Key Points:

• Reproductive rights advocates want abortion to be a “defining” issue in 2026 election

• Abortion could be central to the races for governor and attorney general

• Advocates are connecting abortion access to broader economic concerns

Arizona voters will stare down a dizzying array of issues on their ballots come November, but Gov. Katie Hobbs and reproductive rights advocates are pushing to make abortion one of the most important.

Voters amended the Arizona Constitution in 2024 through Proposition 139, a citizens initiative guaranteeing a right to abortion, shortly after Hobbs signed a repeal of a territorial-era statute banning abortion outright. But abortion rights groups say there is still much more at stake as Republican lawmakers attempt to legislate around the amendment and fight against it in court. 

On the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the governor joined local women’s health providers, college students and Reproductive Freedom for All advocates to make the case that abortion should remain a defining issue in 2026. 

“We know that Prop. 139 didn’t magically take down a lot of barriers or erase some of the challenges for accessing (abortion) care,” Hobbs said on June 24. 

One of those barriers is Arizona’s Republican-controlled Legislature, which advocates argue continues to ignore the will of voters who approved Prop. 139 in 2024. Since its passage, lawmakers have continued to introduce bills that nibble around the edges of the constitutional right to abortion access.

Hobbs has vetoed a handful of bills in the past four years related to abortion issues, including proposals instituting “fetal personhood,” requiring instruction on fetal development in public schools and regulating “partial-birth” abortions. She has also attempted to advance the repeal of a statute requiring providers to report data on abortion procedures to the state and to enhance protections for contraceptives, but those proposals were largely dead-on-arrival in the Legislature. 

Another barrier is the gubernatorial contest Hobbs is hoping to survive in November. The two congressmen vying for the Republican nomination to take on the governor have both been vocal in their opposition to abortion during their time in Washington, D.C. 

Congressmen Andy Biggs and David Schweikert have both described themselves as “pro-life” and have introduced or voted for federal legislation restricting access to abortion. In a survey conducted by the conservative Center for Arizona Policy, Schweikert indicated he would support a legislative ballot referral asking voters to repeal Prop. 139.

It appears that Biggs did not respond to the same survey. When asked by the Arizona Capitol Times if the congressman would support a Prop. 139 repeal effort, Biggs’ senior campaign adviser Drew Sexton did not directly address the question.

“Katie Hobbs is looking backwards to distract Arizonans from her status under criminal investigation for a pay-to-play scheme and her policies driving Arizona to 45th in affordability,” Sexton said in a statement.

Athena Salman, director of Arizona campaigns for Reproductive Freedom for All, told reporters on June 24 that Biggs’ lack of response to the CAP survey shows GOP politicians know their anti-abortion records are unpopular with voters.

“They are not being frontward facing and loud like they used to be before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade,” Salman said. “The reason that they’re doing this is because they know in elections, especially in battleground states where we are very purple, one of the top disqualifying issues for a candidate is whether or not they have extremist stances on abortion.” 

Reproductive Freedom for All announced plans to spend $23.5 million on a national campaign dubbed “My Body, My Ballot,” aimed at bolstering election bids for candidates like Hobbs and other Arizona Democrats who are supportive of abortion rights. 

Salman said voters should consider reproductive rights when voting in down-ballot races as well, in the hopes of flipping the Legislature and preventing anti-abortion candidates from flipping Democrat-held statewide seats. 

She specifically highlighted the attorney general’s race and called out Senate President Warren Petersen, a GOP candidate for the office, and House Speaker Steve Montenegro for “playing pretend AG” to defend abortion statutes rendered unconstitutional by Prop. 139.

“We took a significant step forward by getting the constitutional amendment, but as of earlier this year, they have wasted $800,00 in taxpayer money trying to defend these unconstitutional laws,” Salman said. 

After voters passed Prop. 139, two OB-GYN doctors and the Arizona Medical Association, represented by attorneys for the Center for Reproductive Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union, challenged a sweep of state laws. 

The challenged provisions mandated waiting periods and state-dictated information on risks and alternatives, banned telemedicine appointments and medication abortion prescriptions and prohibited physicians from performing an abortion if the patient sought to terminate the pregnancy based on genetic abnormalities. 

Petersen and Montenegro stepped in to defend the laws after Attorney General Kris Mayes pledged not to. But in a February ruling, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Greg Como struck down all three schemes, finding violations of the state’s constitutional right to an abortion across the board. 

“In sum, it is the Challenged Laws’ universal suppression of medical judgment and choice that renders them invalid in all circumstances,” Como wrote. 

The legislative leaders are now in pursuit of an appeal. In an opening brief filed June 18, Petersen and Montenegro argue that Prop. 139 was only meant to go as far as upholding abortion rights intact under Roe v. Wade. 

“(T)he Superior Court failed to give effect to the voters’ intent to return the regulation of abortion to the status quo that existed under the Roe/Casey framework,” Andrew Gould, attorney for the Legislature, wrote. “Instead, the Superior Court used (the constitutional abortion provision) to strike a wide range of health-and-safety regulations relating to abortion—provisions that were plainly valid before the abrogation of Roe.” 

The language of Proposition 139 provides every individual with the “fundamental right to abortion” and prohibits the state from enacting, adopting or enforcing any law, regulation, policy or practice that denies, restricts or interferes with that right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means. 

With the lawsuit ongoing — and Petersen angling to defeat Mayes and uphold the abortion statues — the stakes are high for reproductive rights advocates. 

Hobbs and Salman acknowledged that voters have a lot on their minds this year, especially as the nation wades further into a cost-of-living crisis. But they argued that abortion rights are connected to all of the most pressing issues at stake this year, including affordability.

“It’s not just about advancing policies that protect access to reproductive healthcare and making sure that people feel like they can start a family safely, but also that we have the economic policies that support those families,” Hobbs told reporters. “… it is directly tied to people feeling like they can start a family in a community that will thrive, and so that is all part, to me, of the same agenda.”