Tucson Women's Center v. Arizona Medical Board

09.29.09 - Case requesting that the U.S. District Court of Arizona invalidate certain provisions of Arizona House Bill 2564 that would significantly reduce women's access to abortion services in Arizona and put physicians at risk of losing their licenses.

Plaintiff(s): Tucson's Woman's Center, Dr. William Richardson, Family Planning Associates, Dr. Paul Isaacson, and Dr. Frank Laudonio

Center Attorneys: Suzanne Novak and Jordan Goldberg

Co-Counsel: Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP and LaVoy & Chernoff, PC

Issue: Arizona Waiting Period

Summary: In September 2009, on behalf of a group of medical professionals including two abortion providers, their respective clinics, and an OB/GYN who does not provide abortions, the Center filed suit in federal district court in Arizona, requesting that the court invalidate certain provisions of Arizona House Bill 2564 that would significantly reduce women's access to abortion services in Arizona and put physicians at risk of losing their licenses. These new state restrictions on abortion impose unconstitutional restrictions on abortion and other reproductive health care providers and their patients. The Center also requested that the court immediately block enforcement of two of the provisions before the law goes into effect on September 30th.

The first provision from which Plaintiffs seek immediate relief prevents women seeking abortions from obtaining the procedure on their first visit to a provider; under the provision, such women must hear state-mandated ideological information on that visit and then wait at least 24 hours before returning again for the abortion procedure. These requirements will impose significant, immediate harms on identifiable groups of vulnerable women, including women in abusive relationships, low-income women, and women suffering from illness. The requirements will prevent a substantial number of these women from obtaining abortions at all, and the requirements will impose significantly increased risks on the health and well-being of others. Accordingly, the provision will unduly burden a woman's right to choose an abortion in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The second provision from which Plaintiffs seek immediate relief prevents a physician from charging a patient for any medical services once she makes any inquiry about abortion; at that point, the physician must wait until after the mandated counseling and waiting period transpire before the physician can bill the patient. This provision is clearly intended to financially penalize those who provide abortions; however, at the same time, it is so incomprehensibly vague that it will interfere with the ability of a broad array of physicians to provide appropriate medical services and receive payment for them.

This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the United States Constitution.