Arizona Upholds Restrictions

Back in 2009, Arizona passed a bunch of new restrictions in regards to abortion care and access. The Democrats in the (state) House were outnumbered, so they walked out in protest when it came time to vote on HB 2564. Well, the legislation went to court and Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Donald Daughton granted an injunction two years ago agreeing that the legislation could cause irreparable harm to women.

Yesterday the AZ Court of Appeals ruled against Judge Daughton's ruling. The court said that simply because it (the law) places a burden on some women, that is not enough to warrant the injunction. Sorry poor women or rural-living women or women who cannot afford so much time off from work! You don't count.

The judges said prohibiting anyone but a licensed physician from surgically terminating a pregnancy does not impose undue restrictions on a woman's constitutional right to choose.

Judge Peter Swann, writing for the unanimous court, said the facts that nurse practitioners are specifically trained to do the procedure, are available in rural areas where Planned Parenthood does not have doctors, and have a comparable safety record are legally irrelevant.

The court also upheld laws requiring a woman to meet personally with the surgeon 24 hours before an abortion and for parental-consent forms for minors to be notarized, and allowing medical personnel, including pharmacists, to opt out of any participation in an abortion.

[...]

In his original ruling, Daughton upheld a requirement women wait 24 hours after meeting with their doctor to have the procedure, but said a personal meeting is not necessary. A consultation by telephone is sufficient, he ruled.

The appeals court disagreed.

"Courts have long recognized that eye-to-eye, face-to-face interaction is superior to videoconferencing," Swann wrote. He acknowledged the in-person consultation requirement could increase the cost, but said, "It does not practically deny a large portion of affected women their right to choose an abortion." He added Planned Parenthood provided no evidence it could not find enough doctors to meet the need.

Howard disagreed, saying there was testimony about the shortage of doctors trained to perform abortions. He also pointed out that state lawmakers just this year made it illegal for the University of Arizona College of Medicine to train doctors how to terminate pregnancies.

The ruling also stated that any medical professional definitely has the right of refusal to perform anything that they think may be an abortion or related to one--including dispensing contraception.

The injunction is, however, still in effect while Planned Parenthood decides to appeal and the state Supreme Court decides on whether it will review the case.