By Howard Fischer
Mail | X: @azcapmedia

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

The twin measures would create a law saying individuals have the right to obtain “any drug, device or biological product intended for use in the prevention of pregnancy.” Senate Bill 1362 and House Bill 2678 then lists various items ranging from oral contraceptives to mechanical devices.

But Republican leaders refused to even assign either to a committee where sponsors could advocate for their passage.

“I found that cowardly,” said Sen. Priya Sundareshan, D-Tucson, the sponsor of one of the measures, during a Thursday press conference at the Capitol.

“Our bodies do not belong to the government,” said Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, also from Tucson, who is carrying the other one.
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 after the press conference. And, for the moment, the right to contraceptives is protected by a 1965 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that 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 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 that 2022 case, suggested his colleagues may now want to revisit a whole bunch of earlier decisions based on that same perceived constitutional right to privacy. That includes the rights of gays to marry, protections for same-sex contact — and the right to contraceptives.

Even if the decision on contraceptives stands, the reversal of Roe v. Wade paves the way for new conversations abut the legality of certain forms of birth control like 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 a territorial-era law that outlaws all abortions except to save the life of the mother.

At Thursday’s press 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.”

Gov. Katie Hobbs 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 the governor, 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. And that, she said, includes measure on in-vitro fertilization.

She cited legislation last year that would have increased the penalty for a domestic violence assault of a woman if the assailant knows or has 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.

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 the fear that the proposal by Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, could become a back-door way of providing some legal status to a fetus.

That also wasn’t Gress’s 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.

And 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 ever 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 that 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. And 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 exactly what a coalition of groups is doing now in attempting to put a right to abortion in the Arizona Constitution following the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling voiding Roe v. Wade. Backers have until July 3 to get the legally requires 383,923 valid signatures to put the issue on the November ballot.

There had been some 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 session we have the proof that Republicans will not even protect that right,” Sundareshan said.