On February 6, an Arizona state court struck down several abortion restrictions, ruling that they violated an abortion rights amendment. This amendment, Proposition 139, Right to Abortion Initiative, was approved by voters in 2024. The case, Isaacson v. Arizona, was brought by a group of physicians, the Arizona Medical Association, and other medical organizations. They were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arizona, and the Center of Reproductive Rights.
The plaintiffs argued that several state laws violated the Arizona constitution and placed unnecessary burdens on patients seeking abortion care. The challenged laws included a mandatory 24-hour waiting period that required patients to make two separate trips to a clinic, a ban on telemedicine abortions, and a restriction prohibiting abortions sought because of a fetal genetic condition.
Judge Gregory Como ruled that these laws interfered with the constitutional protections voters enacted to guarantee access to abortion before fetal viability and in other protected circumstances. In 2024, Arizona voters passed Proposition 139, which amended the state constitution to protect the right to abortion. By adding this protection to the constitution, voters made clear that abortion decisions should be made by patients and their doctors, rather than by politicians.
Since the amendment is now part of the state’s highest law, any conflicting statutes can be challenged in court. Medical professionals testified that the waiting period and two-visit requirement often forced patients to take additional time off work, travel long distances, and arrange childcare. Supporting organizations emphasized that these restrictions did not improve patient safety. Instead, they created delays that could push abortions later into pregnancy.
The lawsuit was filed in May 2025, shortly after voters approved the proposition. It moved through the court system for more than a year before Judge Como issued his decision in February 2026. The court concluded that once abortion access was guaranteed in the constitution, the state could not continue enforcing regulations that burdened that right without strong medical justification.
Judge Como concluded that the restrictions lacked medical evidence and unlawfully interfered with patients’ personal freedoms. The court blocked the enforcement of the challenged laws, removing barriers that had delayed care and complicated access.
Doctors involved in the case expressed relief. One physician stated, “For the first time in a long time, my patients will not have to jump through hoops to get the care they need.” By striking down these restrictions, the court reduced obstacles that disproportionately affected working families and patients facing complex pregnancies.
The February 6 decision marks a significant moment for reproductive rights in Arizona. Rather than prioritizing political restrictions, the court upheld the will of the voters and the expertise of medical professionals, reshaping abortion access in the state.
