House GOP leaders block attempt to repeal Arizona abortion ban

PHOENIX — House Republican leaders used procedural maneuvers Wednesday — twice — to block lawmakers from deciding or even debating whether to repeal the state’s 1864 law banning abortions except to save the life of the mother.

And one of those maneuvers was to adjourn until next Wednesday, so that means it will be at least a week before legislators have the chance to address whether women in Arizona will again be denied the right to terminate a pregnancy in all but the narrowest circumstances.

Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, a Tucson Democrat, told colleagues there is no reason to delay action in the wake of Tuesday’s ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court. The court declared a 2022 law allowing abortions until the 15th week of pregnancy does not override the 160-year-old statute. In their 4-2 ruling, the justices pointed out that Arizona lawmakers never repealed the old law, which subjects abortion providers to prison terms of up to five years.

Repeal of the old law would have left only the 2022 statute in place and, along with it, legal permission to terminate a pregnancy up to 15 weeks.

Stahl Hamilton’s request to bring the issue to the floor, however, was sidelined by a motion by House Majority Leader Leo Biasiucci, R-Lake Havasu City, to instead adjourn for the day. And House Majority Whip Teresa Martinez argued there was no need for a rush, pointing out that the soonest the old law could again take effect is in 60 days.

All Republicans save Rep. Matt Gress of Phoenix sided with party leadership. Gress had made his own motion earlier Wednesday to debate repealing the old law but was also thwarted by House leaders.

That left Stahl Hamilton one vote short of what she needed to even get the issue debated.

How soon — if ever — the GOP legislative leaders might be willing to allow discussion of the issue remains unclear, much less whether there are the necessary 31 votes in the House to approve repeal.

Martinez, a Casa Grade Republican, made it clear she is just fine with the old law. “In my opinion, removing healthy babies from healthy mothers is not health care or reproductive care,’’ she said. “Pregnancy is not an illness.’’

But Stahl Hamilton said there are implications to allowing the old law to once again be enforced, something that has not happened since the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic 1973 Roe v. Wade decision — overturned in 2022 — that women have a constitutional right to abortion.

“Should the 1864 law on abortion remain in Arizona, people will die,’’ she said.

Democrats have tried for at least six years to repeal the law.

This year that effort took the form of House Bill 2671, sponsored by Stahl Hamilton and introduced in January. It was assigned to three House committees, none of which even scheduled it for a hearing.

Now, with the Tuesday Supreme Court ruling, Stahl Hamilton made a motion to bring the bill to the full House for debate despite the lack of committee action and, if approved, to forward it to the Senate where at least two Republicans have said they want to repeal the 1864 statute.

That led Biasiucci to successfully motion to adjourn.

That was done with the blessing of House Speaker Ben Toma, a Peoria Republican. He said there’s no need to rush.

“We’ve had a little over 24 hours since this came out,’’ Toma said, adding there was no need to act now — if at all.

The justices stayed the effect of their Tuesday ruling for 14 days. That is designed to give all sides time to decide whether there are remaining issues that need to be resolved.

On top of that, Republican former Attorney General Mark Brnovich, defending the territorial-era law in a parallel challenge, agreed in 2022 to not try to enforce it for at least 45 days after the Supreme Court finally issued its ruling in this case.

So that means June at the earliest for the ruling to take effect. Toma said there should be no rush for “a very emotional, charged, complicated issue.’’

“For many of us, we’re talking about protecting the lives of the unborn, too,’’ he said.

“Some of us, fundamentally and ethically have a really big problem with this issue, as you well know,’’ he said. “It’s completely unfair to rush this through.’’

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

Whether the vote came Wednesday or comes next week won’t make a legal difference.

New laws — or repeal of old ones — do not take effect until 90 days after the legislative session is finally adjourned for the year, regardless of what day a bill is passed and signed by the governor.

The only exception is for measures that are declared emergencies. But that requires a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate, a margin that does not appear to exist for repealing the old abortion law.

If lawmakers stay in session into June, something they have done multiple times now, that would mean any repeal would not take effect until September. And if the final court order allowing enforcement comes in June, that could leave Arizona women, for at least three months — an initiative to enshrine abortion rights in the Arizona constitution might be on the November ballot — with no legal right to an abortion other than to save the life of the mother.

There is another option: Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs could call a special legislative session on just this issue to run concurrent with the regular session. Then, the moment the bill would be approved, that session would adjourn and the 90-day clock would start to run immediately.

But while Hobbs called on lawmakers Tuesday to repeal the old law, her press aide Christian Slater said Wednesday she has no plans to issue a special session call.

The Supreme Court ruling to approve reinstating what would be the strictest abortion ban in the nation has gathered international attention. It also raised the level of visible anger at the Capitol in Phoenix.

When Gress’ first motion to bring the issue to the floor Wednesday was sidelined by Republican leadership, Democrats responded with shouts of “shame, shame’’ and “blood on your hands.’’

Martinez, in later explaining why the vote to repeal should be delayed for further conversation, responded in kind.

“We obviously cannot have those conversations when the Democrats are screaming at us and engaging in extremist and insurrectionist behavior on the House floor,’’ she said.

Stahl Hamilton, however, argued there is no reason to delay debate and a vote on an issue on which lawmakers appear to already have made up their minds.

“Today, we need to stay in this chamber,’’ she said. “We need to do the job that we were elected to do … and not play games and not discount the lives that are at stake.’’

But even some Republicans who want to repeal the law are hesitant to proceed with an immediate vote.

“I have said we need to address it,’’ said Rep. David Cook, R-Globe. But he said House leadership said it wanted “time for cooler heads to prevail and let’s come up with a plan.’’

Anyway, Cook said, he had not had a chance to read Stahl Hamilton’s bill to repeal the old law, as it never was put on an agenda for debate.

Cook said he’s not sure that allowing abortion up until 15 weeks — which would be the effect of repealing the old law — is the appropriate cutoff. But what exists now, he said, with the Supreme Court reinstating what effectively amounts to a ban, is not acceptable.

“We’ve got to update the law with today’s standards,’’ Cook said.

Toma, however, said he doesn’t see this as simply a choice between the old abortion ban and a law that allows the procedure until 15 weeks. He said he sees this as an effort to advance an initiative drive that, if approved in November, would allow all abortions through the point of fetal viability and beyond that in cases where a doctor says it is necessary “to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.’’

“Nothing happens in a vacuum down here,’’ he said.

But Gress said what his colleagues also need to consider is that if they don’t repeal the old law, that will mean the decision for voters in November will be between what amounts to a ban and the initiative. And while he said he doesn’t support the initiative, “if we don’t repeal the ban, it’s going to make voters see something is better than nothing.’’

If and when the House approves the measure, at least two Senate Republicans already are on record as supporting repeal: T.J. Shope of Coolidge and Shawnna Bolick of Phoenix. And if all 14 Democrats go along, that would provide the necessary 16 votes for final approval.