- In an order issued May 23, Arizona's ban on Medicaid coverage for medically necessary abortions was ruled unconstitutional by Judge Kenneth L. Fields of Maricopa County Superior Court. With this decision, low-income women in Arizona will no longer be denied care for medically necessary pregnancy termination.
The Court found that the Arizona Constitution's strong right to privacy includes the right to obtain medically necessary abortions and issued a permanent injunction against prohibitions on funding that have until now been imposed by Arizona's Medicaid-based program, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCS).
Commenting on the state's coverage of other pregnancy-related services for women while denying coverage of abortion services, Judge Fields writes, "This Court has not been convinced that the State's interest in promoting childbirth and protecting potential life is so compelling that it overrides needed medical treatment for women." The Court found that, "[p]reventing a woman from receiving medical treatment, determined by her treating provider as necessary, is not consistent with the objectives of the AHCCCS program."
Thirteen state courts considering near-bans on abortion funding similar to that of Arizona's have made the same determination. Prior to this ruling, Arizona would only cover an abortion for a low-income woman if her pregnancy endangered her life or was the result of rape or incest.
"This decision requires the State to treat the medical needs of its indigent citizens consistently," explained Bebe Anderson, a staff attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights who represents the plaintiffs. "Low-income women in Arizona will now be able to protect their health fully without abandoning their constitutional rights."
There are many reasons why abortions can be medically necessary for women. Women with preexisting health conditions including heart disease, diabetes, and epilepsy may endanger their health if they carry their pregnancy to term. Other women must take medications or receive treatments such as chemotherapy, which pose a risk to the fetus, forcing the woman to endanger her health or her fetus' health if she continues her pregnancy.
Plaintiffs in Simat Corp., d/b/a Abortion Services of Phoenix v. Hull include Simat Corp., d/b/a Abortion Services of Phoenix; Arizona Reproductive Medicine & Gynecology, Ltd.; Robert H. Tamis, M.D.; Family Planning Associates Medical Group; Joel B. Bettigole, M.D.; Damon S. Raphael, M.D.; Tucson Woman's Clinic; and William A. Meyer, Jr., M.D. They are represented by Bebe Anderson and Suzanne Novak from the Center for Reproductive Rights, along with cooperating counsel Chris LaVoy and Mark Chernoff of LaVoy & Chernoff, P.C. in Phoenix.
