Pro-Choice, Pro-Rights Groups Succeed in Challenge to Arizona Law

The Associated Press is reporting that a state judge has blocked implementation of key parts of a new Arizona law restricting abortion.  See our story on this earlier this month, and one from last week.

According to AP:

Donald Daughton of Maricopa County Superior Court late Tuesday issued a
preliminary injunction granting most of a request by Planned
Parenthood, the state’s largest abortion provider.

A federal judge later refused to issue a preliminary injunction requested in a related but narrower challenge.

AP stated that:

order allows a 24-hour waiting period to take effect, but blocks parts
requiring that a woman see a doctor in person for advance disclosures
before getting an abortion.

Other blocked provisions include a
requirement that parental consents for a minor’s abortion be notarized
and a ban on nurse practitioners performing abortions.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

Follow Jodi Jacobson on twitter: @jljacobson

  • frolicnaked

    I don’t want to sound ungrateful to the courts or anything — or to RHRC for covering this story — but that 24 hour waiting period is a pretty huge deal in a state this size. For a fair number of residents, obtaining an abortion *already* means traveling 3-4 (or more) hours to the closest facility and planning to take a full day off work in the process. Adding another day onto that would mean things like an *additional* day off work (assuming they have work and get paid sick or personal time) and paying for overnight lodging away from home.

  • jodi-jacobson

    we don’t dispute that.


    In this case we were merely reporting the AP news, not analyzing the outcome, which we will do in a separate piece….unless…you would like to write one, which I would welcome.


    Please let me know.


    Best and thanks….Jodi

  • faultroy

    The comment titled AZ Resident says it all. Here we are dealing with something as serious as Abortion, and the poster is concerned that a 24 hour waiting period and perhaps driving 3-4 hours and perhaps loosing a days pay may be "inconvenient." There isn’t one rational person on either sides of the abortion debate–including the very few doctors that perform these operations–that would not be apalled at this cavalier attitude taken by pro choice advocates. I’m not criticizing this poster personally, because this attitude is so prevalent among all pro choice advocates. Abortion is not like getting your toe nails trimmed or your hair done. There are always potential problems both physical and psychological. Until we start taking this issue more seriously, we are going to have anti abortionists continue to do everything in their power to make it more and more difficult to obtain one. There is even growing concern that doctors are becoming more and more reluctant to perform abortions for ethical reasons–note I said "ethical" not "religious." When they see this kind of attitude regarding abortions, there will be even less. Most Physicians take it personally when a patient in their care dies. Of course they are resigned to the possibility but that does not mean they have no feelings about it. Imagine terminating a life when they have spent many years and much expense for doing the exact opposite. Perhaps a little more understanding and compassion may be in order for both sides.

  • frolicnaked

    To clarify, I’m not concerned that a 24 hour waiting period will be merely "inconvenient" (and in fact did not use that term in my comment). I’m concerned that the additional restrictions will pose a prohibitive barrier to some women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.


    Without these restrictions, obtaining an abortion already generally requires a waiting period for an appointment (as do pretty much all medical and health care visits) and an expense of hundreds of dollars. For women who live far from an abortion provider, it already requires advance planning to request time off from work and arrange for things such as transportation, lodging, and perhaps childcare. That’s hardly approaching the issue with a "cavalier" attitude. 


    To add more waiting time and monetary expenses means that eventually, people will get to a "breaking point" where they just can’t obtain the medical services that they need. 


    And I’m glad you have sufficient finances where driving 3-4 hours (this assumes you have your own reliable transportation, yes?) or losing one day’s pay is only "inconvenient," but for some people living paycheck to paycheck, it can be a much bigger deal. Not only may it mean struggling to pay for rent, food, or utilities, but people with few worker protections — or who are unaware of the protections they should have — do get fired for missing work, even for medical reasons.


    To trivialize these concerns and to write them off as cavalier or irrational shows a lack of understanding for the people and the circumstances present here.