Isaacson v. State of Arizona: Defending Arizona's Pro-Life Laws

The issue: Arizona's abortion amendment

In 2024, Arizona voters approved Proposition 139, which added a "fundamental right to abortion" to the state constitution. Before fetal viability, the state may not "deny, restrict, or interfere with" that right unless a law meets a narrowly defined compelling interest.

Abortion doctors and the Arizona Medical Association then sued to invalidate Arizona abortion laws that protect women. In February 2026, a Maricopa County judge struck down many of them, including the state's informed consent law and 24-hour waiting period, the ultrasound and Rh testing requirements, the ban on prescribing abortion pills by telemedicine, and the ban on abortions sought because of a genetic abnormality.

Thomas More Society's argument on appeal

Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro appealed the ruling. On October 15, 2026, Thomas More Society filed an amicus brief in the Arizona Court of Appeals on behalf of Arizona Right to Life, urging the court to reverse. The brief argues:

• The trial court skipped a required step. The amendment asks first whether each law actually interferes with the right to abortion. The court instead declared, without evidence, that "virtually every regulation of abortion 'interferes'" with it.
• The amendment protects a woman's right, not the abortion business. Higher clinic costs and reduced clinic capacity do not by themselves interfere with any woman's right.
• Informed consent protects a woman's autonomy. Time to deliberate, accurate information, and freedom from coercion strengthen a woman's free and informed choice.