Physicians Condemn Arizona Supreme Court Ruling, Call for Repeal of 1864 Pregnancy Termination Ban

April 16, 2024

PHOENIX, Arizona — The Arizona Medical Association is appalled by the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling to uphold a near-total ban on pregnancy termination from more than 150 years ago. As patients and physicians face dire consequences of the decision, the physician community is calling on members of the Arizona State Legislature to stand united and repeal the law.

"Enforcing a law that was drafted before antiseptics were invented and x-rays discovered is absurd and irresponsible," stated William C. Thompson IV, MD, FASA, president of ArMA. "As the voice of the physician community, ArMA will not stand by idly while an archaic law drafted before the advent of modern medicine threatens to dictate physicians' practice and patients' safety in the 21st century."

The enforcement of Arizona's pre-statehood pregnancy termination ban will jeopardize the health, well-being, and lives of pregnant patients in Arizona. People of color, those living in rural areas of the state, and those with limited economic resources will be disproportionately impacted, thereby increasing inequities that already plague the healthcare system.

The ruling will also severely impact physicians, as the near-total ban permits pregnancy terminations only when necessary to save the patient's life. In all other situations, performing a pregnancy termination would lead to felony charges and prison time. However, there are no clear guidelines around how endangered someone's life must be to end a pregnancy, putting pregnant patients and physicians in emergency situations at higher risk of harm and criminalization.

"Throughout Arizona's history, the physician community has diligently served in the face of pandemics, workforce shortages, and record levels of clinician burnout," shared Libby De Bie, CEO of ArMA. "The State's interference with the sacred practice of medicine and directive that physicians are now 'on notice' is extremely insulting to those compassionately serving patients."

Now, the physician community is pushing back. Alongside more than 20 other healthcare organizations and hundreds of physician advocates, ArMA is calling on all legislators to unite for the sake of patients and repeal the ban.

"The House of Medicine is united," expressed Dr. Thompson. "We condemn governmental interference in the physician-patient relationship and reject laws criminalizing physicians for evidence-based procedures. Together, we are requesting legislators take the same stance."

Last week, a bipartisan group of representatives introduced ArMA-supported House Bill 2677 to repeal the pre-statehood ban. Disappointingly, the bill was blocked from receiving a vote. Advocates remain hopeful that HB2677 will be heard again on Wednesday, April 17, but know it will not pass without broad support from both parties. The physician community is now urging legislators to stand on common ground and pass HB2677.

ArMA remains at the forefront of discussions impacting the practice of medicine, patient care, and reproductive health. To date, ArMA has championed efforts to protect physicians and patients by securing a 45-day delay on the enforcement of the 1864 pregnancy termination ban through an agreement with the State; submitting an amicus brief in Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes to support the harmonization of reproductive health laws; and leading healthcare stakeholders to adopt a statement of unity in condemning ambiguous regulations threatening health care.

This is not yet over, and ArMA will continue to fight for Arizonans.

ADHS Issues Standing Orders for Flu, COVID-19 Vaccine Access

By Admin User • September 18, 2026
Statewide orders keep pharmacists and physicians authorized to vaccinate Arizonans amid uncertainty over the next ACIP meeting. Statewide Orders Cover the 2026-27 Flu & COVID Season The Arizona Department of Health Services has issued statewide standing orders supporting access to the 2026-27 influenza and COVID-19 vaccines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Arizonans seeking a flu or COVID-19 vaccine should contact their physician or pharmacy to confirm availability. Why the Orders Were Issued Arizona pharmacists may administer vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for international travel, or vaccines authorized under a prescription, including a physician-issued public health standing order. With the timing of the next ACIP meeting uncertain, ADHS worked with the Arizona Board of Pharmacy to issue statewide standing orders for the flu and COVID-19 vaccines, which function as a prescription allowing pharmacists and physicians across Arizona to administer them to anyone who wants one. ADHS Medical Advisor Weighs In "Vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to protect our communities. The Influenza and COVID-19 vaccines have been proven safe and effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death. Vaccines help us limit the spread of disease, reduce pressure on our healthcare system and reduce costs," said Dr. Richard Carmona, ADHS public health medical advisor and the 17th U.S. Surgeon General. "We have issued these standing orders to ensure safe and timely access to the vaccines in alignment with scientific and evidence-based guidance." What Arizonans Should Know The standing orders do not require every pharmacy to offer vaccinations, and they do not guarantee insurance coverage for administration. Coverage and out-of-pocket costs vary by plan, so Arizonans should check with their insurance provider before scheduling an appointment. 

Arizona Asks Supreme Court to Halt Prison Health Care Takeover

By Admin User • September 18, 2026
State attorneys seek an emergency stay after lower courts reject bids to delay receivership of the prison health care system. State Makes a Last-Ditch Appeal Attorneys for the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry asked the U.S. Supreme Court this week to delay a court-ordered receivership of the state's prison health care system. The request comes after both a federal district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause the takeover. In the recent application, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, a representative of the department, argued that the state deserves more time to make its case before surrendering control of its operations, including oversight of its employees and health care budget. Roots of the Case The dispute began in 2012 when inmates sued the department, alleging the prison system's inadequate medical, mental health, and dental care amounted to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The case went through years of litigation and a failed settlement agreement. In 2023, U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver ruled that the health care system was "grossly inadequate." The court ordered the prison healthcare system to comply with more than 150 "quality indicators," but according to court-appointed monitors, the department failed to comply with 131 of the measures. In light of this finding, Silver named Annette Chambers-Smith, former director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, to take over as receiver effective Oct. 19. Arguments on Both Sides Clement argues receivership should be the last resort and that Silver moved to it too quickly. He asserts that the department has made measurable progress, including growing its health care staffing by more than 50%, expanding substance-use treatment access, and adopting a new care model. Corene Kendrick, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project, which represents the roughly 25,000 people incarcerated in Arizona prisons, called the department's request a "Hail Mary" and said Silver had given the department years of opportunities to comply before ordering receivership. What Happens Next The Supreme Court has not yet set a deadline for the plaintiffs to respond to the stay request. Separately, the 9th Circuit is now reviewing the merits of the receivership order itself. The department filed its opening brief on Sept. 15, and the plaintiffs' response is due Oct. 15. Information in this article was sourced from the Arizona Mirror .