The Epoch Times
The Epoch Times
AD
The Epoch Times
Support Us
SHARE
USCourts

Federal Judge Blocks Arizona’s ‘Personhood’ Law That Recognizes Life Begins at Conception

Copy
Facebook
X
Truth
Gettr
LinkedIn
Telegram
Email
Save
Federal Judge Blocks Arizona’s ‘Personhood’ Law That Recognizes Life Begins at Conception
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican candidate in the Aug. 2 primary for U.S. Senate, in an undated photo. Courtesy of Brnovich for Senate, Inc.
Matthew Vadum
By Matthew Vadum
7/12/2022Updated: 7/14/2022
0:00

A federal judge on July 11 temporarily blocked Arizona’s “personhood” law, which recognizes that human life begins at conception, preventing it from being used to take legal action against abortion providers.

The legal drama comes as states across the nation, including Arizona, are trying to adjust in light of the Supreme Court’s June 24 decision that there’s no right to an abortion to be found in the U.S. Constitution, sending the regulation of abortion back to the states.

Attorney Jessica Sklarsky, a lawyer at the Center for Reproductive Rights who argued the case, told The Associated Press that the federal district court “made the right decision today by blocking this law from being used to create an unthinkably extreme abortion ban.”

“The Supreme Court’s catastrophic decision overturning Roe v. Wade has unleashed chaos on the ground, leaving Arizona residents scrambling to figure out if they can get the abortion care they need,” Sklarsky said.

Brittni Thomason, a spokesperson for the office of Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, said the state is centered on “bringing clarity to the law for Arizonans.”

“Today’s ruling was based on an interpretation of Arizona law that our office did not agree with, and we are carefully considering our next steps,” Thomason told the media outlet.

Abortion providers reportedly stopped performing the procedure in Arizona after the high court made its ruling, fearing that a 1901 state law banning all abortions could place them in legal jeopardy. That law is currently blocked in Pima County, the state’s second-most populous county, where Tucson is located.

Same Constitutional Rights

The Arizona law at issue, enacted in April 2021, isn’t specifically about abortion. The personhood statute declared that the laws of the state “shall be interpreted” to protect unborn children “at every stage of the development,” acknowledging that they possess all the same constitutional rights as human beings who have been born. The Arizona law is similar to laws in Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, and Missouri.

The Arizona statute doesn’t cover individuals who perform in vitro fertilization and women who indirectly harm their unborn children by not taking proper care of themselves.

The same federal judge refused to put the personhood law on pause last year, but abortion groups reapplied for an injunction after the Supreme Court ruling.

Arizona argued that the state should be allowed to enforce the law. In a brief filed with the federal district court on July 1, the state argued that the proposed injunction should be denied because the challengers hadn’t demonstrated that they'll suffer irreparable harm from enforcement of the statute, noting that the court had previously concluded that the “vagueness challenge” brought by the plaintiffs “fails as a matter of law” and that therefore their rights hadn’t been violated.

The challengers said the law was overly vague. How the statute might be applied “is anyone’s guess,” the abortion providers said in court. They argued that the statute burdens the rights of women to terminate pregnancies before fetal viability, at least as those rights stood before the Supreme Court ruling, and abridged the freedom of speech between doctor and patient.

In his order (pdf), U.S. District Judge Douglas L. Rayes, an Obama appointee, wrote that even though the case came “in the context of abortion care, it is not about abortion per se.”

“It is about giving people fair notice of what the law means so that they know in advance how to comply,” Rayes wrote.

The law is vague and makes it impossible for the medical doctors challenging it to do their work, the judge said. The court declined to express a view at this time “on whether a law defining ‘person’ to include the unborn for all purposes and without exception would be constitutional.”

The lawsuit, Isaacson v. Brnovich, is still before the U.S. District Court in Arizona.

Rayes issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the state from enforcing the law “as applied to abortion care that is otherwise permissible under Arizona law” while the case remains pending. The state was also enjoined from retroactively enforcing the law “against those who performed otherwise lawful abortions during the time that this preliminary injunction is in effect.”

Matthew Vadum
Matthew Vadum
contributor
Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative journalist.
Author’s Selected Articles

Supreme Court Allows Trump Admin to Remove Labor Board Members for Now

May 22, 2025
Supreme Court Allows Trump Admin to Remove Labor Board Members for Now

Supreme Court Deadlocks, Leaves in Place Block on Nation’s First Religious Charter School

May 22, 2025
Supreme Court Deadlocks, Leaves in Place Block on Nation’s First Religious Charter School

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Fireworks Company’s Dispute With Consumer Product Regulator

May 22, 2025
Supreme Court Won’t Hear Fireworks Company’s Dispute With Consumer Product Regulator

Supreme Court Reinstates Maine Lawmaker Suspended Over Transgender Sports Policy

May 20, 2025
Supreme Court Reinstates Maine Lawmaker Suspended Over Transgender Sports Policy
Related Topics
Arizona
abortion
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich
Roe v. Wade Overturned
Save
The Epoch Times
Copyright © 2000 - 2025 The Epoch Times Association Inc. All Rights Reserved.