Two physicians, abortion-rights groups and Attorney General Kris Mayes agree the state’s 15-week abortion ban to be unconstitutional in light of the voter-approved initiative enshrining a right to abortion in the state’s Constitution.

With support from its sole defendant, the state, any opposition is absent from the lawsuit so far. But the current friendly disposition could change. 

Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, previously portended entering the legal fight, noting today’s suit was “not a surprise.” But she said Tuesday the organization had yet to decide whether to intervene in defense of the 15-week ban. 

“It remains to be determined,” Herrod said. “That will take further analysis and consideration.” 

Whether the Legislature will get involved remains to be seen, too. Kim Quintero, spokesperson for Senate Republicans, did not say whether Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, would intervene in the suit on behalf of the Senate. 

The lawsuit, brought on behalf of two physicians by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood, seeks to see the 15-week ban declared unconstitutional given Proposition 139, passed by voters by 61.6%, which added a right to abortion in the state’s Constitution. 

Mayes entered a stipulation agreeing not to enforce the 15-week ban until 30 days after the resolution of litigation, effectively rendering the law moot starting Tuesday.  

The complaint, filed Monday, cites new constitutional provisions, which hold “the State shall not enact, adopt or enforce any law, regulation, policy or practice that … denies, restricts or interferes with” the fundamental right to an abortion “before fetal viability unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means.” 

“Compelling state interest” is defined as “enacted or adopted for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining the health of an individual seeking abortion care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine” and requires it not infringe upon an “individual’s autonomous decision making.” 

Attorneys for the plaintiffs contended the ban “denies, restricts, and interferes” with pre-viability abortion after 15-weeks, fails to improve or maintain the health of an individual seeking abortion care and infringes on autonomous decision making, therefore making it unjustifiable by a compelling state interest. 

They further point to a provision barring any regulation penalizing an individual for assisting a pregnant individual in “exercising the individual’s right to abortion,” which would strike out the provisions in the 15-week ban imposing a class 6 felony, licensure and fines for physicians who violate the law. 

 “This is simple. This is a simple question. It’s hard to say something is a simple lawsuit, but I think it’s very clear to the average person, even to the non-lawyer. We passed an initiative that provides a fundamental right to abortion, and this law directly conflicts with that,” Lauren Beall, attorney for ACLU Arizona, said. “There’s not really any room for misunderstanding.”

Though the first challenge is to the 15-week ban, Beall said there are “many” laws to be challenged, through litigation or legislative repeal, down the road.

“We live in a state where legislators have tried to block abortion access for decades. While Roe v Wade was good law, we had members of the Arizona Legislature that tried to winnow down the right to an abortion as much as possible.” She continued, “We don’t expect those people to disappear … We’re prepared to meet those detractors in whatever way they show up.”