Key Points: 

• House panel approves measures critics say restrict reproductive rights in Arizona

• Measures include expanding felony murder laws to include “unborn child”

• Opponents argue the bills could have a chilling effect on legal medical care

A House panel on Jan. 21 approved three measures that foes say appear to be back-door efforts to restrict reproductive rights in Arizona despite voter approval of a constitutional amendment protecting the procedure.

In separate votes, the Judiciary Committee voted to:

• Expand laws on causing death during a felony to include an “unborn child”;
• Extend the requirements for child support to “preborn children”;
• Impose new reporting requirements on those who witness “partial-birth abortions,” a procedure that already is illegal under both state and federal law.

All three were approved by the Republican-controlled committee on party-line votes.

Proponents of each measure argued that Arizona law needs to be updated.

The first bill, House Bill 2043, deals with an existing “felony murder” law that says if someone is killed during the commission of certain felonies, the person convicted of that crime has to be sentenced either to death or to life behind bars.

Rep. Selina Bliss, R-Prescott, said current homicide laws already include unborn children as possible victims. The lawmaker said this is designed to close a loophole.

She cited an incident in Pinal County where a woman who was six months pregnant was killed by someone who was fleeing from police in a human trafficking case. Bliss said that prosecutors were unable to charge that person with a separate count of felony murder because of the death of the fetus.

Jodi Liggett, lobbyist for the Arizona chapter of Reproductive Freedom for All, acknowledged nothing in HB 2043 would allow prosecutions for abortions performed with the consent of the woman or deaths that occur during medical treatment. And it also says charges cannot be brought against the mother of an unborn child.

But Liggett said there’s a larger problem: the words used in the legislation.

“The language of the bill essentially places a fetus on an equal criminal justice footing with a born person,” she told lawmakers. Liggett said “personhood laws” can and have been used to ban contraception, fertility care, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research and other pregnancy management care.

Pamela Hicks, a lawyer with Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, questioned the need for the bill. She said the existing felony murder law already says if a victim is younger than 15, there is a mandatory 35-year sentence.

“So ‘unborn child’ is a victim,” Hicks said.

But Christy Kelly, speaking on behalf of Pinal County Attorney Brad Miller, said the fact that the law does not specifically include the death of an unborn child is a “profound gap” in the current statute.

“We must amend to recognize the right to life from the moment of conception and extend unbreakable protection to our most vulnerable victims, the unborn,” she said. And Kelly said that is an acknowledgment that “Science and faith alike affirm” that definition.

“From that instant, a unique human being exists with their own DNA, heartbeat emerging,” she told lawmakers.

But Rep. Alma Hernandez said all that ignores what is in Proposition 139, approved at the ballot in 2024, which provides a constitutional right to abortion prior to fetal viability.

“I believe that the voters were very clear in Arizona that we were protecting women’s rights,” said the Tucson Democrat. Hernandez also said that, as worded, it is overly broad.

Consider, she said, a situation where it is the pregnant woman who, while committing some crime, suffers a miscarriage.

“I don’t believe that she should spend the rest of her life in prison for that,” Hernandez said.

There were similar arguments about HB 2144.

Current law says that when a judge awards child support payments, they are backdated to the date a lawsuit over divorce, maintenance or child support is filed.

The proposal by Rep. Justin Olson would require going back even farther, to the date of a positive pregnancy test confirmed by a licensed health care provider. And it would cover the direct medical and pregnancy-related expenses of the mother “if the child is a preborn child.”

“This is an important bill to recognize the fact that if there’s going to be child support proceedings that the mother should be entitled to the child support for a child that she’s carrying, just like she would for any other child that she has with the ex-spouse,” said the Mesa Republican. Olson said there are similar laws in other states.

Here, too, Liggett had objections over the wording.

“We are concerned about the consequences of fetal personhood,” she said. “Defining ‘preborn child’ and attaching enforceable child support obligations moves Arizona further to conferring person-like status to embryos and fetuses.”

But Daryl Groves, testifying on his own behalf, said the legislation has merit.

“Fathers should share responsibility for prenatal care,” he told lawmakers.

“This is about male responsibility,” Groves said. “If a man helps create a child, he should support that little girl or little boy.”

Rep. Lupe Diaz said he supports the proposal.

“I’m pro life, and so is God,” said the Benson Republican. “Just because people say that something is right doesn’t mean it’s morally permissible, especially in the eyes of God.”

But Rep. Brian Garcia said the legislation relies on “dangerous fetal personhood ideology.”

“There are ways that the state can ensure that pregnant people have the financial support that they need for a healthy pregnancy,” said the Tempe Democrat. “Child support is not the proper mechanism to address this issue.”

HB 2074 takes on what has been referred to as “partial-birth abortion,” defined as when a fetus is partially outside the body and it is “deliberately and intentionally” killed. It already is a felony.

The legislation would impose similar penalties on anyone who has direct knowledge of such an event and fails to immediately report it to the county attorney.

Marcus Tork, a member of Arizona Right to Life, acknowledged that the procedure itself already is illegal. But he said there’s still a need for a law to require people to report what they know.

For example, Tork said, child abuse also is illegal. But he reminded legislators that there also are laws that mandate certain people who are aware of it, like teachers and doctors, to report that crime to law enforcement.

But Liggett said all the legislation would do is have a “chilling effect” on the ability of doctors to provide care that otherwise is legal.

All three measures now need approval of the full House before they can go to the Senate. But their future beyond that is doubtful.

Just days after the committee vote, Reproductive Freedom for All — the group whose lobbyist testified against all three bills — endorsed Gov. Katie Hobbs in her bid for reelection.

“No governor in Arizona history has done more to defend reproductive freedom than Gov. Hobbs,” Athena Salman, the organization’s Arizona director, said in a prepared statement.

And the governor herself, in comments at the campaign event to announce the endorsement, said her reelection is important to ensure there is a “backstop when those extreme legislators pass legislation to restrict abortion care and access.”