como wrote in his ruling.
Arizona state House Speaker Steve Montenegro and Senate President Warren Petersen had argued that the laws should remain in place because they concern the health and safety of women, who may benefit from additional time to view an ultrasound and consider the life-changing decision they are about to make. A spokesperson for Petersen's office said Republican lawmakers plan to appeal the ruling.
Zoom In:
Proposition 139, the constitutional amendment passed by Arizona voters, forbids the state from enforcing any policy that interferes with abortion access prior to "viability" — an arbitrary guideline not defined in the amendment, but which traditionally falls around 24 weeks. This amendment's passage fueled the abortion industry to challenge and overturn many of the state's pro-life protections, including a law protecting preborn children from abortion after 15 weeks, in addition to the three laws overturned by Como.
Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes — who had refused to defend the laws on behalf of the state — praised Como's decision.
"This ruling affirms that Arizona women have a constitutional right to access the reproductive healthcare they need, without unnecessary government interference," Mayes said in a statement. "Doctors must be allowed to provide care based on their medical judgment, not on the beliefs of anti-abortion politicians."
The Bottom Line:
Arizona Right to Life previously told Live Action News the group would remain undeterred in fighting for preborn children in the state as it works with pro-life lawmakers to fight the ramifications of Prop 139's passage.
"Every month in Arizona, hundreds of children are being slaughtered in the womb, and Prop 139’s extreme abortion expansion has only accelerated that reality. Our legislative response is meant to restore basic protections and demand that human dignity, not political pressure, defines our laws," said Katarina White, AZ Right to Life Legislative Liaison.
"Our pro-life legislators have been more than willing to stand up in this moment, and their partnership is making it possible to push back against the new constitutional reality that treats abortion as a fundamental right."
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Make a couple o minor wording changes and re-enact them.
They just can’t admit they lost.
No, sadly this time the judge did not have a choice. If Arizona’s constitution truly made abortion a “right” without stating when and if any restrictions could be legislated those pro-life laws do go against the Arizona’s constitution.
That is why pro-aborts work so hard to put abortion “rights” into state constitutions because they knew it then becomes the superior law and any legislation on abortion shall not contradict it.
It stinks but that is why the judge was right in the ruling.
Make a couple of minor wording changes and re-enact them.”
Not going to happen. That thieving bitch Hobbs will veto it the minute it arrives.
The overturning of Roe V Wade meant abortion legislation was now a state matter.
Why can't I grasp this?
There is an (undefined) point of "viability", and there is a time period BEFORE viability and a time period AFTER viability.
The state constitution says that state is forbidden to enforce any policy BEFORE viability.
So can the state enforce a policy AFTER viability?
And what would that look like? You cannot have a state policy to kill an unborn child before it is viable, but you can have a state policy to kill a child after viability?
Am I totally misreading this?
So: the judge has ruled that the right to abortion under the Arizona constitution negates any requirement for informed consent.
Informed consent, of course, threatens the major Planned Parenthood money stream, as many young women see an ultrasound and see a baby, or learn about the support available to them if they carry their baby to term or choose adoption.
It’s more profitable for Planned Parenthood and other killing centers if their victims are kept in the dark.
My question:
Arizona voters approved an amendment enshrining a “right” to abortion in the state’s constitution in 2024. Can you show me the section of the Arizona Constitution containing the change?
Gemini said
In 2024 AD, Arizona voters approved Proposition 139 (the Arizona Abortion Access Act), which officially amended Article II of the Arizona Constitution by adding Section 8.1.
The text is as follows:
Article II, Section 8.1. Fundamental right to abortion; definitions
A. Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion, and the state shall not enact, adopt or enforce any law, regulation, policy or practice that does any of the following:
Denies, restricts or interferes with that right before fetal viability unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means.
Denies, restricts or interferes with an abortion after fetal viability that, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional, is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.
Penalizes any individual or entity for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the individual’s right to abortion as provided in this section.
B. For the purposes of this section:
“Compelling state interest” means a law, regulation, policy or practice that meets both of the following:
(a) Is enacted or adopted for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining the health of an individual seeking abortion care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine.
(b) Does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision making.
“Fetal viability” means the point in pregnancy when, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.
“State” means this state, any agency of this state or any political subdivision of this state.
Key Takeaways of the Change
Viability Standard: The amendment generally protects abortion access up until “fetal viability,” which is typically considered to be around 24 weeks of pregnancy, though it is defined here by the provider’s medical judgment.
Health Exceptions: After viability, abortions are permitted if a healthcare professional determines they are necessary to protect the life or the physical or mental health of the patient.
Legal Impact: This amendment effectively superseded the state’s previous 15-week ban and prevented the enforcement of a dormant 1864 territorial-era total ban.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gregory Como”
of course.
But dont mention Irish indentured servants thru-out the norths east coast, that's different.
The left loves its indentured illegal immigrants!
Voters in any State need to maintain their right to vote and carefully watch out for those “propositions”!
Voters in any State need to repeal any pro-abortion and pro-”death with dignity” “rights” and “laws”! Support Life—from conception until natural death!
If any woman does not want her baby, there are plenty of couples who yearn to adopt! Babies deserve to be born and to be loved!
So let me get this straight. This is the same election that was ripe with fraudulent voting shenanigans, but no way it could have affected Proposition 139? Right!
In November, 2024, Arizona voters approved (61.5% to 34.4%) Proposition 139, which added a so-called "fundamental right to abortion" to the Arizona state constitution.
Thus 61.5% of those Arizona voters can burn in hell for twice as long as eternity.
There are many remote desert locations that judges like this need to be removed to...
The rest of the rattlers, scorpions, and black widows will welcome them...
While I don’t agree with the judgement, he followed the basics of the Constitution. First, repeal of Roe v Wade gave the states power to regulate abortion. The people of the of Arizona have changed the State Constitution to make it so that you cannot impede the rights of women who want abortions prior to viability.
Arizona needs to repeal that Constitutional Amendment.
MISSION CREEP
The entire federal judicial system has lost it’s way and is running amok.
Throughout the nation judges with political bias have abandoned constitutional guidelines and assumed powers that are not within their constitutional puview.
Somehow they need to be slapped down and held accountable for their actions and the damage they are causing.
Sadly that’s not likely to happen with the Supreme Court as it’s presently constituted.
(If any woman does not want her baby, there are plenty of couples who yearn to adopt! Babies deserve to be born and to be loved!)
👍👍👍
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.