Physicians Strike Down Pregnancy Termination Restrictions in Landmark Lawsuit

February 6, 2026

Arizona physicians lift harmful pregnancy termination restrictions in landmark legal victory for patient care

PHOENIX, Arizona  — The Arizona Medical Association and fellow plaintiffs struck down several harmful reproductive healthcare restrictions in a landmark legal victory today. 


The litigation lifts restrictions on pregnancy termination that infringed upon the physician-patient relationship, physicians' right to deliver essential care without fear of criminalization, and patients' right to access care.

Effective today and barring any further legal developments, the following laws have been enjoined and cannot be enforced:

  1. Two Trip Scheme: A law that required 1) physicians to relay biased information about pregnancy termination to patients in person; 2) physicians to perform an ultrasound and other lab tests on every patient, regardless of any medical indication; and 3) a 24-hour waiting period before patients could obtain care — requiring patients to make two trips, often several days or even weeks apart.
  2. Telemedicine Ban Scheme: The prohibition on the use of telemedicine for medication abortion, which is a safe, effective, and accessible form of care.
  3. Reason Ban Scheme: A ban on pregnancy terminations based on the reason the patient is seeking one, forcing physicians to turn patients away if they suspect or know their reason for seeking care is due to a fetal condition.



As the judge stated in his opinion, the challenged laws universally suppressed medical judgment, which led him to render the restrictions "invalid in all circumstances."

"By lifting these laws, we have removed very real barriers that our OBGYN, MFM, and primary care colleagues faced in delivering care," shared Jason Jameson, MD, president of ArMA. "Now, they can freely exercise their medical judgment to counsel and care for patients without fear of criminalization or civil penalties under these laws."

"Restrictions like Arizona’s biased counseling requirement and forced delay period forced me to undermine my patients’ decisions and violate my professional code of ethics," stated Dr. Laura Mercer, an OBGYN and member of ArMA's Board of Directors. "I am relieved that my patients will no longer be forced to make additional unnecessary visits for care, nor will I be required to give them disinformation." 

ArMA's Board of Directors voted to sign on to the lawsuit in alignment with the organization's policy on pregnancy termination — that pregnancy termination is an essential component of health care — and its mission to protect physicians from the criminalization of care and safeguard the physician-patient relationship.

"Today's victory is testament to the power of organized medicine," stated Dr. Jameson. "The Arizona Medical Association represents the collective physician voice in the arenas where it matters most — in court, at the Capitol, and anywhere physician autonomy and patient care are threatened."

About Arizona Medical Association

Fostering medicine. Championing care. Serving Arizona.



The Arizona Medical Association is the largest organization in the state representing the interests of all physicians and physicians-in-training. Since 1892, ArMA has been advancing patient care and providing its members with leadership, advocacy, education, and community. Alongside our members, we foster the practice of medicine, champion patient care, and strengthen the communities we serve. For more information, visit www.AZmed.org and follow ArMA on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X, and LinkedIn. 

Media Contact:

  • Shelby Job
  • (602) 291-4670
  • sjob@AZmed.org

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 .