Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes CV-23-0005-PR Filed April 9, 2024
Key Legal Issues:
- Whether Title 36 statutes created a statutory right to abortion
- How to interpret seemingly conflicting abortion statutes
- Effect of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Arizona abortion laws
Resulting Opinions:
- Title 36 did not create an independent statutory right to abortion
- The 1864 ban and newer regulations can be harmonized, with the ban remaining in effect
- Without Roe’s constitutional protection, there is no legal basis for elective abortion in Arizona
Dissent:
The dissent written by Justice Timmer and concurred with by Justice Brutinel argued that the majority misinterpreted legislative intent and improperly disregarded the plain text of §36-2322, which they believed implicitly authorized pre-15 week abortions. They contended the court should have found the newer law partially repealed the 1864 ban.
Synopsis:
This case centered on whether Arizona’s 1864 near-total abortion ban (A.R.S. §13-3603) was repealed or restricted by later abortion statutes enacted (1977 and 2022) in Title 36, particularly A.R.S. § 36-2322 which prohibited abortions after 15 weeks gestation. The Arizona Supreme Court had to determine if the newer laws created an independent statutory right to abortion that overrode the 1864 ban, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022. The court applied principles of statutory interpretation, considering the plain language, statutes in pari materia (on the same subject matter), expressed legislative intent, presumption against implied repeals of statutes, and historical context.
Outcome:
The court ruled 4-2 that §13-3603 (the 1864 ban) remains enforceable. It found that §36-2322 did not create an independent right to abortion or repeal the older law, but was predicated on the now-overturned federal constitutional right from Roe v. Wade.