--- title: "Arizona — abortion law" description: "Arizona voters passed Proposition 139 in November 2024, adding a fundamental right to abortion to the state constitution. Abortion is legal until the point of fetal viability, generally around 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy, as determined by a treating health care professional. After viability,…" type: "legislation" jurisdiction: "Arizona" as_of_date: "2026-07-12" source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/legislation/az.html" --- # Arizona — abortion law _Arizona · United States_ ## Overview **Constitutionally protected to viability** Abortion is a fundamental constitutional right in Arizona before fetal viability (approx. 22-24 weeks), and after viability when needed to protect life, physical health, or mental health. Arizona voters passed Proposition 139 in November 2024, adding a fundamental right to abortion to the state constitution. Abortion is legal until the point of fetal viability, generally around 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy, as determined by a treating health care professional. After viability, abortion is legal when a health care professional determines it is necessary to protect the pregnant person's life, physical health, or mental health. The state's older bans (15-week, 20-week, and the 1864 near-total ban) have been either repealed or permanently blocked by courts. However, a number of long-standing restrictions on how abortions can be provided were struck down in February 2026, and that decision is being appealed by legislative leaders. > "Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion, and the state shall not enact, adopt or enforce any law, regulation, policy or practice that does any of the following: 1. Denies, restricts or interferes with that right before fetal viability unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means." > — Ariz. Const. art. II, section 8.1 **Legal analysis** Ariz. Const. art. II, Section 8.1 (Prop. 139, effective Nov. 25, 2024) establishes a 'fundamental right to abortion' and prohibits the state from denying, restricting, or interfering with that right before fetal viability unless justified by a 'compelling state interest' achieved by the 'least restrictive means.' 'Compelling state interest' is narrowly defined as a law adopted for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining health, consistent with accepted clinical standards and evidence-based medicine, and that does not infringe on autonomous decision-making. After viability, the state may not deny, restrict, or interfere with an abortion that a treating health care professional determines in good faith is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual. The 15-week ban (ARS 36-2322) is permanently enjoined (Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes, Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct., Mar. 5, 2025), the 1864 near-total ban (ARS 13-3603) was repealed (HB 2677, effective Sept. 14, 2024), and the 20-week ban (ARS 36-2159) was permanently enjoined by the Ninth Circuit in 2013 (Isaacson v. Horne, 716 F.3d 1213). *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ariz. Const. art. II, section 8.1, subsection A(1), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/az/arizona-constitution/az-const-art-ii-sect-8-1) · Chapter 181, 2024 Ariz. Sess. Laws (HB 2677), [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/2r/laws/0181.htm)* **Editor's note.** The Isaacson v. Arizona ruling is on appeal. The Arizona Supreme Court could reverse or modify the injunction. ## At a glance Every machine-readable determination in the research document. Each value is derived from a sourced finding below. | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Legal classification | Protected by constitution | | Gestational limit weeks | — | | Limit measured from | — | | Abortion currently available | Yes | | Ban or limit enjoined | Yes | | Mother expressly exempt | Yes | | Mother prosecutable in practice | No | | Self managed abortion criminalized | No | | Abortion charged as homicide | No | | Fetal homicide law | Yes | | Fetal wrongful death action | Yes | | Personhood language in law | Yes | | Personhood contradiction | Yes | | Medication abortion distinct status | Yes | | Mailing pills banned | No | | Method bans | D and x | | Telehealth prescribing allowed | Yes | | Physician only law | Yes | | Provider max penalty | Class 6 felony, up to 2 years imprisonment | | Helpers criminally exposed | No | | Travel assistance criminalized | No | | Civil bounty law | No | | Shield state | Yes | | Waiting period hours | — | | State scripted counseling | No | | Ultrasound required | None | | In person visits required | 0 | | Parental involvement | Consent one parent | | Judicial bypass available | Yes | | Spousal consent or notice on books | No | | Medicaid coverage | Hyde only | | Private insurance restricted | Yes | | State funding posture | Defunds providers | | Rape incest exception | Yes | | Exceptions present | Life, Physical health, Mental health, Rape, Incest, Fatal fetal anomaly, Ectopic miscarriage carveout | | Major pending change | Yes | ## Definitions **Defined as pregnancy termination** Arizona defines 'abortion' as using any means to terminate a clinically diagnosable pregnancy with knowledge it will likely cause death of the unborn child. Arizona law defines abortion as the use of any means to end a clinically diagnosable pregnancy when the person knows it will likely cause the death of the unborn child. The definition expressly excludes birth control devices, oral contraceptives, and any action taken to terminate an ectopic pregnancy or remove a dead fetus. This means miscarriage management, ectopic pregnancy treatment, and IVF/contraception are not considered abortion under Arizona law. > "Abortion means the use of any means to terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will cause, with reasonable likelihood, the death of the unborn child. Abortion does not include birth control devices, oral contraceptives used to inhibit or prevent ovulation, conception or the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterus or the use of any means to save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child, to preserve the life or health of the child after a live birth, to terminate an ectopic pregnancy or to remove a dead fetus." > — A.R.S. section 36-2151(1) **Legal analysis** ARS 36-2151(1) defines 'abortion' as 'the use of any means to terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will cause, with reasonable likelihood, the death of the unborn child.' The definition expressly carves out 'birth control devices, oral contraceptives used to inhibit or prevent ovulation, conception or the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterus or the use of any means to save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child, to preserve the life or health of the child after a live birth, to terminate an ectopic pregnancy or to remove a dead fetus.' 'Unborn child' is defined in ARS 36-2151(16) as 'the offspring of human beings from conception until birth.' 'Gestational age' is measured from the first day of the last menstrual period per ARS 36-2151(7). *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · A.R.S. section 36-2151(1), subsection (1), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/az/title-36-public-health-and-safety/az-rev-st-sect-36-2151.html)* ## Current status **Fundamental right; viability limit** Under Proposition 139 (effective Nov. 25, 2024), the Arizona Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to abortion before viability; post-viability abortion is protected when necessary for life, physical health, or mental health. Arizona voters approved Proposition 139 in November 2024, which took effect when election results were certified on November 25, 2024. This constitutional amendment creates a fundamental right to abortion before fetal viability. After viability, abortion is protected when a health care professional determines it is necessary to protect the pregnant person's life, physical health, or mental health. The state's previous 15-week ban has been permanently blocked by a court. The 1864 near-total ban was formally repealed by the legislature and governor in May 2024, with the repeal taking effect September 14, 2024. The 20-week ban has been unenforceable since 2013 due to a federal court injunction. As of early 2026, many additional procedural restrictions (waiting periods, mandated counseling, ultrasound requirements, telemedicine bans, medication mailing bans, and the genetic-abnormality reason ban) have been struck down by a superior court as unconstitutional under Proposition 139, though that ruling is being appealed. > "Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion, and the state shall not enact, adopt or enforce any law, regulation, policy or practice that ... Denies, restricts or interferes with that right before fetal viability unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means." > — Ariz. Const. art. II, section 8.1 **Legal analysis** Ariz. Const. art. II, Section 8.1(A)(1)-(2) establishes a 'fundamental right to abortion' pre-viability and protects post-viability abortion when necessary 'to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.' SB 1164 (2022), codified at ARS 36-2322, imposed a 15-week gestational ban with a medical emergency exception. That ban was permanently enjoined on March 5, 2025 in Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes. ARS 13-3603 (the 1864 near-total ban) was repealed by HB 2677, signed May 2, 2024, effective September 14, 2024. ARS 36-2159 (20-week ban) was permanently enjoined in Isaacson v. Horne, 716 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2013). On February 6, 2026, the Maricopa County Superior Court in Isaacson v. Arizona permanently enjoined multiple restrictions as violating Proposition 139, including the 24-hour waiting period, mandatory ultrasound, state-scripted counseling, telemedicine ban, medication mailing ban, and the genetic-abnormality reason ban. That ruling has been appealed. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ariz. Const. art. II, section 8.1, subsection A(1), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/az/arizona-constitution/az-const-art-ii-sect-8-1)* **Editor's note.** The Isaacson v. Arizona ruling is on appeal. The Arizona Supreme Court has not yet ruled. ## Law-in-effect vs. law-on-the-books **Multiple injunctions; appeal pending** The 15-week ban is permanently enjoined; multiple procedural restrictions were permanently enjoined in February 2026 but that ruling is under appeal; the 1864 ban is repealed. Several major abortion laws are currently blocked by court orders. The 15-week ban was permanently blocked in March 2025. In February 2026, a superior court judge permanently blocked several other restrictions including the 24-hour waiting period, mandatory ultrasound, telemedicine ban, medication mailing ban, and the ban on abortions sought because of a fetal genetic abnormality. However, the Republican leaders of the Arizona Legislature are appealing the February 2026 ruling, so these restrictions could be reinstated if a higher court reverses. The 1864 near-total ban was repealed by the legislature and governor and is gone for good. Enforcement of all remaining abortion laws is centralized in the state Attorney General, Kris Mayes, who has said she will not prosecute providers acting in good faith. > "Each of these laws apply across the board regardless of whether they improve or maintain the health of a woman seeking an abortion. Each of these laws infringe on a woman's autonomous decision making by mandating medical procedures and disclosure of information regardless of a patient's needs and wishes." > — Isaacson v. Arizona, Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct., Feb. 6, 2026 **Legal analysis** Three layers of judicial and legislative action define the enforcement landscape: (1) ARS 13-3603 (1864 near-total ban) was repealed by HB 2677 (effective Sept. 14, 2024) and is no longer law. (2) ARS 36-2322 (15-week ban) was permanently enjoined on Mar. 5, 2025 by the Maricopa County Superior Court. (3) Isaacson v. Arizona (Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct., Feb. 6, 2026) permanently enjoined ARS 36-2153 (informed consent/waiting period), ARS 36-2156 (mandatory ultrasound), the telemedicine ban, ARS 36-2160 (medication-by-mail prohibition), ARS 13-3603.02 (genetic-abnormality reason ban), and associated regulations. GOP legislative leaders (Senate President Petersen, Speaker Montenegro) intervened and have appealed. Governor Hobbs's Executive Order 2023-11 centralizes all abortion-related criminal prosecutions in the Attorney General. ARS 1-219 (personhood interpretation provision) is enjoined as applied to abortion by a federal district court (Isaacson v. Brnovich, July 11, 2022), with an appeal pending at the Ninth Circuit. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Isaacson v. Arizona, Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct., Feb. 6, 2026, [Arizona Mirror](https://azmirror.com/2026/02/06/judge-arizona-abortion-laws-are-unconstitutional-after-2024-amendment)* **Editor's note.** The Isaacson v. Arizona appeal is live. The Arizona Supreme Court could stay or reverse Judge Como's permanent injunction. ## Exceptions ### Life of the mother **Life exception, constitutional** Post-viability abortion is constitutionally protected when necessary to protect the pregnant individual's life, as determined by a treating health care professional. After fetal viability, Arizona's constitution explicitly protects abortion when a treating health care professional determines in good faith that it is necessary to protect the pregnant person's life. No special reporting or documentation beyond good-faith medical judgment is required by the constitutional text. > "Denies, restricts or interferes with an abortion after fetal viability that, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional, is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual." > — Ariz. Const. art. II, section 8.1(A)(2) **Legal analysis** Ariz. Const. art. II, Section 8.1(A)(2) prohibits the state from denying, restricting, or interfering with 'an abortion after fetal viability that, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional, is necessary to protect the life ... of the pregnant individual.' The pre-constitutional statutory exceptions (e.g., ARS 36-2151(9) 'medical emergency' definition) remain on the books but the constitutional standard is more protective. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ariz. Const. art. II, section 8.1(A)(2), subsection A(2), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/az/arizona-constitution/az-const-art-ii-sect-8-1)* ### Physical health **Physical health, constitutional** Post-viability abortion is constitutionally protected when necessary to protect physical health, determined by a treating health care professional in good faith. The Arizona Constitution protects abortion after viability when a health care professional determines it is necessary to protect the pregnant person's physical health. No additional state-mandated certification process is required beyond the professional's good-faith judgment. > "abortion is legal after fetal viability when necessary to preserve the life or physical or mental health of the mother based on the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional" > — Arizona Attorney General, Reproductive Rights: Laws **Legal analysis** Ariz. Const. art. II, Section 8.1(A)(2) protects post-viability abortion necessary 'to protect the ... physical ... health of the pregnant individual.' The AG's office confirms that abortion is 'legal after fetal viability when necessary to preserve the life or physical or mental health of the mother based on the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional.' *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Arizona Attorney General, Reproductive Rights: Laws, [Arizona Attorney General's Office](https://www.azag.gov/issues/reproductive-rights/laws)* ### Mental health **Mental health, constitutional** Post-viability abortion is constitutionally protected when necessary to protect mental health, a broader standard than most state exceptions. Unlike many states, Arizona's constitution explicitly protects abortion after viability when necessary to protect the pregnant person's mental health, as determined by a treating health care professional. This is notably broader than most state abortion exceptions, which typically limit post-viability care to life or physical health only. > "Denies, restricts or interferes with an abortion after fetal viability that, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional, is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual." > — Ariz. Const. art. II, section 8.1(A)(2) **Legal analysis** Ariz. Const. art. II, Section 8.1(A)(2) is unusually broad in explicitly listing 'mental health' alongside life and physical health as a basis for post-viability abortion protection. The determination is made by 'a treating health care professional' in their 'good faith judgment.' The term 'health care professional' is not limited to physicians, unlike the narrower statutory definitions elsewhere in the Arizona Code. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ariz. Const. art. II, section 8.1(A)(2), subsection A(2), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/az/arizona-constitution/az-const-art-ii-sect-8-1)* ### Rape **Rape coverage for insurance only** Rape is not an exception to any pre-viability restriction because none are enforced; it is relevant to insurance exchange plan coverage and Medicaid. Because there is no enforceable pre-viability abortion restriction, a rape exception is not needed for abortion access itself. However, rape (along with incest and life endangerment) is one of the limited circumstances in which Arizona's health insurance exchange plans and Medicaid may cover abortion. > "Subsection A of this section does not apply to coverage for any abortion: ... 3. When the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest." > — A.R.S. section 20-121(B)(3) **Legal analysis** No pre-viability abortion restriction is currently in force. ARS 20-121(B)(3) permits exchange-plan coverage for abortion when 'the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.' Medicaid coverage follows the federal Hyde Amendment (life, rape, incest). *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · A.R.S. section 20-121(B)(3), subsection B(3), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/title-20/section-20-121)* ### Incest **Incest coverage for insurance only** Incest is relevant only to insurance exchange plan and Medicaid coverage; no pre-viability access restriction requires an incest exception. Incest is not needed as an exception to any abortion restriction, because no pre-viability ban is in force. Like rape, incest is one of the narrow categories for which Arizona's health insurance exchange plans and Medicaid will cover abortion. > "Subsection A of this section does not apply to coverage for any abortion: ... 3. When the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest." > — A.R.S. section 20-121(B)(3) **Legal analysis** Same analysis as the rape exception. ARS 20-121(B)(3) permits exchange-plan coverage when 'the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.' *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · A.R.S. section 20-121(B)(3), subsection B(3), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/title-20/section-20-121)* ### Fatal fetal anomaly **Lethal fetal condition, constitutional** Arizona's constitution does not single out fetal anomaly, but abortion before viability is protected regardless of reason, and the genetic-abnormality reason ban has been enjoined. Arizona's constitution does not specifically mention fatal fetal anomalies because abortion is protected for any reason before viability. A 2021 law that banned abortions sought solely because of a fetal genetic abnormality (including Down syndrome) was permanently blocked by the court in February 2026. Abortions sought because of a lethal fetal condition are legal, and the constitutional amendment protects this care. > "Genetic abnormality: (a) Means the presence or presumed presence of an abnormal gene expression in an unborn child, including a chromosomal disorder or morphological malformation occurring as the result of abnormal gene expression. (b) Does not include a lethal fetal condition." > — A.R.S. section 13-3603.02(G)(2) **Legal analysis** ARS 13-3603.02(A)(2) criminalized performing an abortion 'knowing that the abortion is sought solely because of a genetic abnormality of the child.' A 'genetic abnormality' was broadly defined but expressly excluded a 'lethal fetal condition' per ARS 13-3603.02(G)(2)(b). This statute was permanently enjoined on February 6, 2026 in Isaacson v. Arizona as violating art. II, Section 8.1. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · A.R.S. section 13-3603.02(G)(2), subsection G(2), [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603-02.htm)* **Editor's note.** ARS 13-3603.02 is enjoined. Even if reinstated on appeal, the statute by its own terms excludes lethal fetal conditions from the definition of genetic abnormality. ### Ectopic pregnancy & miscarriage care **Ectopic and miscarriage excluded** Arizona's statutory definition of abortion expressly excludes treatment to terminate an ectopic pregnancy and removal of a dead fetus. Arizona law does not treat treatment for ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage management as an abortion. The legal definition of abortion explicitly excludes these procedures. This means doctors can treat ectopic pregnancies and manage miscarriages without any legal restriction or fear of prosecution under abortion laws. > "Abortion does not include ... the use of any means ... to terminate an ectopic pregnancy or to remove a dead fetus." > — A.R.S. section 36-2151(1) **Legal analysis** ARS 36-2151(1) expressly excludes from the definition of 'abortion' the 'use of any means ... to terminate an ectopic pregnancy or to remove a dead fetus.' ARS 36-2151(14) similarly excludes these from the definition of 'surgical abortion.' This is a statutory carve-out, not an exception to a ban, meaning these procedures are not reached by abortion restrictions in the first place. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · A.R.S. section 36-2151(1), subsection (1), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/az/title-36-public-health-and-safety/az-rev-st-sect-36-2151.html)* ## Methods ### Procedural surgical **Legal to viability; D&X banned** Procedural abortion is legal before fetal viability for any reason; partial-birth abortion (D&X) is banned with a life exception but the woman is exempt. Surgical and procedural abortions are legal in Arizona before fetal viability (around 22-24 weeks). After viability, procedural abortion is protected when necessary for life, physical health, or mental health. A specific ban on 'partial-birth abortion' remains on the books, carrying a Class 6 felony penalty for physicians (up to 2 years in prison). The pregnant woman herself cannot be prosecuted or sued under this ban. > "Any physician who knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus is guilty of a class 6 felony ... This section shall not subject a woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed to any criminal prosecution or civil liability." > — A.R.S. section 13-3603.01(A), (D) **Legal analysis** Procedural abortion is protected pre-viability by Ariz. Const. art. II, Section 8.1(A)(1). ARS 13-3603.01 criminalizes 'partial-birth abortion' as a class 6 felony with up to 2 years imprisonment. ARS 13-3603.01(B) provides a life exception. ARS 13-3603.01(D) expressly exempts the woman from criminal prosecution and civil liability. No D&E 'dismemberment' ban exists in Arizona. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · A.R.S. section 13-3603.01(A), (D), subsections A, D, [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603-01.htm)* **Editor's note.** The partial-birth abortion ban as applied to pre-viability procedures may be vulnerable to challenge under Ariz. Const. art. II, Section 8.1, though no challenge has yet been decided. ### Medication **Legal; mailing and telehealth now permitted** Medication abortion (mifepristone/misoprostol) is legal before viability; the bans on telemedicine prescribing and mailing pills were permanently enjoined in February 2026. Medication abortion using pills like mifepristone and misoprostol is legal in Arizona before fetal viability. Until February 2026, Arizona law required an in-person visit to obtain abortion pills and prohibited mailing them. Both restrictions were permanently blocked by a Maricopa County Superior Court judge in February 2026 as violating the state's constitutional right to abortion. This means patients can now receive abortion medication prescribed via telemedicine and delivered by mail. However, the ruling is being appealed. A separate pending bill (HB 2364) would impose criminal penalties for mailing or receiving abortion pills. > "A manufacturer, supplier or physician or any other person is prohibited from providing an abortion-inducing drug via courier, delivery or mail service." > — A.R.S. section 36-2160(B) **Legal analysis** ARS 36-2160 prohibited providing 'an abortion-inducing drug via courier, delivery or mail service' and required that such drugs be provided 'only by a qualified physician.' The telemedicine ban was embedded in ARS 36-2153's requirement that consent be obtained 'orally and in person.' Both restrictions were permanently enjoined as unconstitutional by Isaacson v. Arizona (Feb. 6, 2026). The state has appealed. *Sources — Semi-verified · Medium confidence · A.R.S. section 36-2160(B), subsection B, [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02160.htm)* **Editor's note.** While the mailing ban and telemedicine ban are currently enjoined, the Isaacson ruling is on appeal. Pending legislation (HB 2364) seeks to impose new criminal penalties on mailing and receiving abortion pills. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Self managed **Not criminalized; mother exempt** No Arizona statute criminalizes self-managed abortion by the pregnant person; the solicitation ban (ARS 13-3604) was repealed in 2021. Arizona does not have any law that makes it a crime for a pregnant person to end their own pregnancy. The state's old law criminalizing the solicitation of abortion (ARS 13-3604) was repealed in 2021. The homicide statutes that cover unborn children explicitly exempt abortions performed with the pregnant person's consent. The personhood interpretation law (ARS 1-219) has been blocked by a federal court from being used to criminalize pregnant people for abortion. Self-managed abortion with medication obtained from any source is not currently criminalized for the pregnant person. > "A person shall not be prosecuted under subsection A, paragraph 5 of this section if any of the following applies: 1. The person was performing an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on the pregnant woman's behalf, has been obtained or for which the abortion was authorized by law." > — A.R.S. section 13-1103(D) **Legal analysis** ARS 13-3604 (solicitation of abortion) was repealed by SB 1457 (2021). No other Arizona statute directly criminalizes self-managed abortion by the pregnant person. ARS 13-1103(D) expressly provides that a person shall not be prosecuted for causing death of an unborn child if the person was performing an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman has been obtained or for which the abortion was authorized by law. ARS 1-219 (personhood interpretation policy) was enjoined as applied to abortion by a federal district court (Isaacson v. Brnovich, July 11, 2022). Pending HB 2364 would criminalize ordering/receiving abortion medication by mail as a Class 1 misdemeanor. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · A.R.S. section 13-1103(D), subsection D, [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/az/title-13-criminal-code/az-rev-st-sect-13-1103)* **Editor's note.** HB 2364 (2026) seeks to criminalize ordering or receiving abortion medication by mail as a Class 1 misdemeanor. If enacted, it would create a narrow window of criminal exposure for self-managed medication abortion via mail. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ## Actors ### Who may perform **Physician-only for surgical; medication less clear** Only licensed physicians may perform surgical abortions; medication abortion prescribing is also statutorily physician-only, though the constitution uses broader 'health care professional' language. Under Arizona statutes still on the books, only a licensed physician (MD or DO) may perform a surgical abortion. The law also states that abortion-inducing drugs may only be provided by a qualified physician. Advanced practice clinicians such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants are not authorized to perform surgical abortions under the statute. Abortion clinics must meet specific licensing requirements. > "An individual who is not a physician shall not perform a surgical abortion." > — A.R.S. section 36-2153(E) **Legal analysis** ARS 36-2153(E): 'An individual who is not a physician shall not perform a surgical abortion.' ARS 36-2160(A): 'An abortion-inducing drug may be provided only by a qualified physician in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.' ARS 36-2151(11) defines 'physician' as a person licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 13 or 17 (MDs and DOs). The constitutional amendment uses the term 'treating health care professional,' suggesting a potentially broader category for constitutional purposes. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · A.R.S. section 36-2153(E), subsection E, [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02153.htm)* **Editor's note.** The physician-only and admitting-privileges requirements were challenged in the Isaacson v. Arizona litigation. Verify the precise scope of the February 2026 injunction as to these provisions. ### Criminal civil exposure #### Pregnant woman **Expressly exempt from abortion liability** Multiple statutes expressly exempt the pregnant woman from criminal prosecution and civil liability for abortion; no realistic criminal exposure exists. Arizona law explicitly protects pregnant women from being prosecuted or sued for having an abortion. The partial-birth abortion ban says the woman cannot be subject to criminal prosecution or civil liability. The genetic-abnormality reason ban (though currently enjoined) similarly exempts the woman. The law that once made it a crime to solicit an abortion was repealed in 2021. The homicide statutes that cover unborn children exempt abortions performed with the pregnant person's consent. In practice, a pregnant person in Arizona faces no criminal exposure for obtaining or self-managing an abortion. > "This section shall not subject a woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed to any criminal prosecution or civil liability." > — A.R.S. section 13-3603.01(D) **Legal analysis** The pregnant woman is expressly exempt from criminal and civil liability under ARS 13-3603.01(D) (partial-birth abortion ban) and ARS 13-3603.02(F) (genetic-abnormality ban, now enjoined). ARS 13-3604 (solicitation of abortion) was repealed in 2021. ARS 13-1103(D) exempts abortion with consent from manslaughter prosecution. Governor Hobbs's Executive Order 2023-11 recognizes that the State can no longer prosecute a patient who seeks to have an abortion. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · A.R.S. section 13-3603.01(D), subsection D, [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603-01.htm)* **Editor's note.** HB 2364 (pending 2026) would create new criminal exposure for ordering or receiving abortion medication. Re-check its status before final publication. #### Physician **Provider: D&X felony; civil liability** Physicians face Class 6 felony (up to 2 years) for partial-birth abortion, license consequences for informed consent violations, and civil liability under multiple statutes. Under Arizona law as currently enforced, a physician's main criminal exposure is for performing a partial-birth abortion, a Class 6 felony carrying up to 2 years in prison. The previously broader criminal bans (1864 ban and 15-week ban) have been repealed or permanently blocked. Physicians also face professional discipline for failing to comply with informed consent requirements, though many of those requirements are currently enjoined. Several civil liability provisions allow lawsuits by the woman, the father (if married), or maternal grandparents for specific violations. > "Any physician who knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus is guilty of a class 6 felony and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." > — A.R.S. section 13-3603.01(A) **Legal analysis** Currently operative criminal exposure: ARS 13-3603.01 (partial-birth abortion: Class 6 felony, up to 2 years). Civil exposure: ARS 36-2153(K) permits civil actions for informed consent violations with damages including money damages, $5,000 or 3x cost statutory damages, and attorney fees. ARS 13-3603.01(C) provides similar civil action for partial-birth abortion. ARS 36-2152(J) provides civil action for parental consent violations. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · A.R.S. section 13-3603.01(A), subsection A, [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603-01.htm)* **Editor's note.** Many civil liability provisions may be vulnerable to challenge under Ariz. Const. art. II, Section 8.1. #### Prescriber pharmacist **Limited exposure; mail ban enjoined** Non-physician prescribers and pharmacists face uncertain exposure; the medication mailing ban was the main source of liability for dispensing by mail, now enjoined. Arizona law states that abortion-inducing drugs may be provided only by a qualified physician, limiting the role of nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and pharmacists. The prohibition on mailing abortion pills, which was the primary source of potential liability for pharmacists and mail-order pharmacies, has been permanently blocked by a court, though the ruling is under appeal. Pending legislation would impose new criminal penalties on pharmacists who mail abortion medication. > "An abortion-inducing drug may be provided only by a qualified physician in accordance with the requirements of this chapter." > — A.R.S. section 36-2160(A) **Legal analysis** ARS 36-2160(A): 'An abortion-inducing drug may be provided only by a qualified physician in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.' ARS 36-2160(B) prohibition on providing drugs via courier, delivery or mail service was enjoined by Isaacson v. Arizona (Feb. 6, 2026). Pending HB 2364 would make it a Class 4 felony for a pharmacist or licensed health care provider to mail or ship abortion-inducing drugs. *Sources — Semi-verified · Medium confidence · A.R.S. section 36-2160(A), subsection A, [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02160.htm)* **Editor's note.** HB 2364 (2026) would significantly increase criminal exposure for pharmacists and prescribers. Monitor its status. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. #### Nurses and staff **No standalone criminal exposure** Nurses and clinic staff face no standalone criminal liability for assisting with lawful abortions; the constitution protects those who aid or assist. Nurses and clinic staff who assist with lawful abortions do not face criminal liability under Arizona's current legal framework. The Arizona Constitution explicitly protects any individual or entity for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the individual's right to abortion. A pending bill (HB 2074) would require clinic staff to report partial-birth abortions to prosecutors under penalty of a year in prison, but this has not passed. > "Penalizes any individual or entity for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the individual's right to abortion as provided in this section." > — Ariz. Const. art. II, section 8.1(A)(3) **Legal analysis** Ariz. Const. art. II, Section 8.1(A)(3) prohibits the state from penalizing 'any individual or entity for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the individual's right to abortion as provided in this section.' The repealed ARS 13-3603 had criminalized any person who provides, supplies or administers abortion means. Absent a predicate offense, accomplice liability under ARS 13-301 does not attach. Pending HB 2074 would create a reporting obligation with a one-year prison penalty for noncompliance. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ariz. Const. art. II, section 8.1(A)(3), subsection A(3), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/az/arizona-constitution/az-const-art-ii-sect-8-1)* **Editor's note.** HB 2074 (2026) would impose a one-year prison penalty for failure to report partial-birth abortions. Monitor. #### Other helpers **Helpers constitutionally protected** The Arizona Constitution shields anyone who aids or assists a pregnant person in exercising their abortion right; no criminal exposure for driving, paying, or supporting. The Arizona Constitution explicitly protects anyone who helps a pregnant person get an abortion. This includes friends who provide transportation, parents who pay for the procedure, clergy who offer counseling, and anyone else who provides assistance. This constitutional shield is broad and applies to both criminal and civil liability. > "Penalizes any individual or entity for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the individual's right to abortion as provided in this section." > — Ariz. Const. art. II, section 8.1(A)(3) **Legal analysis** Ariz. Const. art. II, Section 8.1(A)(3): the state shall not penalize any individual or entity for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the individual's right to abortion as provided in this section. This is a broad shield that covers criminal and civil penalties. It supersedes any statutory provisions that could be construed to reach helpers. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ariz. Const. art. II, section 8.1(A)(3), subsection A(3), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/az/arizona-constitution/az-const-art-ii-sect-8-1)* ## Aiding & assisting ### Travel assistance **Travel assistance protected** Helping someone travel for an abortion is constitutionally protected; Arizona has no abortion trafficking statute. Arizona does not criminalize helping someone travel to obtain an abortion, whether inside Arizona or to another state. The Arizona Constitution protects anyone who aids or assists a pregnant person in exercising their abortion right. There is no abortion trafficking law in Arizona. > "Penalizes any individual or entity for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the individual's right to abortion as provided in this section." > — Ariz. Const. art. II, section 8.1(A)(3) **Legal analysis** Ariz. Const. art. II, Section 8.1(A)(3) broadly shields those who aid or assist in exercising the abortion right. Arizona has not enacted any abortion trafficking statute. Governor Hobbs's Executive Order 2023-11 prohibits state agencies from providing information or assistance in furtherance of an investigation initiated in or by another state for conduct related to reproductive healthcare that would not be punishable under Arizona law. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ariz. Const. art. II, section 8.1(A)(3), subsection A(3), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/az/arizona-constitution/az-const-art-ii-sect-8-1)* ### Funding **Funding assistance protected** Paying for someone else's lawful abortion or related travel is constitutionally protected; no Arizona law prohibits abortion funds or employer reimbursement. Under Arizona's constitution, anyone who provides financial assistance for an abortion, including abortion funds, friends, family members, or employers, is protected from penalty. This constitutional shield covers helping to pay for the procedure itself as well as related expenses like travel. However, state law does prohibit using state or federal Medicaid funds for abortion beyond the narrow Hyde Amendment exceptions. > "Penalizes any individual or entity for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the individual's right to abortion as provided in this section." > — Ariz. Const. art. II, section 8.1(A)(3) **Legal analysis** Ariz. Const. art. II, Section 8.1(A)(3) protects those who aid or assist, which encompasses funding. No statute criminalizes funding assistance. ARS 20-121 restricts exchange-plan coverage. Medicaid is limited to Hyde categories. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ariz. Const. art. II, section 8.1(A)(3), subsection A(3), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/az/arizona-constitution/az-const-art-ii-sect-8-1)* ### Mailing pills **Mailing ban enjoined; legislation pending** The statutory ban on mailing abortion medication is permanently enjoined as of February 2026, though the injunction is on appeal; a new bill seeks criminal penalties. Arizona law on its books says that abortion-inducing drugs cannot be mailed or delivered by courier. However, a court permanently blocked enforcement of this ban in February 2026, finding it violates the state constitution. This means abortion pills can currently be mailed to Arizona residents. The state legislature's Republican leaders are appealing the ruling. Meanwhile, a separate bill (HB 2364) that would make mailing abortion pills a Class 4 felony for providers and a Class 1 misdemeanor for patients is advancing through the legislature. > "A manufacturer, supplier or physician or any other person is prohibited from providing an abortion-inducing drug via courier, delivery or mail service." > — A.R.S. section 36-2160(B) **Legal analysis** ARS 36-2160(B) prohibition on mailing abortion-inducing drugs was permanently enjoined by Isaacson v. Arizona (Feb. 6, 2026). The state, through GOP legislative intervenors, has appealed. Pending HB 2364 would amend ARS 36-2160 to impose Class 4 and Class 5 felonies for mailing and a Class 1 misdemeanor for ordering/receiving. The Arizona Constitution's anti-penalty provision (art. II, Section 8.1(A)(3)) would likely be raised in any enforcement action. *Sources — Semi-verified · Medium confidence · A.R.S. section 36-2160(B), subsection B, [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02160.htm)* **Editor's note.** The Isaacson injunction is on appeal. HB 2364 is advancing but not yet enacted. Both developments could change the mailing landscape significantly. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Providing information **Information provision generally protected** Providing information about abortion is generally protected speech; a 2026 bill would ban university employees from discussing abortion options, but First Amendment challenges are likely. Arizona law does not broadly prohibit providing information about abortion. An old statute (ARS 13-3605) makes it a misdemeanor to advertise abortion services or contraception, but this law is of questionable constitutionality and does not appear to be enforced. A 2026 bill (HB 2186) would prohibit employees of state universities and community colleges from telling students they have the legal option to terminate a pregnancy, but this has not been enacted and would face constitutional challenges. > "A person who wilfully writes, composes or publishes a notice or advertisement of any medicine or means for producing or facilitating a miscarriage or abortion, or for prevention of conception, or who offers his services by a notice, advertisement or otherwise, to assist in the accomplishment of any such purposes, is guilty of a misdemeanor." > — A.R.S. section 13-3605 **Legal analysis** ARS 13-3605 makes it a misdemeanor to wilfully write, compose or publish a notice or advertisement of any medicine or means for producing or facilitating a miscarriage or abortion, or for prevention of conception. This statute is likely unconstitutional under Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U.S. 678 (1977) and Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975). It has not been formally challenged or repealed. Pending HB 2186 (2026) would make it illegal for any employee of a university or community college in their official capacity to discuss abortion as a legal option. *Sources — Semi-verified · Medium confidence · A.R.S. section 13-3605, [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03605.htm)* **Editor's note.** ARS 13-3605 is likely unconstitutional under binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent but has not been formally repealed or enjoined. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Civil bounty **No bounty law** Arizona has no SB8-style private civil enforcement mechanism; the closest analogues are civil actions by specific family members for specific violations. Arizona does not have a Texas SB8-style bounty law that lets any private citizen sue abortion providers or helpers for money. Several Arizona statutes do allow specific people (the woman herself, the father if married, or maternal grandparents if the mother is a minor) to sue for damages for specific violations. These are more limited than a bounty law: only designated family members can sue, and only for violations of specific statutory requirements. > "In addition to other remedies available under the common or statutory law of this state, any of the following may file a civil action to obtain appropriate relief for a violation of this section: 1. A woman on whom an abortion has been performed without her informed consent. 2. The father of the unborn child if the father was married to the mother at the time she received the abortion. 3. A maternal grandparent of the unborn child if the mother was not at least eighteen years of age at the time of the abortion." > — A.R.S. section 36-2153(K) **Legal analysis** Arizona has no general private civil enforcement statute authorizing any citizen to sue for damages regardless of injury. The closest provisions are: ARS 36-2153(K) (civil action for informed consent violations by the woman, the father if married, or maternal grandparents if the mother is under 18); ARS 36-2152(J) (civil action for parental consent violations); ARS 13-3603.01(C) (civil action for partial-birth abortion by the father if married or maternal grandparents). These are injury-to-specific-plaintiff models, not SB8-style universal standing. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · A.R.S. section 36-2153(K), subsection K, [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02153.htm)* **Editor's note.** These civil action provisions may be vulnerable under Ariz. Const. art. II, Section 8.1 but have not yet been challenged on that basis. ## Procedural requirements ### Waiting period **Waiting period, enjoined** The 24-hour mandatory waiting period between counseling and abortion was permanently enjoined in February 2026; no delay is currently required. Until February 2026, Arizona law required a patient to receive in-person counseling at least 24 hours before an abortion. A Maricopa County Superior Court judge permanently blocked this requirement as unconstitutional under Arizona's new abortion-rights amendment. As of now, there is no mandatory waiting period. The ruling is under appeal. > "At least twenty-four hours before the abortion, the physician who is to perform the abortion or the referring physician has informed the woman, orally and in person." > — A.R.S. section 36-2153(A)(1) **Legal analysis** ARS 36-2153(A) required that at least 24 hours before an abortion, a physician provide specified information orally and in person. This was permanently enjoined by Isaacson v. Arizona (Feb. 6, 2026) as violating Ariz. Const. art. II, Section 8.1. GOP legislative leaders have appealed. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · A.R.S. section 36-2153(A)(1), subsection A(1), [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02153.htm)* **Editor's note.** The injunction is on appeal. Re-verify before publication whether it has been stayed by a higher court. ### Mandatory counseling **Scripted counseling, enjoined** The requirement that physicians recite state-mandated information was permanently enjoined in February 2026. Arizona previously required doctors to deliver a state-scripted set of information at least 24 hours before an abortion, including the probable characteristics of the fetus, alternatives to abortion, the father's child-support obligations, and availability of state benefits. This requirement was permanently blocked by a court in February 2026 as unconstitutional. Doctors are no longer required to deliver this script. > "At least twenty-four hours before the abortion, the physician who is to perform the abortion or the referring physician has informed the woman, orally and in person, of: ... (f) The probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed." > — A.R.S. section 36-2153(A)(1)(f) **Legal analysis** ARS 36-2153(A)(1) and (2) required specific disclosures including the name of the performing physician, nature of the procedure, medical risks, alternatives, probable gestational age, probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child, medical risks of carrying to term, availability of medical assistance benefits, father's child-support liability, and availability of public and private agencies. All of these requirements were permanently enjoined in Isaacson v. Arizona (Feb. 6, 2026). *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · A.R.S. section 36-2153(A)(1)(f), subsection A(1)(f), [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02153.htm)* **Editor's note.** The injunction is on appeal. ### Ultrasound requirement **Ultrasound requirement, enjoined** The mandatory ultrasound with fetal heartbeat auscultation at least 24 hours before abortion was permanently enjoined in February 2026. Arizona previously required an ultrasound to be performed and the fetal heartbeat to be made audible at least 24 hours before every abortion, with the patient offered a chance to view the image. This requirement was permanently blocked by a court in February 2026. No ultrasound is currently mandated before an abortion. > "Perform fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the woman undergoing the abortion." > — A.R.S. section 36-2156(A)(1)(a) **Legal analysis** ARS 36-2156(A)(1) required the performing physician or referring physician to perform fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services and offer to provide the woman with an opportunity to view the active ultrasound image. This was permanently enjoined as part of Isaacson v. Arizona (Feb. 6, 2026). *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · A.R.S. section 36-2156(A)(1)(a), subsection A(1)(a), [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02156.htm)* **Editor's note.** Injunction on appeal. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### In person visits **No mandated in-person visits** With the waiting period, counseling, and ultrasound requirements enjoined, and the telemedicine ban lifted, zero in-person visits are currently legally compelled. Before February 2026, the combination of the 24-hour waiting period, mandatory in-person counseling, and required ultrasound meant a patient had to make at least two in-person visits to obtain an abortion. With all these requirements now enjoined, and the telemedicine ban lifted, no in-person visits are legally required. A patient can consult with a provider remotely and, for medication abortion, receive pills by mail without any clinic visit. **Legal analysis** Prior to the Isaacson injunction, the combined effect of ARS 36-2153 (in-person informed consent 24 hours before), ARS 36-2156 (in-person ultrasound 24 hours before), and the telemedicine ban forced two in-person visits. With all these enjoined as of February 6, 2026, zero in-person visits are compelled. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Isaacson v. Arizona, Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct., Feb. 6, 2026, [ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/arizona-court-strikes-down-abortion-restrictions-as-unconstitutional)* **Editor's note.** Injunctions on appeal. If reversed, two in-person visits would again be required. ## Minors ### Parental involvement **One-parent consent; judicial bypass** Arizona requires notarized written consent from one parent or guardian for an unemancipated minor's abortion, with a judicial bypass option. Arizona law requires a minor (under 18 and unemancipated) to get written, notarized consent from one parent, guardian, or conservator before having an abortion. If the minor cannot or does not want to involve a parent, they can ask a superior court judge for permission instead. The minor does not need parental consent if the pregnancy resulted from sexual abuse by a parent or household member or in a medical emergency. Violating this law is a Class 1 misdemeanor for the provider and anyone who causes, aids, or assists the minor in obtaining an abortion without proper consent. > "A person shall not knowingly perform an abortion on a pregnant unemancipated minor unless the attending physician has secured the written and notarized consent from one of the minor's parents or the minor's guardian or conservator or unless a judge of the superior court authorizes the physician to perform the abortion." > — A.R.S. section 36-2152(A) **Legal analysis** ARS 36-2152(A) requires written and notarized consent from one of the minor's parents or the minor's guardian or conservator. Exceptions: abuse by a parent or household member (H)(1), medical emergency (H)(2). ARS 36-2152(I): violation is a Class 1 misdemeanor for the performer and for anyone who intentionally causes, aids or assists a minor in obtaining an abortion in violation of this section. This statute has not been directly challenged under Proposition 139. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · A.R.S. section 36-2152(A), subsection A, [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02152.htm)* **Editor's note.** The aiding-and-assisting penalty may conflict with the constitutional protection for helpers in art. II, Section 8.1(A)(3). This has not been litigated. ### Judicial bypass **Judicial bypass available** Minors can petition a superior court for authorization without parental consent; the judge must rule within 48 hours; appeal is available; counsel is provided. A minor who cannot or will not seek parental consent can go to court instead. She can file a petition using a fake name, the court will appoint a guardian ad litem, and she has the right to a free lawyer. The judge must decide within 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays), and if the court does not rule in time, the petition is automatically granted. If the judge denies the request, the minor can appeal and the appeals court must rule within 48 hours. > "If the court fails to issue a ruling within this time period, the petition is deemed to have been granted and the consent requirement is waived." > — A.R.S. section 36-2152(F) **Legal analysis** ARS 36-2152(B)-(G). The minor must prove maturity by clear and convincing evidence based on experience level, perspective and judgment (C). If not mature, the court applies a best interests standard (B). The minor may participate on her own behalf; the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem and counsel (D). Proceedings are confidential with precedence over other matters (E). The court must rule within 48 hours excluding weekends/holidays; failure means the petition is deemed granted (F). An expedited confidential appeal is available with the same 48-hour deadline; no filing fees are required (G). *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · A.R.S. section 36-2152(F), subsection F, [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02152.htm)* ## Paternal spousal rights ### Consent or notice laws **No spousal consent or notice law** Arizona has no statute requiring spousal consent or notice for abortion; the only paternal involvement is civil standing to sue for certain violations. Arizona does not require a pregnant person to get consent from or give notice to her spouse or the father before having an abortion. The only paternal rights in Arizona abortion law are limited civil standing: a father who is married to the mother at the time of the abortion can sue for damages for certain statutory violations like failure to obtain informed consent. **Legal analysis** Arizona has no spousal consent or spousal notice requirement. The closest analogues are civil standing provisions: ARS 36-2153(K)(2) gives the father of the unborn child if married to the mother standing to sue for informed consent violations. Under Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), blanket spousal consent requirements are unconstitutional. Arizona has not enacted any spousal consent or notice provisions, so the question is not live in this jurisdiction. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Enforceability **No spousal law to enforce** Since Arizona has no spousal consent or notice statute, the enforceability question under Danforth and Casey does not arise in this jurisdiction. Arizona never enacted a spousal consent or notice requirement, so there is nothing to enforce or challenge. The U.S. Supreme Court precedents striking down such laws remain good law for the federal constitutional analysis. **Legal analysis** No Arizona statute requires spousal consent or notice. Danforth, 428 U.S. at 69-71 (spousal consent unconstitutional) and Casey, 505 U.S. at 893-94 (spousal notice unconstitutional). Even if states now have broader latitude after Dobbs, Arizona has chosen not to enact any spousal involvement requirement. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Other paternal rights **Civil standing for married fathers** A father married to the mother at the time of abortion may bring civil actions for informed consent and partial-birth abortion violations; wrongful death standing exists for viable fetuses. Under Arizona statutes, a father who is married to the mother at the time she has an abortion can sue the provider for money damages if the informed consent requirements were violated or if a partial-birth abortion was performed. Maternal grandparents have similar standing if the mother is a minor. Under a 1985 Arizona Supreme Court ruling (Summerfield v. Superior Court), parents can bring a wrongful death claim for a viable fetus. The father cannot, however, block the abortion itself, only seek damages after the fact for procedural violations. > "The father of the unborn child if the father was married to the mother at the time she received the abortion, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct." > — A.R.S. section 36-2153(K)(2) **Legal analysis** ARS 36-2153(K)(2): the father married to the mother at the time may sue for informed consent violations. Summerfield v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. 467, 698 P.2d 712 (1985), held that a viable fetus is a person for purposes of Arizona's wrongful death statute (ARS 12-611). *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · A.R.S. section 36-2153(K)(2), subsection K(2), [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02153.htm)* **Editor's note.** These civil standing provisions may be inconsistent with art. II, Section 8.1. No challenge has been brought. ## Fetal personhood ### Fetal homicide law **Fetal homicide at any stage** Arizona manslaughter and negligent homicide statutes apply to an unborn child in the womb at any stage of its development, but exempt lawful abortion with the woman's consent. Arizona law treats causing the death of an unborn child at any stage of pregnancy as homicide for third parties: negligent homicide is a class 4 felony, and manslaughter is a class 2 felony for knowingly or recklessly causing the death of an unborn child by injuring the mother. These laws do not apply to the pregnant woman herself, and they explicitly do not apply to a person performing an abortion with the pregnant woman's consent or as authorized by law. In other words, the fetal homicide law covers third parties who harm a pregnancy (for example, in a domestic violence assault), not abortion providers acting with consent. > "An offense under subsection A, paragraph 5 of this section applies to an unborn child in the womb at any stage of its development. A person shall not be prosecuted under subsection A, paragraph 5 of this section if any of the following applies: 1. The person was performing an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman has been obtained or for which the abortion was authorized by law." > — A.R.S. section 13-1103(B), (D) **Legal analysis** ARS 13-1102 (negligent homicide) includes causing death of an unborn child as a class 4 felony. ARS 13-1103(A)(5) (manslaughter) includes knowingly or recklessly causing the death of an unborn child by any physical injury to the mother as a class 2 felony. ARS 13-1103(B): applies to an unborn child in the womb at any stage of its development. ARS 13-1103(D)(1): prosecution is barred if the person was performing an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman has been obtained or for which the abortion was authorized by law. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · A.R.S. section 13-1103(B), (D), subsections B, D, [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/az/title-13-criminal-code/az-rev-st-sect-13-1103)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Wrongful death **Wrongful death for viable fetus** The Arizona Supreme Court in Summerfield (1985) held that parents may bring a wrongful death action for a viable fetus; pre-viability claims status is unclear. Under an Arizona Supreme Court ruling from 1985, parents can sue for wrongful death when a viable fetus dies because of someone else's negligence or wrongdoing. The court's ruling was limited to viable fetuses. This means a third party who causes the loss of a pregnancy after viability can be sued for wrongful death damages. > "This case presents the question of whether a wrongful death action can be maintained by the Summerfields (plaintiffs), the parents of a viable fetus that was stillborn." > — Summerfield v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. 467, 698 P.2d 712 (1985) **Legal analysis** Summerfield v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. 467, 698 P.2d 712 (1985), held that a viable fetus is a person within the meaning of Arizona's wrongful death statute, ARS 12-611. The court limited its holding to viable fetuses and did not extend it to non-viable fetuses. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Summerfield v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. 467, 698 P.2d 712 (1985), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1985/17607-sa-2.html)* **Editor's note.** The Summerfield court expressly limited its holding to viable fetuses and did not address pre-viability wrongful death claims. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Personhood definition **Interpretation provision, enjoined** ARS 1-219 directs all Arizona laws to be interpreted to grant unborn children all rights at every stage of development, but is enjoined as applied to abortion. A 2021 Arizona law (ARS 1-219) says that all state laws must be interpreted to grant unborn children all rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons at every stage of development. A federal judge blocked this law from being used to restrict abortion in July 2022, finding it was too vague and conflicted with Arizona's other abortion laws. The injunction remains in effect while the case is on appeal. The statute does not itself make anything a crime; it is an interpretation policy. It also explicitly says it does not create a cause of action against IVF providers or against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child through inadequate prenatal care. > "The laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge, on behalf of an unborn child at every stage of development, all rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons, citizens and residents of this state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States Supreme Court." > — A.R.S. section 1-219(A) **Legal analysis** ARS 1-219(A): 'The laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge, on behalf of an unborn child at every stage of development, all rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons, citizens and residents of this state.' Subsection (B)(1) carves out IVF. Subsection (B)(2) carves out indirect maternal harm. The provision was enjoined as applied to abortion by a federal district court in Isaacson v. Brnovich, No. 2:21-cv-01417-DLR (D. Ariz. July 11, 2022), on vagueness grounds. The state appealed; the Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · A.R.S. section 1-219(A), subsection A, [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/1/00219.htm)* **Editor's note.** The federal injunction is as-applied to abortion only. ARS 1-219 may still operate in other legal contexts. ### Contradictions analysis Arizona's legal treatment of fetal personhood contains significant internal contradictions. The definitional statute (ARS 36-2151(16)) defines 'unborn child' as 'the offspring of human beings from conception until birth.' The interpretation statute (ARS 1-219) directs all state laws to be interpreted to grant unborn children all rights 'at every stage of development.' The homicide statutes (ARS 13-1102, 13-1103) treat an 'unborn child in the womb at any stage of its development' as a potential homicide victim — yet those same homicide statutes expressly exempt from prosecution any person performing an abortion with the pregnant woman's consent or as authorized by law. Meanwhile, the Arizona Constitution (art. II, Section 8.1) now guarantees a 'fundamental right to abortion' before viability, which necessarily treats the pre-viability fetus as something other than a full legal person whose right to life would override the pregnant person's autonomy. The personhood interpretation statute (ARS 1-219) is itself enjoined as applied to abortion, creating an additional layer of contradiction between what the statute says and what courts will enforce. The criminal law treats the fetus as a victim of third-party violence at any stage, while the constitutional and abortion-specific statutes permit its intentional termination with the pregnant person's consent. These tensions have not been fully resolved by Arizona courts. ## Telehealth & interstate questions ### Telehealth prescribing **Telehealth allowed; ban enjoined** The statutory ban on telemedicine for abortion was permanently enjoined in February 2026; medication abortion can now be prescribed via telehealth. Arizona law previously banned the use of telemedicine for abortion, requiring in-person visits. A court permanently blocked this ban in February 2026. As a result, health care providers can now prescribe medication abortion through telehealth without requiring the patient to come to a clinic. The ruling is being appealed. > "Arizona state court today permanently blocked ... a ban on the use of telemedicine for abortion." > — Isaacson v. Arizona, Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct., Feb. 6, 2026 **Legal analysis** The telemedicine ban was embedded in ARS 36-2153's requirement that counseling be provided 'orally and in person' and was permanently enjoined on February 6, 2026 by Isaacson v. Arizona as violating Ariz. Const. art. II, Section 8.1. The state, through GOP legislative intervenors, appealed. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Isaacson v. Arizona, Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct., Feb. 6, 2026, [ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/arizona-court-strikes-down-abortion-restrictions-as-unconstitutional)* **Editor's note.** On appeal. Re-verify before publication. ### Out of state travel **Travel lawful; no extraterritorial reach** Arizona residents may lawfully travel out of state for abortion care; no Arizona statute criminalizes or restricts such travel. Arizona residents are free to travel to other states for abortion care. Arizona law does not prohibit, restrict, or penalize this travel. The state constitution protects the right to abortion, and the Governor's executive order prohibits state agencies from cooperating with other states' investigations into lawful abortion conduct. > "Unless required pursuant to a court order or Arizona or federal law, no State Agency shall provide information, data, or investigative assistance or otherwise use any State resources in furtherance of an investigation or proceeding initiated in or by another state that seeks to impose criminal or civil liability for conduct related to providing, assisting, seeking, or obtaining reproductive healthcare that would not be punishable under Arizona law." > — Executive Order 2023-11 **Legal analysis** No Arizona statute restricts out-of-state travel for abortion. Executive Order 2023-11 prohibits state agencies from providing information, data, or investigative assistance in furtherance of an investigation initiated in or by another state for conduct related to reproductive healthcare that would not be punishable under Arizona law. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Executive Order 2023-11, Restrictions on Investigative Assistance section, [Office of the Arizona Governor](https://azgovernor.gov/office-arizona-governor/executive-order/2023-11)* **Editor's note.** Executive orders can be rescinded by a future governor. ### Shield or hostile laws **Shield protections via executive order** Governor Hobbs's Executive Order 2023-11 provides shield protections: centralized prosecutions in a supportive AG, no cooperation with out-of-state investigations, and restricted extradition. Arizona has not passed a statutory shield law, but Governor Katie Hobbs issued an executive order in June 2023 that achieves many of the same goals. The order puts the state attorney general in charge of all abortion-related prosecutions, forbids state agencies from helping other states investigate people for abortion conduct that is legal in Arizona, and restricts extradition for out-of-state abortion charges. These protections apply to providers, patients, and anyone who helps someone get an abortion. However, executive orders can be undone by a future governor. > "To the extent permissible under Arizona and federal law, my Administration shall decline any request from the executive authority of another state for the arrest, surrender, or extradition of any person charged with a criminal violation of a law where the alleged violation relates to the provision of, assistance with, securing of, or receipt of reproductive healthcare, unless the acts forming the basis of the prosecution of the crime charged would also be punishable as a criminal offense under Arizona law." > — Executive Order 2023-11 **Legal analysis** Executive Order 2023-11 (June 23, 2023) provides three categories of protection: (1) Centralizing Authority: the Attorney General assumes all duties for abortion-related criminal prosecutions statewide. (2) Restrictions on Investigative Assistance: state agencies are prohibited from assisting out-of-state abortion investigations. (3) Restrictions on Extraditions: the administration shall decline extradition requests for reproductive-health-related charges where the conduct would not be punishable under Arizona law. Arizona has not enacted a statutory shield law. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Executive Order 2023-11, Restrictions on Extraditions section, [Office of the Arizona Governor](https://azgovernor.gov/office-arizona-governor/executive-order/2023-11)* **Editor's note.** Executive Order 2023-11 states it shall not confer any legal rights or remedies upon any person. It is not a statutory shield law and could be rescinded by a future governor. ## Funding and insurance ### Medicaid **Hyde-only Medicaid coverage** Arizona's Medicaid program (AHCCCS) covers abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest, following the federal Hyde Amendment. Arizona's Medicaid program, AHCCCS, only covers abortion in three narrow circumstances: when the pregnancy endangers the life of the pregnant person, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. This follows the federal Hyde Amendment. Arizona does not use its own state funds to cover abortion beyond these federal minimums. **Legal analysis** Arizona follows the Hyde Amendment restrictions: federal Medicaid funds cover abortion only for life endangerment, rape, or incest. Arizona does not use state funds to expand coverage beyond Hyde. The current AHCCCS policy follows Hyde-only coverage. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · National Health Law Program, Abortion Coverage Under Medicaid (Apr. 2025), Appendix, [National Health Law Program](https://healthlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2025-Abortion-Coverage-Under-Medicaid.pdf)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Private insurance **Exchange plans restricted** ACA marketplace plans in Arizona are barred from covering abortion except for life endangerment, to avert substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function, or in cases of rape or incest. Health insurance plans sold on Arizona's Affordable Care Act marketplace cannot cover abortion except in three narrow circumstances: to save the pregnant person's life, to prevent substantial and irreversible damage to a major bodily function, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Plans sold outside the marketplace are not subject to this same statutory ban. > "Consistent with the provisions of the patient protection and affordable care act, any qualified health insurance policy, contract or plan offered through any health care exchange operating in this state shall not provide coverage for abortions." > — A.R.S. section 20-121(A) **Legal analysis** ARS 20-121(A): any qualified health insurance policy, contract or plan offered through any health care exchange operating in this state shall not provide coverage for abortions. Subsection (B) creates exceptions for abortions necessary to save the life, to avert substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function, or when the pregnancy results from rape or incest. This statute applies only to exchange plans. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · A.R.S. section 20-121(A), subsection A, [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/title-20/section-20-121)* ### Exchange plans **Exchange plan ban as above** ARS 20-121 prohibits abortion coverage in exchange plans with exceptions for life, major bodily function impairment, rape, and incest. The ACA marketplace plan restrictions are covered under Arizona's private insurance law (ARS 20-121). Exchange plans cannot cover abortion except to save the life, prevent major bodily harm, or in cases of rape or incest. > "any qualified health insurance policy, contract or plan offered through any health care exchange operating in this state shall not provide coverage for abortions." > — A.R.S. section 20-121(A) **Legal analysis** Same analysis as private_insurance above. ARS 20-121 governs exchange plans specifically. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · A.R.S. section 20-121(A), subsection A, [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/title-20/section-20-121)* ### State funding of providers **Providers defunded** Arizona has a history of defunding abortion providers from state family planning funds; a 2025 U.S. Supreme Court ruling may enable enforcement of previously blocked defunding measures. Arizona has long sought to exclude abortion providers from receiving state family planning funds. The state has a statutory framework (ARS 35-196.05) that prioritizes funding for entities that do not perform or promote abortions. Enforcement of some provider-defunding measures was previously blocked by federal courts, but a June 2025 U.S. Supreme Court ruling may allow Arizona to enforce these restrictions. **Legal analysis** ARS 35-196.05 directs state family planning funds away from entities that perform or promote abortion. A 2025 U.S. Supreme Court ruling may permit enforcement of previously blocked defunding provisions. The federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA, July 2025) includes a provider defund provision designating certain abortion providers as prohibited entities ineligible for Medicaid payments containing federal funds. *Sources — Semi-verified · Medium confidence · AZ Capitol Times, June 26, 2025, [Arizona Capitol Times](https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2025/06/26/us-supreme-court-ruling-could-impact-planned-parenthood-in-arizona)* **Editor's note.** The precise current enforcement status of ARS 35-196.05 should be re-verified. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ## Penalties | Actor | Offense | Penalty | Verification | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Physician (partial-birth abortion) | Knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion and killing a human fetus | Class 6 felony; fine and/or imprisonment up to 2 years | Verified at source | | Physician (informed consent violations) | Knowingly violating informed consent requirements | Unprofessional conduct; license suspension or revocation; civil liability | Verified at source | | Any person aiding minor without parental consent | Intentionally causing, aiding, or assisting a minor in obtaining an abortion without required parental consent or judicial bypass | Class 1 misdemeanor; civil liability | Verified at source | | Pregnant woman | No offense — expressly exempt from criminal prosecution and civil liability for abortion | None | Verified at source | ## Recent changes - **June 24, 2022** — U.S. Supreme Court issues Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade. *Sources — Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022), [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf)* - **July 11, 2022** — Federal district court enjoins Arizona's personhood interpretation provision (ARS 1-219) as applied to abortion. *Sources — Isaacson v. Brnovich, No. 2:21-cv-01417-DLR (D. Ariz. July 11, 2022), [AZPM](https://media.azpm.org/master/document/2022/7/11/pdf/isaacson-order.pdf)* - **September 24, 2022** — SB 1164 (15-week abortion ban) takes effect in Arizona. *Sources — SB 1164, 55th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2022), [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/sb1164p.pdf)* - **June 23, 2023** — Governor Hobbs issues Executive Order 2023-11, centralizing abortion prosecutions in the Attorney General and providing shield protections. *Sources — Executive Order 2023-11, [Office of the Arizona Governor](https://azgovernor.gov/office-arizona-governor/executive-order/2023-11)* - **April 9, 2024** — Arizona Supreme Court rules 4-2 that the 1864 near-total abortion ban (ARS 13-3603) is enforceable. *Sources — Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes, 254 Ariz. 401 (2024), [Arizona Supreme Court](https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2024/CV230005PR.pdf)* - **May 2, 2024** — Governor Hobbs signs HB 2677, repealing the 1864 near-total abortion ban (ARS 13-3603). Repeal takes effect September 14, 2024. *Sources — Chapter 181, 2024 Ariz. Sess. Laws (HB 2677), [Arizona Legislature](https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/2r/laws/0181.htm)* - **November 5, 2024** — Arizona voters approve Proposition 139 (Arizona Abortion Access Act) by a 61.4% majority, creating a constitutional fundamental right to abortion before fetal viability. *Sources — 2024 Arizona Proposition 139, [Ballotpedia](https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_139,_Right_to_Abortion_Initiative_(2024))* - **November 25, 2024** — Proposition 139 takes effect upon certification of election results, adding Article II, Section 8.1 to the Arizona Constitution. *Sources — Ariz. Const. art. II, section 8.1, [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/az/arizona-constitution/az-const-art-ii-sect-8-1)* - **March 5, 2025** — Maricopa County Superior Court permanently enjoins Arizona's 15-week abortion ban as unconstitutional under Proposition 139. *Sources — Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes, No. CV2024-053896 (Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct. Mar. 5, 2025), [Center for Reproductive Rights](https://reproductiverights.org/news/arizona-15-week-abortion-ban-blocked)* - **January 30, 2026** — Arizona House advances three abortion restriction bills: HB 2074 (removing woman's exemption from partial-birth abortion penalties), HB 2186 (banning university employees from discussing abortion options), and HB 2364 (criminal penalties for mailing/receiving abortion medication). *Sources — AZ Capitol Times, Jan. 30, 2026, [Arizona Capitol Times](https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2026/01/30/abortion-restrictions-arizona-lawmakers-push-for-criminal-penalties-for-women-and-providers)* - **February 6, 2026** — Maricopa County Superior Court permanently enjoins multiple abortion restrictions as unconstitutional under Proposition 139. GOP legislative leaders appeal. *Sources — Isaacson v. Arizona, Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct., Feb. 6, 2026, [Arizona Mirror](https://azmirror.com/2026/02/06/judge-arizona-abortion-laws-are-unconstitutional-after-2024-amendment)* ## Pending changes ### Isaacson v. Arizona (appeal of Feb. 6, 2026 injunction) (Litigation) **Status.** Appeal pending; GOP legislative leaders are appealing Judge Como's permanent injunction to the Arizona Court of Appeals. If reversed, the 24-hour waiting period, mandatory ultrasound, state-scripted counseling, telemedicine ban, medication mailing ban, and genetic-abnormality reason ban would be reinstated. ### Isaacson v. Brnovich (federal appeal of ARS 1-219 personhood injunction) (Litigation) **Status.** Pending at the Ninth Circuit; the July 2022 as-applied injunction remains in effect during appeal. If reversed, the personhood interpretation provision could be used to argue that other laws protecting persons apply to the unborn from conception. ### HB 2074 (Partial-birth abortion; woman penalties) (Legislation) **Status.** Passed House on preliminary voice vote; needs roll-call vote before going to Senate. Would declare legislative intent that women should not be exempt from liability for partial-birth abortion, and require clinic staff to report such procedures to prosecutors under penalty of one year in prison. ### HB 2364 (Abortion-inducing drugs; criminal penalties for mailing) (Legislation) **Status.** Passed House Judiciary Committee; awaiting full House vote. Would make mailing abortion-inducing drugs a Class 4 felony for licensed professionals; ordering or receiving such drugs by mail would become a Class 1 misdemeanor. ### HB 2186 (University/community college abortion discussion prohibition) (Legislation) **Status.** Passed House Government Committee on party-line vote; awaiting further action. Would prohibit any employee of a state university or community college from telling students they have the legal option to terminate a pregnancy. ## Key authorities - **Arizona Constitution Article II, Section 8.1** — Ariz. Const. art. II, section 8.1 (Prop. 139, 2024) _(Constitution)_ · [codes.findlaw.com/az/arizona-constitu…](https://codes.findlaw.com/az/arizona-constitution/az-const-art-ii-sect-8-1) Creates a fundamental right to abortion before viability, protects post-viability abortion for life/physical/mental health, and prohibits penalizing those who aid or assist. - **ARS 36-2151 (Definitions)** — A.R.S. section 36-2151 _(Statute)_ · [codes.findlaw.com/az/title-36-public-…](https://codes.findlaw.com/az/title-36-public-health-and-safety/az-rev-st-sect-36-2151.html) Defines abortion, unborn child, physician, medical emergency, gestational age, and other key terms for all Arizona abortion laws. - **ARS 13-3603.01 (Partial-birth abortion ban)** — A.R.S. section 13-3603.01 _(Statute)_ · [azleg.gov/ars/13/03603-01.htm](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603-01.htm) The primary remaining criminal abortion statute: Class 6 felony for physicians performing partial-birth abortion, with express exemption of the pregnant woman. - **ARS 1-219 (Personhood interpretation provision)** — A.R.S. section 1-219 _(Statute)_ · [azleg.gov/ars/1/00219.htm](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/1/00219.htm) Directs all Arizona laws to be interpreted to grant unborn children all rights at every stage of development; currently enjoined as applied to abortion. - **ARS 36-2152 (Parental consent)** — A.R.S. section 36-2152 _(Statute)_ · [azleg.gov/ars/36/02152.htm](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02152.htm) Requires one-parent notarized consent or judicial bypass for unemancipated minors; violations are a Class 1 misdemeanor. - **ARS 36-2160 (Abortion-inducing drugs)** — A.R.S. section 36-2160 _(Statute)_ · [azleg.gov/ars/36/02160.htm](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02160.htm) Prohibits mailing/delivering abortion medication; currently enjoined but the subject of pending legislation (HB 2364) and litigation. - **ARS 13-1103 (Manslaughter – fetal homicide)** — A.R.S. section 13-1103 _(Statute)_ · [codes.findlaw.com/az/title-13-crimina…](https://codes.findlaw.com/az/title-13-criminal-code/az-rev-st-sect-13-1103) Applies manslaughter to causing death of unborn child at any stage but exempts abortion with the woman's consent. - **ARS 20-121 (Exchange plan abortion coverage ban)** — A.R.S. section 20-121 _(Statute)_ · [law.justia.com/codes/arizona/title-20/section-20-121](https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/title-20/section-20-121) Prohibits ACA exchange plans from covering abortion except for life, major bodily function impairment, rape, or incest. - **Isaacson v. Arizona (2026)** — Isaacson v. Arizona, Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct., Feb. 6, 2026 _(Case)_ · [azmirror.com/2026/02/06/judge-ar…](https://azmirror.com/2026/02/06/judge-arizona-abortion-laws-are-unconstitutional-after-2024-amendment) Permanently enjoined waiting period, ultrasound, scripted counseling, telemedicine ban, mailing ban, and genetic-abnormality ban under Proposition 139. On appeal. - **Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes (15-week ban injunction)** — Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes, No. CV2024-053896 (Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct. Mar. 5, 2025) _(Case)_ · [reproductiverights.org/news/arizona-15-wee…](https://reproductiverights.org/news/arizona-15-week-abortion-ban-blocked) Permanently blocked Arizona's 15-week abortion ban as unconstitutional under Proposition 139. - **Summerfield v. Superior Court (1985)** — Summerfield v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. 467, 698 P.2d 712 (1985) _(Case)_ · [law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supre…](https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1985/17607-sa-2.html) Established that a viable fetus is a person for Arizona wrongful death actions. - **Executive Order 2023-11 (Governor Hobbs)** — Executive Order 2023-11 (June 23, 2023) _(Regulation)_ · [azgovernor.gov/office-arizona-gove…](https://azgovernor.gov/office-arizona-governor/executive-order/2023-11) Centralizes abortion prosecutions in the AG, prohibits state agency cooperation with out-of-state investigations, and restricts extradition. - **HB 2677 (Repeal of 1864 near-total ban)** — Chapter 181, 2024 Ariz. Sess. Laws (HB 2677) _(Statute)_ · [azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/2r/laws/0181.htm](https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/2r/laws/0181.htm) Formally repealed ARS 13-3603, the 1864 near-total abortion ban. ## Research notes > Overall confidence: Medium. Analysis current as of July 12, 2026; research completed July 12, 2026. Re-verify before publication: status of Isaacson v. Arizona appeal (if injunction has been stayed or reversed, enforcement landscape changes dramatically). Track HB 2074, HB 2364, HB 2186 to final disposition. Verify federal district court order in Isaacson v. Brnovich (D. Ariz. July 11, 2022) from court docket. Confirm ARS 36-2159 (20-week ban) injunction (Isaacson v. Horne, 716 F.3d 1213, 9th Cir. 2013) has not been revisited post-Dobbs. Unresolved points: The exact scope of the Isaacson v. Arizona February 2026 injunction: available news reports confirm categories but precise statutory sections and full court order text were not independently verified from court docket. — The precise current status of the Isaacson v. Arizona appeal (which court, what timeline, whether any stay has been sought) is unclear from available sources. — The current status of ARS 36-449.03 admitting-privileges requirements under the 2026 injunction is not clear from available sources. — Whether the parental consent statute (ARS 36-2152) has been directly challenged under Proposition 139. — The impact of the 2025 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's provider-defunding statute (ARS 35-196.05) needs further verification. — The exact effective date of HB 2677's repeal of ARS 13-3603 (September 14, 2024) is based on the general rule that non-emergency legislation takes effect 90 days after session adjournment. — HB 2364, HB 2074, and HB 2186 were advancing as of January 2026; their disposition at the end of the 2026 legislative session needs to be re-checked..