Key Points:

• Democrats who will control both chambers of Arizona’s Legislature are expected to abandon lawmakers’ previous efforts to defend abortion restrictions still on the books

• State voters enshrined a right to an abortion in the state’s constitution in 2024

• Some restrictions on abortions are still in place, including bans on telemedicine consultations and requirements for multiple doctors’ visits before getting a procedure

PHOENIX — When Democrats take control of the state House and Senate, the Legislature is expected to abandon its legal defense of abortion restrictions still on the books.

Voters enshrined a right to abortion in the state constitution in 2024 after the passage of Proposition 139. But several state laws regulating abortion care remain in effect.

Over the past two years, the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona and the Center for Reproductive Rights have sued to strike laws that govern who can provide abortions, when a patient can schedule appointments and what those visits require, whether providers can use telemedicine and why a woman may end a pregnancy.

Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, has declined to defend the remaining abortion laws in court.

In one lawsuit, she filed legal papers arguing that the challenged laws are unconstitutional. That left Republican legislative leaders House Speaker Steve Montenegro and Senate President Warren Petersen as the last and only line of defense in two legal challenges. But that all changes in January, when Democrats take the gavel in both chambers.

“We would certainly be taking an approach that is much more in line with the attorney general’s,” incoming Senate President Priya Sundareshan said.

Same for the House side.

“I can safely say the caucus won’t be following in Mr. Montenegro’s footsteps,” said Robbie Sherwood, communications director for House Democrats, about the pending lawsuits.

If no one defends the statutes, the challengers win by default, and the judges handling the cases must declare the challenged laws unenforceable.

After the passage of Proposition 139, reproductive rights groups vowed to weed out any laws conflicting with the new constitutional right to abortion.

Attorneys for the Center for Reproductive Rights and the ACLU of Arizona first sued in May 2025, asking the court to strike down three sets of laws.

The first bans abortions based on sex, race or genetic abnormalities. It imposes criminal and civil penalties against any provider who knowingly performs such an abortion or fails to report a patient who sought one for those reasons.

A second bans the use of telemedicine, prohibiting doctors from prescribing abortion drugs.

And the third requires patients to make not just two separate appointments, but they have to be at least 24 hours apart before an abortion.

Providers also are required to perform ultrasounds, run lab tests and dole out information both orally and in writing on the long-term medical risks, the gestational age and description of the fetus and alternatives to abortion, along with resources to assist with childcare or adoption.

When Mayes declined to defend the laws, Petersen and Montenegro’s attorneys intervened, arguing the laws protected women’s health and safety. They also argued the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to show any threat of enforcement under Mayes or Democrat Gov. Katie Hobbs.

After a bench trial, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Greg Como struck down every challenged law, finding they restricted, interfered or denied the fundamental right to abortion.

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

Caroline Sacerdote, senior attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, noted that the case is still alive because Montenegro and Petersen have appealed. In the interim, though, Como’s ruling has blocked enforcement of the laws.

“People across Arizona have been able to access the care they need without having to jump through so many extra hoops,” Sacerdote said. “Burdensome, medically unnecessary abortion restrictions have no place in Arizona, and we hope newly elected Arizona officials will protect the will of the voters.”

Oral arguments at the Court of Appeals are set for Dec. 17, when Republican legislative leaders will continue to defend the laws.

But the incoming Democratic leaders, who take over both the House and Senate in January, will have the final say on how the case ends.

The ACLU of Arizona also filed a second complaint in February on behalf of four nurses. The lawsuit challenges a law that allows only physicians to prescribe medication abortion, perform surgical abortion procedures and oversee surrounding care.

Attorneys for the challengers argue that nurses, physician assistants and certified midwives are qualified to provide the same medical care but are prohibited from doing so under state law, shrinking the pool of available abortion providers in the state.

Mayes also declined to defend that law, again leaving Petersen and Montenegro to litigate in her place.

The case is in early stages, with a settlement conference scheduled in March. And that, again, leaves Democrats to help shape the case’s outcome.

Richie Taylor, spokesman for Mayes, declined to get into details but expects a smoother path ahead as challengers seek to permanently void the challenged laws.

“Not having Republicans as intervenors should simplify things,” Taylor said.