An Arizona judge struck down three pro-life state laws on Friday, citing an amendment that was enshrined into the state constitution in 2024 creating a right to kill unborn babies in abortions.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gregory Como issued a ruling saying the laws restricting abortion did not improve patient health, infringed on decision-making, and violated the state constitution’s promise of a “fundamental right to abortion under Arizona law,” Reuters reported.
Como struck down laws that banned the use of telemedicine for abortion drugs, required patients to state their reason for seeking an abortion, prevented eugenic abortions based on “genetic abnormality,” required abortion-minded patients to have an ultrasound to see their child at least 24 hours before the procedure, and required a one-day waiting period and two doctor visits before an abortion.
All of the challenged laws were passed before Arizona voters overwhelmingly passed the constitutional amendment allowing unborn babies to be slaughtered in the womb throughout pregnancy.
The lawsuit was filed by two pro-abortion OB-GYNs and the Arizona Medical Association. Republican state legislators intervened in the lawsuit in favor of pro-life protections. A spokesperson for Arizona Senate Republicans said they plan to appeal the ruling, according to the report.
Before Arizona voters turned their state into an abortion haven, the state had a 15-week abortion restriction. The abortion measure, called Proposition 139, passed 61 percent to 38 percent.
READ MORE: Abortion Measures Pass in Seven States, Fail in Three
The measure was put forward by Arizona for Abortion Access — a coalition of groups including ACLU of Arizona, Affirm Sexual and Reproductive Health, Arizona List, Healthcare Rising Arizona, NARAL Arizona, and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona.
The amendment declares that “every individual has a fundamental right to abortion” and bars the state from doing anything that:
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 that individual’s right to abortion as provided in this section.
Ballot measures are particularly effective as an offensive weapon for pro-abortion activists because they are basically irreversible — they change a state constitution, take precedence over laws passed by state legislatures, and can only be overturned by another ballot measure or lengthy legal battles. Campaigns in favor of abortion measures are typically propped up by left-wing organizations and affiliates with deep pockets (such as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU), out-of-state dark money groups, and billionaires with eugenicist leanings, who oftentimes outspend pro-life organizations by double or triple.
Several states are expected to have abortion-related measures on the ballot during the 2026 midterms.
Katherine Hamilton is a political reporter for Breitbart News. You can follow her on X @thekat_hamilton
Read the full article here