Republican Lawmakers Unleash Bills Targeting Voter-Approved Abortion Rights

Republican lawmakers in Arizona are pushing forward measures that challenge the rights established by the recent constitutional amendment, which secures a woman’s fundamental right to terminate a pregnancy. One bill, soon to be heard by the House, aims to strip state funding from health clinics that even mention abortion as a legal option to patients.

On February 19, the House Judiciary Committee approved legislation that imposes stringent requirements on the use of abortion-inducing medications. The stipulations include mandates for physicians to perform initial examinations, administer blood tests, and schedule follow-up visits.

Rep. Rachel Keshel, who sponsored HB2681, did not testify at the hearing or respond to requests for comment. Instead, the committee heard from advocates like Maura Rodriguez from Arizona Right to Life, who claimed to have firsthand accounts of women receiving inadequate guidance from Planned Parenthood.

Keshel has openly stated her intention to overturn Proposition 139, arguing that the initiative’s approval in November by a substantial majority was a mistake influenced by misleading information. She is already drafting a measure to ask voters to partially repeal the amendment in 2026.

The newly proposed restrictions manifest a direct contradiction to Proposition 139’s clear language, which prohibits such legislative measures. Currently, Arizona law dictates that only licensed physicians can administer abortion-inducing drugs, alongside existing informed consent and reporting requirements.

However, HB2681 would impose even more documentation requirements, including confirming pregnancy, determining blood type, and informing patients of potential side effects from the medication—a move Jody Liggett, a lobbyist for Reproductive Freedom for All, argues is unconstitutional.

“Voters enshrined the right to abortion in November,” Liggett emphasized, insisting that the state cannot interfere with this right unless there is a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.

Rep. Quang Nguyen, committee chair, expressed skepticism regarding Liggett’s views, citing testimonies of women who reported complications following the use of abortion pills. Nevertheless, Liggett countered that with proper protocols, the medications have consistently proven safe.

Legislators are also considering a bill aimed at denying state funds to any individual or institution that “promotes” abortion, a term that remains vaguely defined. Liggett warned that this could jeopardize funding for clinics offering a range of reproductive health services, potentially affecting women’s access to essential care.

Dr. Julie Kwatra added that such legislation could hinder doctors’ ability to receive reimbursements from Medicaid simply for discussing abortion options. On the other hand, Rep. Lupe Diaz, another supporter of the proposed restrictions, argued that the passage of Proposition 139 proves there is no need for state funding for abortion-related services, claiming that the abortion industry already possesses ample financial backing.

Campaign finance disclosures reveal that supporters of Proposition 139 invested over $33 million in the initiative. Diaz alleged that substantial out-of-state contributions fueled this financial backing, a claim that lacks substantiation.

Despite entreaties from Planned Parenthood advocates highlighting the support for abortion rights in each legislative district, Republican legislators continue to champion measures that many perceive as an erosion of this newly established constitutional right.

Maricopa County Superior Court has yet to rule on a challenge to Arizona’s 15-week abortion limit, while existing laws prohibiting telemedicine for abortion and imposing waiting periods are also under scrutiny in light of Proposition 139’s approval.