Arizona passed House Bill 2036 (PDF file), a law banning abortions after 20 weeks, in 2012. After a federal district court declined to issue a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the law in Isaacson v. Horne (“Isaacson 1“), 884 F.Supp.2d 961 (D. Ariz. 2012), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed earlier this year, finding the law unconstitutional. Isaacson v. Horne (“Isaacson 2“), No. 12-16670, slip op. (9th Cir., May 21, 2013). I mention this now because Texas is trying something similar.

I. HOUSE BILL 2036

Section 7 of Arizona’s HB2036 added two sections to title 36, chapter 20, article 1 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, which covers general provisions for abortion. Section 36-2158 required doctors to give various information to women seeking abortions, with different sets of information depending on whether the fetus had been diagnosed with a “lethal fetal condition” or not. The information had to be provided at least 24 hours before performing an abortion. Section 36-2159 prohibited abortions if the “probable gestational age of the unborn child,” as determined by the physician, is twenty weeks or more. Violating this restriction could subject a doctor to loss of license and criminal liability.

Section 9 of HB2036 listed findings that, according to the Legislature, supported section 7 and the rest of the bill. These included supposed complications that become more likely in late-term abortions, the state’s interest in “protecting the health of women,” and fetal pain.

II. ISAACSON 1 – U.S. DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The plaintiffs in Isaacson were three medical doctors who filed suit against the state attorney general, officials for Maricopa and Pima Counties, and the Arizona Medical Board and its director. The filed suit on July 12, 2012, seeking a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of section 7 of the law, which was to take effect on August 2. They specifically objected to the 20-week ban. Continue reading →