Grand Canyon Times

A federal judge in Phoenix has blocked an Arizona law that gives legal rights to unborn children, a measure that abortion rights groups say puts providers at risk of prosecution.

U.S.District Court Judge Douglas Rayes wrote in a ruling that the groups that sued to block the law are right—it is “anyone’s guess” what laws abortion providers may break in the process of performing abortions that are otherwise legal.

"When the punitive and regulatory weight of the entire Arizona code is involved, Plaintiffs should not have to guess at whether their conduct is on the right or the wrong side of the law,” Rayes said in his written ruling this week, quoted by Fox 10 Phoenix.

Jessica Sklarsky; attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights who argued the case; expressed support for the judge’s ruling.

“The court made the right decision today by blocking this law from being used to create an unthinkably extreme abortion ban,” Sklarsky told NBCNews this week. “The Supreme Court’s catastrophic decision overturning Roe v. Wade has unleashed chaos on the ground, leaving Arizona residents scrambling to figure out if they can get the abortion care they need.”

The Arizona attorney general’s office plans on "bringing clarity to the law" in light of the ruling, the Fox 10 report said.

"Today’s ruling was based on an interpretation of Arizona law that our office did not agree with, and we are carefully considering our next steps," Brittni Thomason, spokesperson for the attorney general’s office, said in an email, quoted by Fox 10.

Rayes had previously refused to block the law, Fox 10 said. In September 2021, he cited a 1989 Supreme Court ruling involving a similar law in the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. Now, however, Rayes said he doubts the relevance of that case.

"The Court is now persuaded it was wrong to rely on Webster the first go around," Rayes wrote. Under the new ruling, the law is unenforceable while more challenges are made.

Rayes said the “personhood” law places too much power in the hands of the enforcer.

"Medical providers should not have to guess about whether the otherwise lawful performance of their jobs could lead to criminal, civil, or professional liability solely based on how literally or maximalist state licensing, law enforcement, and judicial officials might construe the Interpretation Policy’s command," he said.