Take Action
State Laws

Arizona


Political Information

Executive (Governor)

Anti-choice

Senate

Anti-choice

House

Anti-choice

Abortion-Care Policies

Abortion Providers

Abortion Providers: Restrictions

Arizona imposes extra restrictions on abortion providers, despite the fact that all health-care providers already must comply with a variety of federal and state regulations governing health, safety, building and fire codes, and zoning requirements.

Restrictions on Where Abortion Services May Be Provided

Arizona places medically unnecessary restrictions on where abortion services may be provided.

Any provider, other than a hospital, who provides five or more first-trimester abortions in any month, or any procedures beyond the first trimester, must be licensed as an "abortion clinic."  Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36-449.01(2) (Enacted 1999); Ariz. Admin. Code R9-10-1501(2).

An "abortion clinic" in the state must comply with a uniquely imposed licensure scheme that includes dozens of physical-plant, recordkeeping, personnel, and patient-care requirements.  Ariz. Admin. Code R9-10-1503 to -1508, -1511, -1512.  Additionally, every abortion clinic must maintain ultrasound equipment and perform an ultrasound evaluation for any woman who chooses abortion, regardless of whether there is medical necessity. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 36-449.03, -2301.02 (Enacted 1999; Last Amended 2012).

Violators are subject to imprisonment for up to 30 days for each offense, and each day of each violation is considered a separate offense. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36-431 (Enacted 1971; Last Amended 1989), 13-707 (Enacted 1977; Last Amended 1987).  Civil penalties of up to $500 per violation per day also apply.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36-431.01 (Enacted 1978; Last Amended 2001).

Although a district court initially upheld a number of these regulations, an appellate court later reversed this decision and remanded the case back to the district court to determine whether the regulations as a whole constitute an "undue burden" on a woman’s right to choose.  Tucson Women’s Clinic v. Eden, No. CV 00-141-TUC-RCC, 2002 WL 32595282, (D. Ariz. Oct. 1, 2002), pet. for reh’g denied, pet. for reh’g en banc denied, rev’d in part, aff’d in part, and remanded, 379 F.3d 531 (9th Cir. 2004).  The appellate court also affirmed the district court’s decision to strike down (1) a regulation giving Department of Health Services unbounded access to unredacted patient records (2) a regulation permitting the Department of Health Services to conduct unannounced, warrantless searches of abortion providers, and (3) a regulation requiring abortion providers to submit copies of fetal ultrasound prints to a private contractor and the Department of Health Services.  Upon remand to the district court, the parties stipulated a settlement, agreeing to eliminate some of the more onerous and medically unnecessary requirements and adding a regulation that provided the Department of Health Services only strictly regulated access to patient records.  Stipulation of Settlement, Tucson Women’s Clinic v. Eden, 2002 WL 32595282, (D. Ariz. Oct. 1, 2002) (No. CV 00-141-TUC-RCC) http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Register/2009/45/supplemt.pdf

Arizona allows unannounced inspections of abortion clinics-at the discretion of the state’s board of health.  NARAL does not automatically oppose provider inspections – even those that are unannounced. But, given Arizona’s hostile political climate, there is credible reason to suspect that this law may be misused to serve a political, not public health, agenda.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36-449.02(D) (Enacted 2014).

Arizona also requires that upon initial licensure and subsequent license renewal, an abortion facility verify that each provider has admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility, as required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§  36-449.03(C)(3). Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36-449.02(A) (Enacted 2015)  

Restrictions on Who May Provide Abortion Services

Arizona law makes it illegal for an individual who is not a physician to provide an abortion.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2153(E) (Enacted 2009, Amended 2012).  In August 2011, a state appellate court lifted an injunction that had been issued and reaffirmed by a state superior court blocking this provision.  Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, CV 09-0748 & CV 10-0274 (Consolidated) (Ariz. Ct. of Appeals, Aug. 11, 2011) (order);  Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Goddard, CV 2009-029110 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Apr. 27, 2010) (order extending injunction).  Furthermore, a separate law prohibits a physician’s assistant from providing abortion.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-2531; 32-2532(A)(4).

Additionally, an individual who is not a physician is not permitted to provide a surgical abortion. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 32-2501(11) (Enacted 1984; Last Amended 2004); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 32-2531 (A)(12) (Enacted 1984; Last Amended 2000).  However, in 2008 the state board of nursing decided the provision of early surgical abortion is within the scope of practice of specially trained nurses.  Arizona Board of Nursing, Minutes of Meeting of the Scope of Practice Committee, May 20, 2008, V(E).  available at http://www.azbn.gov/documents/meetings/SOP%20Committee/2008/Minutes/SOP%20Minutes%20May%2020%202008.pdf

Arizona law dictates that the state board of nursing does not have the authority to decide the scope of practice for either surgical- or medication-abortion services. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1606(B)(12).  In light of the ruling in Planned Parenthood of Arizona v. American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, parties in a state superior court case, Planned Parenthood of Arizona v. Goddard (2010) allowed this law to go into effect after initially agreeing to delay its enforcement.  Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Goddard, CV 2010-030230 (Ariz. Super. Ct. July 6, 2011) (stipulation staying enforcement until hearing).

Unenforceable provisions of Arizona’s regulations redrafted in 2009 by the state Department of Health Services as part of a stipulated settlement in Tucson v. Eden prohibit anyone other than a doctor from providing various medical procedures before or after an abortion. Ariz. Admin. Code R9-10-1508.

Parties in a case challenging these restrictions agreed to delay their enforcement while the case is underway.  Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Goddard, CV 2010-030230 (Ariz. Super. Ct. July 6, 2011) (stipulation staying enforcement until hearing).  Previously, a state superior court judge rejected a request to block enforcement of this regulatory scheme, ruling that the plaintiffs waited too long to file the claim Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Goddard, CV 2009-029110 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Oct. 27, 2010) (order denying plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint).

Arizona law also requires a physician providing surgical-abortion care to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic, and requires a physician providing medication-abortion care to have admitting privileges at a hospital within the state.  Nothing in the law requires that hospitals grant these privileges. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§  36-449.03(C)(3) (Enacted 1999; Last Amended 2012)


Abortion Rights

Protections: State Consitutional Protection

The Arizona Constitution protects reproductive rights to a greater extent than the U.S. Constitution.  The Arizona Supreme Court held that a statute limiting state medical assistance for abortion to cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest is unconstitutional under the "equal privileges and immunities" clause (Art. 2 §  13) of the Arizona Constitution because it prohibited reimbursement for medically necessary abortion services.  Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys., 56 P.3d 28 (Ariz. 2002).  A similar restriction has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court under the U.S. Constitution. Williams v. Zbaraz, 448 U.S. 358 (1980).


Post-Viability Ban

Arizona’s post-viability restriction states that no abortion may be provided after viability unless necessary to preserve the woman’s life or health.  The physician must use the available method most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus unless it poses a greater risk to the woman’s life or health than another available method.  The physician must take all reasonable steps to preserve the life and health of the fetus unless these steps pose an increased risk to the woman’s life or health.  A second physician must attend.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36-2301.01 (Enacted 1984; Last Renumbered 2000).

NARAL Pro-Choice America supports the legal framework established in Roe v. Wade and does not oppose restrictions on post-viability abortion, such as Arizona’s, that contain adequate exceptions to protect the woman’s life and health.


Near-Total Abortion Ban

Arizona has not repealed its pre-Roe abortion ban, which is unconstitutional and unenforceable.

The ban provides that any person who supplies to a woman any substance or employs other means with the intent to induce an abortion, unless necessary to preserve the woman’s life, will be imprisoned for two to five years.  A woman who submits to the use of any means with the intent to cause an abortion, unless necessary to preserve her life, will be imprisoned for one to five years.  Any person who advertises abortion services is guilty of a misdemeanor.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-3603 (Enacted 1901; Last Renumbered 1977), 13-3604 (Enacted 1901; Last Renumbered 1977), 13-3605 (Enacted 1901; Last Renumbered 1977).

Courts have held that these provisions are unconstitutional.  Nelson v. Planned Parenthood Ctr. of Tucson, Inc., 505 P.2d 580 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973), review denied, No. 11160-PR (Ariz. Mar. 21, 1973); State v. New Times, Inc., 511 P.2d 196 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973).


Abortion Bans Throughout Pregnancy: Ban by Week

Arizona outlaws abortion after 20 weeks* without an adequate exception to protect women’s health or for cases in which the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.  

Arizona’s law makes abortion after 20 weeks a criminal act, unless necessary to prevent a substantial permanent impairment of the life or physical health of the woman.  Physicians in violation of the law would be subject to up to six months imprisonment and medical license suspension or revocation.  In addition, the law allows the woman, the woman’s husband, or her parents to bring a civil suit against the physician.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §36-2159 (Enacted 2012).

*The Arizona law measures gestation based on a woman’s last menstrual period (LMP), in contrast to most states that measure post-fertilization.  Using the LMP standard usually adds two weeks to the gestational age; as a result, this law likely bans abortion at 18 weeks.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the 20-week ban unconstitutional in 2013, permanently blocking its enforcement, after initially entering in an emergency injunction aganist the law. Paul A. Isaacson, M.D. et al. v. Tom Horne, Attorney General of Arizona, et al. 716 F.3d 1213 (2013).


Abortion Bans Throughout Pregnancy: Procedure Ban

Arizona outlaws a safe second-trimester abortion procedure with no exception to protect a woman’s health.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-3603.01 (Enacted 2009).

The Arizona law makes the provision of certain previability, second-trimester abortion procedures a felony and imposes a criminal penalty of imprisonment for up to two years and/or fines including statutory damages of three times the cost of the abortion unless the procedure is necessary to save the life of the woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-3603.01 (Enacted 2009).

In 1997, a court held that an earlier version of Arizona’s ban was unconstitutional because it was "void for vagueness," was an undue burden on a woman’s right to choose, and had no exception to preserve the woman’s health.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13-3603.01 (Enacted 1997).  The court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting its enforcement.  Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz., Inc. v. Woods, 982 F. Supp. 1369 (D. Ariz. 1997).  In 2009, the Arizona legislature enacted an amended, enforceable version of the ban.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-3603.01(Enacted 2009).

There is also a Federal Abortion Ban, which applies nationwide regardless of state law.  The federal ban prohibits certain second-trimester abortion procedures and has no exception for a woman’s health.  In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban, making it the first time since Roe v. Wade that the court has upheld a ban on a previability abortion procedure.  


Reasons-Based Ban: Race- and/or Sex Selection

Arizona bans abortion if sought for reasons of the race or the sex of the pregnancy, or the race of a parent. A physician who provides such an abortion is subject to a felony conviction carrying up to 3.5 years in prison. Any health-care provider who does not report such an abortion can be subject to a fine of up to $10,000. The law also includes a right of action for the man or the woman’s parents if she is a minor—allowing them to sue the physician.

A provider must complete an affidavit stating that the woman is not seeking an abortion because of the race or sex of the pregnancy, and has no knowledge of the woman’s intention to do so. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-3603.02, 36-2157.

Such a law requires physicians and other health-care providers to scrutinize a woman’s intentions for seeking abortion care, likely leading to profiling of patients of certain racial and ethnic backgrounds based on bias. As such, the NAACP and the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona requesting an injunction against the law. A district court and an appellate court both rejected the request. NAACP v. Horne, 2015 WL 8736288 (9th Cir. 2015).  


Biased Counseling

Biased Counseling

Arizona has a law requiring that a woman may not obtain an abortion until at least 24 hours after the attending physician or the referring physician tells her, orally and in person:  (1) the name of the physician who will provide the abortion; (2) the nature of the proposed procedure; (3) the immediate and long-term medical risks of the procedure; (4) the alternatives to the procedure; (5) the probable gestational age of the fetus; (6) the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the fetus; and (7) the medical risks of carrying the pregnancy to term.

In addition, at least 24 hours prior to the abortion, the attending physician, a referring physician, another qualified physician, a physician’s assistant, a nurse, a psychologist, or a licensed behavioral health professional must deliver to the woman, orally and in person, a state-mandated lecture that includes the following statements: (1) that medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care; (2) that the "father" is liable for child support even if he has offered to pay for the abortion; (3) that public and private agencies and services are available to assist the woman during her pregnancy and after the birth of her child if she chooses not to have an abortion; (4) that she can withhold or withdraw her consent to the abortion at any time without affecting her right to future care or treatment and without the loss of any public benefits; (5) the department of health services maintains a website that describes the unborn child and lists the agencies that offer alternatives to abortion; and (6) the woman has a right to review the website and that a printed copy of the materials on the website will be provided to her free of charge if she chooses to review these materials. (7) If a woman has taken mifepristone as part of a two-drug regimen to terminate her pregnancy, has not yet taken the second drug and consults an abortion clinic questioning her decision to terminate her pregnancy or seeking information regarding the health of her pregnancy or the efficacy of mifepristone alone, the clinic staff shall inform the woman that the use of mifepristone alone to end a pregnancy is not always effective and that she should immediately consult a physician if she would like more information. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2153 (Enacted 2009, Last Amended 2016), S.B. 1112, 52nd Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess. (Az. 2016).  

In September 2009, in Planned Parenthood Arizona v. American Association of Pro-Life OB-GYNs, a state superior court blocked portions of Arizona’s biased-counseling/mandatory-delay law.  The decision allowed the state to enforce a 24-hour mandatory delay, but enjoined a provision that the state-mandated counseling and materials be provided in person, thereby eliminating a two-trip requirement. However, in August 2011, an appellate court lifted the temporary injunction and allowed the law to go into effect. Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Association of Pro-Life OB-GYNs, CA-CV 09-0748 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2011) (decision lifting preliminary injunction).


Mandatory Delays

Mandatory Delay

Arizona requires a woman seeking an abortion to wait at least 24 hours between the time she receives biased-counseling information and when she can get the procedure. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2153 (Enacted 2009, Last Amended 2012).

In September 2009, in Planned Parenthood Arizona v. American Association of Pro-Life OB-GYNs, a state superior court blocked portions of Arizona’s biased-counseling/mandatory-delay law.  The decision allowed the state to enforce a 24-hour mandatory delay, but enjoined a provision that the state-mandated counseling and materials be provided in person, thereby eliminating a two-trip requirement.  However, in August 2011, an appellate court lifted the temporary injunction and allowed the law to go into effect. Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Association of Pro-Life OB-GYNs, CA-CV 09-0748 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2011) (decision lifting preliminary injunction)  


Insurance Coverage & Abortion

Prohibits Abortion Coverage in the Insurance Exchange

Does Arizona expressly prohibit plans in its state exchange from covering abortion services?

Yes.  Health-insurance policies offered in the state health-insurance exchange may not include abortion coverage, with exceptions only to save a woman’s life, avert substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function, or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.  Nothing in the law prohibits the purchase of abortion coverage outside the exchange through an optional rider for which an additional premium is paid.  However, insurers are not required to offer such riders and there is no evidence that such separate policies exist. (Even if they did exist, offering women the "option" to pay for separate abortion coverage is a false promise because no one plans for an unplanned pregnancy.)  Ariz. Rev. Stat. §20-121 (Enacted 2011, Amended 2015).


Prohibits Abortion Coverage for Public Employees

Does Arizona expressly prohibit insurance plans for public employees from covering abortion services?

Yes.  Health-insurance policies provided to state employees may not include abortion coverage, with exceptions only to save a woman’s life or avert substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. Nothing in the law prohibits the purchase of abortion coverage through an optional rider for which an additional premium is paid.  However, insurers are not required to offer such riders and there is no evidence that such separate policies exist. (Even if they did exist, offering women the "option" to pay for separate abortion coverage is a false promise because no one plans for an unplanned pregnancy.) Ariz. Rev. Stat. §35-196.02 (Enacted 2011).


Supports Insurance Coverage of Contraception

Arizona law requires health-insurance plans that cover prescription medication to provide equitable coverage for contraception.

What is required?  If a health-insurance plan provides coverage for prescription medication or outpatient health-care services, it must provide coverage for any Food and Drug Administration-approved prescription contraception and outpatient contraceptive services.

To which insurance plans does the law apply?  All health-care service organization contracts, contracts between hospital, medical, dental, and optometric service corporations and their subscribers, and certain disability and accountable health plans issued or renewed on or after December 31, 2002 that provide coverage for prescription medication or outpatient health-care services.

Does the law provide additional protections for women?  Yes.  Such plans may not impose deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, or other cost-containment measures for contraceptives that are greater than those imposed for other equivalent medications.

Does the law contain a refusal clause, allowing certain employers and/or insurers to refuse to provide or pay for contraceptive coverage?  Yes.

To whom does the refusal clause apply?  Religiously affiliated employers, defined as non-profits that primarily employ and serve people who share their religious beliefs, or organizations whose articles of incorporation state that they are a religiously motivated organization and whose religious beliefs are central to the organizations’ operating principles.

What does the refusal clause allow?  A religiously affiliated employer may refuse to cover contraceptives in its health plans.

Is this refusal clause overbroad, jeopardizing insurance coverage for contraception for women?  Yes.  This broad refusal clause inappropriately includes organizations that operate in the public sphere, employ people of different faiths, and serve people of all faiths.  

Must the refusal be in writing?  Yes. The religiously affiliated employer must file a written affidavit with the insurer stating its objection.

Does the law require the refusing entity to notify the persons affected?  No.

Are there circumstances under which a refusal clause may not be exercised?  Yes.  A refusal clause may not be used to exclude coverage for prescription contraceptives ordered for reasons other than to prevent pregnancy.

Does the law provide a mechanism for women to obtain contraceptive coverage if their employer exercises a refusal clause?  No.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 20-1057.08, -826, -1402, -1404, -2329 (Enacted 2002, Amended 2012).


Low-Income Women & Abortion

Restricts Low-Income Women’s Access to Abortion

According to state Medicaid policy, Arizona allows women eligible for state medical assistance for general health care to obtain funds for abortion where:  (1) the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of a woman endangered by a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself; (2) the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; or (3) abortion is medically necessary because continuation poses a serious physical or mental-health problem for the woman by:  (a) creating a serious physical or mental-health problem; (b) seriously impairing a bodily function; (c) causing dysfunction of a bodily organ; (d) exacerbating a health problem; or (e) preventing the woman from obtaining treatment for a health problem.  Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), AHCCCS Medical Policy Manual, Policy 410:  Maternity Care Services, Pregnancy Termination, 410-414 (Rev. Feb. 14, 2003); AHCCCS, AHCCCS Medical Policy Manual, Exhibit 410-1:  Certificate of Necessity for Pregnancy Termination (Rev. Feb. 2003); AHCCCS, AHCCCS Medical Policy Manual, Exhibit 410-2:  Monthly Pregnancy Termination Report (Rev. Feb. 2003).

An unenforceable statute provides that no public funds may be used to pay for abortion care unless necessary to save the woman’s life.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 35-196.02.  (Enacted 1980; Amended 2010).  In 2002, the Arizona Supreme Court held that this law violated the Arizona constitution, and because the state funds abortion in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest, the state must also cover medically necessary abortion services.  The court stopped short of holding that the state must fund medically necessary abortion services to the same extent that it funds other pregnancy-related services.  Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys., 56 P.3d 28 (Ariz. 2002).

In 2010, this law was amended to add an additional provision that prohibits the use of public funds to pay for a health contract that includes abortion care unless the procedure is necessary to save the life of the woman or to avert substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 35-196.02(B) (Enacted 2010)  The state Medicaid office’s interpretation of circumstances in which coverage is required, as per the court’s holding in Simat, is outlined in its policy manual, detailed above.

Certain documentation is required to receive public funding in some cases.  Cases requiring documentation include:  (1) a minor under 18 or an incapacitated adult may not obtain publicly funded abortion care without the written consent of a parent or guardian; and (2) if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, documentation must be obtained that the crime was reported to the proper authorities.  AHCCCS, AHCCCS Medical Policy Manual, Policy 410:  Maternity Care Services, Pregnancy Termination, 410-415 (Rev. Feb. 14, 2003); AHCCCS, AHCCCS Medical Policy Manual, Exhibit 410-1:  Certificate of Necessity for Pregnancy Termination (Rev. Feb. 2003); AHCCCS, AHCCCS Medical Policy Manual, Exhibit 410-2:  Monthly Pregnancy Termination Report (Rev. Feb. 2003).


Young Women & Abortion

Parental Consent

Arizona law restricts young women’s access to abortion.  

Is the law enforceable?  Yes.  A federal court held that this law is constitutional.  Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz. v. LaWall, 307 F.3d 783 (9th Cir. 2002). In July 2009, Arizona passed a law that requires notarized parental consent for young women to obtain abortion care.  In September 2009, in Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Goddard, a state superior court blocked portions of Arizona’s parental consent law.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36-2152 (Enacted 2014); Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Goddard, CV 2009-029110 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Sept. 29, 2009) (order granting preliminary injunction).

Who is considered a minor?  A young woman under the age of 18.  

What is required – parental consent or parental notice?  Notarized consent.  

Who must provide consent?  One parent.  

Are there other trusted adults who may provide consent instead?  Yes – guardians and conservators.  

What is the process for obtaining consent?  A young woman may not obtain an abortion unless the attending physician secures the notarized written consent of one parent.  

May the parental mandate be waived if a young woman is a victim of rape or incest?  Yes, a young woman may obtain an abortion without parental consent if she certifies to the attending physician that the pregnancy resulted from sexual conduct by a parent, stepparent, adoptive parent, uncle, grandparent, sibling, legal guardian or foster parent, or person living with her and her mother.  The physician must report the sexual conduct and forward a fetal-tissue sample to law enforcement officials for use in a criminal investigation.  

May the parental mandate be waived if a young woman is a victim of child abuse?  Yes.

May the parental mandate be waived if a young woman’s health is threatened?  Yes, but only if a medical emergency exists.  A medical emergency is defined as a medical condition that necessitates an immediate abortion to preserve the woman’s life or for which a delay will create "serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of major bodily function."

May the parental mandate be waived under any other circumstances?  Yes, the young woman may try to obtain permission from a judge.

If a young woman must obtain permission from a judge, what is the process?  To secure the required court order, a young woman must prove by clear and convincing evidence that she is mature and capable of giving informed consent or that an abortion without parental consent is in her best interests.  The court may take into consideration, when assessing the young woman’s experience level, among other relevant factors, her age and experiences working outside the home, traveling on her own, handling personal finances and making other significant decisions.  Furthermore, the court may take into consideration, when assessing the young woman’s judgment, her conduct since learning about her pregnancy and her intellectual ability to understand her options and to make informed decisions.  The young woman may participate on her own behalf or have an appointed or private counsel or may waive counsel.  In re B.S. 74 P.3d 285 (Ariz. App. Div. 1 2003); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2153(Enacted 2009).

Are there other significant requirements under the law?  No.

Has a court considered the constitutionality of this law?  No.  Earlier, however, a court held that the previous parental-consent law without notarization is constitutional.  Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz. v. LaWall, 307 F.3d 783 (9th Cir. 2002).

Other information about the law:  The parents or guardian of the minor may bring civil action if it is based on a claim that proper consent was not obtained and can bring suit against anyone who assists the minor in receiving abortion care.  The statute of limitation is six years. Any person found assisting a minor in obtaining abortion care, other than the trusted adults that may provide legal consent, can be charged with a misdemeanor.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 36-2152 (Enacted 2000; Amended 2012, 2014), 1-215(22) (Original Statute Enacted 1901; Relevant Provision Enacted 1956; Last Amended 2006); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2153 (Enacted 2009), Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2161 (Enacted 2010, Amended 2014).


Family-Planning Policies

Insurance Coverage & Contraception

No state measure.

Low-Income Women & Contraception

No state measure.

Emergency Contraception

No state measure.

Other Important Issues

Clinic Protections

No state measure.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers

State Refers to Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Arizona law refers women to crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). In connection with the state’s biased-counseling and mandatory-delay law, when a woman tells a health-care provider she is considering abortion, the provider must give her a state-maintained list of facilities that will satisfy the law’s mandate. CPCs are included on the list without disclaimer of their biased nature and are not distinguished from legitimate health centers.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2153 (Enacted 2009; Last Amended 2012).


Refusals & Guarantees

Refusals of Medical Care

ABORTION REFUSAL LAW

To whom does the refusal law apply? Hospitals, pharmacies, medical facilities, and health-care professionals and any employees of hospitals, pharmacies, medical facilities, or health-care professionals who object in writing to abortion services.

What does the refusal law allow? Allows hospitals, pharmacies, medical facilities, or health-care professionals, or employees of hospitals, pharmacies, medical facilities, or health-care professionals, who object in writing, to refuse to participate in or facilitate medical or surgical procedures that result in an abortion. In addition, no hospital may be required to admit a woman for the purpose of providing abortion care.

Does the law require the refusing individual or entity to notify the persons affected? No.

Are there circumstances under which a refusal law may not be exercised? No.

Does the law require the refusing individual or entity to provide medically and factually accurate information or provide a referral for abortion services? No.

Does the law provide a mechanism for women to otherwise obtain specific reproductive health services, information, or referrals if an individual and/or entity exercises a refusal law? No.

Has a court considered the constitutionality of this refusal clause? In April 2010, in Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Goddard, a state superior court reaffirmed its September 2009 injunction that blocks the portion of Arizona’s abortion refusal law enacted in 2009.  Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Goddard, CV 2009-029110 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Apr. 27, 2010) (order extending injunction).  The 2009 law expanded the state’s abortion refusal rights to allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortion services and to specify that providers may not be required to facilitate the provision of abortion services.  The 1973 refusal law remains in place. In August 2011, the state appellate court ruled the 2009 refusal provisions constitutional and enforceable.  Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, CV 09-0748 & CV 10-0274 (Consolidated) (Ariz. Ct. of Appeals, Aug. 11, 2011) (order).

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36-2151 (Enacted 1973; Last Amended 2003).  Ariz. Rev. State. Ann. § 36-2154 (Enacted 2009).

CONTRACEPTION REFUSAL LAW

To whom does the refusal law apply? Hospitals, pharmacies, medical facilities, and health-care professionals and any employees of hospitals, pharmacies, or health-care professionals who object in writing to contraception.

What does the refusal law allow? No hospitals, pharmacies, medical facilities, or health-care professionals, or employees of hospitals, pharmacies, or health-care professionals, who object in writing, may be required to participate in or facilitate the provision of contraception.

Does the law require the refusing individual or entity to notify the persons affected? No.

Are there circumstances under which a refusal law may not be exercised? No.

Does the law require the refusing individual or entity to provide medically and factually accurate information or provide a referral for abortion services? No.

Does the law provide a mechanism for women to otherwise obtain specific reproductive-health services, information, or referrals if an individual and/or entity exercises a refusal law? No.

Has a court considered the constitutionality of this refusal clause? In April 2010, in Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Goddard, a state superior court reaffirmed its September 2009 injunction that blocks Arizona’s contraception refusal law.  Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Goddard, CV 2009-029110 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Apr. 27, 2010) (order extending injunction). In August 2011, the state appellate court ruled the contraception refusal provision constitutional and enforceable.  Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, CV 09-0748 & CV 10-0274 (Consolidated) (Ariz. Ct. of Appeals, Aug. 11, 2011) (order).

Ariz. Rev. State. Ann. § 36-2154 (Enacted 2009).

INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACEPTION REFUSAL LAW

Although Arizona law requires health-insurance plans that cover prescription medication to provide equitable coverage for contraception, certain employers and/or insurers may require that their plans exclude coverage for contraception.

To whom does the refusal law apply? Religiously affiliated employers (defined as nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people who share their religious tenants) or organizations whose articles of incorporation state that they are a religiously motived organization and whose religious beliefs are central to the organization’s operating principles.

What does the refusal law allow? Religiously affiliated employers may refuse to cover contraceptives in their health plans.

Is this refusal law overbroad, jeopardizing insurance coverage for contraception for women? Yes.  This broad refusal clause inappropriately includes entities that operate in the public sphere, employ people of different faiths, and serve people of all faiths.

Must the refusal be in writing? Yes. The religiously affiliated employer must file with the issuer a written affidavit stating its objection.

Does the law require the refusing entity to notify the persons affected? No.

Are there circumstances under which a refusal law may not be exercised? Yes. A refusal law may not be used to exclude coverage for prescription contraceptive methods ordered for reasons other than pregnancy prevention.

Does the law provide a mechanism for women to obtain contraceptive coverage if their employer exercises a refusal law? No.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 20-1057.08, -826, -1402, -1404, -2329 (Enacted 2002, Amended 2012).  


Counseling & Referral Bans

Counseling & Referral Ban

Family-planning services covered under the state Children’s Health Insurance Program may not include abortion or abortion counseling.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. A 36-2989 (Enacted 1998; Last Amended 2001); Ariz. Admin. Code R9-31-215.  The Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System may not cover abortion or abortion counseling.  Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. A 36-2907 (Original Statute Enacted 1974; Relevant Provision Enacted 1988; Last Amended 2001); Ariz. Admin. Code R9-22-215.  


Everyone should be able to decide if, when, how, and with whom they start or grow a family.

Sign the Petition
By taking this action you are affirming your membership in NARAL Pro-Choice America. What's this?