GOP lawmakers block measure ensuring Arizonans' right to use birth control

PHOENIX — Two Democratic lawmakers are lashing out at Republicans for refusing to even consider their measure to enshrine the right to contraceptives in Arizona law.

The proposed law says individuals have the right to obtain “any drug, device or biological product intended for use in the prevention of pregnancy.’’ It then lists various items ranging from oral contraceptives to mechanical devices.

But Republican leaders refused to assign it to a committee where sponsors could advocate for passage.

“I found that cowardly,’’ said sponsor Sen. Priya Sundareshan, D-Tucson, at a Thursday news conference at the Capitol.

“Our bodies do not belong to the government,’’ said Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, also a Tucson Democrat and sponsor of the measure.

Senate Majority Leader Sonny Borrelli said there is no need for such legislation.

“Nobody’s proposing any kind of plan to ban contraceptives,’’ the Lake Havasu Republican told Capitol Media Services.

And, for the moment, the right to contraceptives is protected by a 1965 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court which said their use falls within the “zone of privacy’’ protected by the Bill of Rights.

But Bre Thomas, CEO of Affirm Sexual and Reproductive Health, pointed out that the constitutional right to abortion also was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court — at least until it wasn’t, when the justices voided that prior decision two years ago.

In fact, Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion on the 2022 abortion case, suggested his colleagues now revisit earlier decisions based on the same perceived constitutional right to privacy. Those include the rights of gays to marry, protections for same-sex contact, and the right to use contraceptives.

Even if the decision on contraceptives stands, the reversal of the Roe v. Wade right to abortion paves the way for new conversations abut the legality of certain forms of birth control including Plan B, also known as the “morning-after pill.’’

This over-the-counter medication, taken within days of unprotected sex, can prevent a woman from ovulating. But there have been claims — so far refuted by the Food and Drug Administration — that it can work as an “abortifacient,’’ preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

This comes as the Arizona Supreme Court is debating whether the reversal of Roe v. Wade reinstates an Arizona territorial-era law that outlaws all abortions except to save the life of the mother.

At Thursday’s news conference, Sundareshan said contraceptives allowed her to start her family “after I pursued my education and pursued my career, gaining important legal and advocacy experience in D.C. and continued to come home to Arizona and pursue my career and have my family when I was ready to.’’

Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs also said statutory protections are needed.

“Millions of women across the country are worried about what fundamental right will be taken away from them next,’’ said Hobbs, who has been making issues related to reproductive rights a key part of her already up-and-running campaign for reelection in 2026.

“Since the fall of Roe, extremists in this state have made it clear they won’t just stop at restricting access to abortion,’’ Hobbs said. That includes measures on in-vitro fertilization, she said.

She cited legislation last year that would have increased the penalty for a domestic violence assault of a woman if the assailant knew or had reason to know the victim was pregnant. Hobbs called that “a dangerous, extreme bill that would have threatened access to IVF.’’

“With my veto, I sent a clear message that I will protect reproductive freedom in this state,’’ the governor said Thursday.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

In her veto message, Hobbs called the legislation unnecessary, saying courts already consider the pregnancy of a victim as a factor in sentencing.

But gubernatorial press aide Christian Slater said there also was fear the proposal by Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, could become a back-door way of providing some legal status to a fetus.

That wasn’t Gress’ only foray into the area of providing some legal recognition of a fetus.

Another of his measures sought to expand existing laws that provide a tax credit for children to also include the number of months a woman was pregnant during the tax year.

Gress also sponsored legislation to allow pregnant women to drive in the lane reserved for carpooling. He said he sees no difference between a woman who may be ready to give birth and a woman who puts her day-old child into an infant seat and qualifies under current law to use the high-occupancy vehicle lane.

Neither measure cleared the House.

Hobbs said Thursday that legislation to guarantee a right to contraception deserves at least a hearing.

“While members of the legislative majority continue to use their offices to push political divisive bills, this basic, common-sense proposal hasn’t made it past Step 1,’’ she said.

Stahl Hamilton, in decrying the lack of a hearing on legislation on contraceptives, specifically mentioned the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court declaring a frozen embryo in a lab can be considered a child under state law.

Alabama lawmakers have since amended the law to protect IVF.

But Stahl Hamilton said that provides no comfort. She said there’s a connection between that issue to help women get pregnant and contraception that is sought to prevent pregnancy in the first place.

“We’re seeing both ends of taking away people’s rights for when they get to choose when to start their families, when to create another human being,’’ Stahl Hamilton said.

There is another option: Take the issue directly to voters.

That is what a coalition of groups is trying to do now, to put a right to abortion in the Arizona Constitution. Backers have until July 3 to get the legally required 383,923 valid signatures to put the issue on the November ballot.

There was discussion at one point about also including a right to contraception. But organizers noted that constitutional ballot measures are supposed to be limited to a single subject. And they feared that adding a second issue could invalidate the entire measure.

Sundareshan, however, said a ballot measure shouldn’t be necessary. She said there is bipartisan support for access to contraception, broader than support for abortion.

“And, yet, now this (legislative) session we have the proof that Republicans will not even protect that right,’’ Sundareshan said.