Photo via Getty Images
Republicans in the Arizona Legislature want to put increased restrictions on medication abortions, in direct contradiction to a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to abortion that voters approved in November.
Sen. Mark Finchem, R-Prescott, claimed during a Wednesday Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee meeting that there was no way to know exactly why voters favored the Arizona Abortion Access Act.
More than 61% of those who voted in the Grand Canyon State’s 2024 general election chose to enshrine the right to abortion into the state constitution.
But that hasn’t stopped Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives and the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee from voting for House Bill 2681, which would impose a long list of new restrictions and requirements on those seeking medication-induced abortions.
Finchem and Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Prescott, both argued that HB2681 would protect unborn children who cannot protect themselves. Pro-choice advocates described it as a backhanded way to place additional hurdles in the way of abortion access, defying the will of the voters, and making the most widely used way to carry out an abortion more difficult.
“I do hope you respect the will of the voters,” said Jodi Liggett, a lobbyist for Reproductive Freedom for All. “They’ve spoken loudly, and they don’t want politicians involved in their access to care.”
In response, Finchem told Liggett that voters only indicated whether they were for or against the Arizona Abortion Access Act, and that no data existed to explain why, adding that it “disturbs” him to hear Liggett make “missassertions” about voters’ motivations.
Liggett answered that the abortion rights campaign did extensive polling before gathering signatures to put Prop. 139 on the ballot, and those polls indicated that voters don’t want politicians making medical decisions for them.
The Arizona Abortion Access Act, as the constitutional amendment was officially known, prohibits any law, regulation or policy that would deny, restrict or interfere with the fundamental right to abortion before fetal viability (generally around 24 weeks) unless it is for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining the health of a person seeking an abortion, consistent with clinical practice standards and evidence-based medicine.
It also prohibits any law or regulation that would interfere with access to abortion after fetal viability if the patient’s health care provider believes it is necessary to protect the patient’s life, physical or mental health.
Additionally, Prop. 139 bars any law that penalizes a person for aiding or assisting someone in exercising their right to an abortion.
House Bill 2681, sponsored by Republican Rep. Rachel Keshel, a member of the far-right Arizona Freedom Caucus, would place numerous restrictions on abortions prior to fetal viability.
Keshel’s bill would require a doctor who prescribes medication to induce abortion to examine the patient in person, test the patient’s blood and inform them of the “possible physical and psychological aftereffects and side effects” of taking the medication.
The physician would also be compelled to inform the patient that they “may see the remains of the unborn child in the process of completing the abortion.”
The proposed legislation would also force the doctor to schedule a follow-up visit with the patient, to make “all reasonable” efforts to ensure the patient attends that appointment and include a record of those attempts in the patient’s chart.
A medical provider who violates HB2681 could be held civilly liable by the patient who obtained the abortion — their parents if they’re a minor — or by the person who impregnated them.
Any of them could file a lawsuit against the physician to recover monetary damages for psychological, emotional and physical injuries, statutory damages up to $5,000 and attorney fees.
Marilyn Rodriguez, a lobbyist for Planned Parent Advocates of Arizona, called HB2681 “fear mongering based on junk science.” She accused Republican lawmakers on Wednesday of trying to make the process “as difficult and scary as possible to put abortion out of reach for as many Arizonans as possible.”
As abortion restrictions have been for decades, Keshel’s bill is couched in language about patient safety. It ignores that the drugs widely used to induce abortion in early pregnancy, mifepristone and misoprostol, are considered safe for use up to 10 weeks of gestation, according to the FDA.
Elizabeth Lee, a reproductive medicine expert who spoke on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All, said that the measure would make it more difficult for women in rural areas to get abortions since in-person visits to a physician could be out of reach for them. Currently, doctors can prescribe medication for abortion through a telehealth visit.
If doctors’ offices are too far away, or appointments aren’t available, rural women could be pushed past 11 weeks of gestation and have to undergo a more invasive surgical abortion that comes with an increased risk of complications.
Lee added that the blood testing requirement in the proposed legislation, for RH incompatibility, was completely unnecessary. RH incompatibility is a potentially dangerous condition that happens when a mother’s immune system attacks the red blood cells of her fetus, but Lee said that patients typically aren’t treated for it until 20 weeks of gestation.
Before voting to forward House Bill 2681 on to the full Senate, Rogers said that the legislature should “protect those that cannot protect themselves” adding that everyone will have to answer to God for their decisions.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.