August was a month that put the Pima County Attorney’s Office (PCAO) in a national spotlight as the legal ripple effect of the U.S. Supreme Court’s July decision to overturn Roe v Wade arrived squarely in Pima County Superior Court.
The Aug. 19 hearing packed the fourth-floor courtroom with media and spectators as the arguments were made for and against Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s motion. His Office argued the Court should simply lift the current injunction (protection) against prosecutions of abortion in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs.
Because the Pima County Attorney’s Office was named as co-defendant with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office in the 1973 case by Planned Parenthood of Tucson (as the local organization was then known), the motion to lift the injunction landed in Superior Court – but this time with PCAO – The People’s Office – joining Planned Parenthood as plaintiffs against the Attorney General.
Chief Civil Deputy Sam Brown filed the motion to join the national legal team for Planned Parenthood in arguing that the assigned judge should modify the 1973 injunction, rather than lift it, as doing so would create confusion over the legal status of abortions, given multiple laws adopted over the past 50 years.
While counsel from the AG’s office argued that lifting the injunction is the only response to SCOTUS ending the protections of Roe, our office joined Planned Parenthood in countering that the numerous laws enacted since 1973 need to be harmonized to avoid uncertainty. Among those is a law signed by Gov. Doug Ducey in the most recent Legislative session providing for legal abortions up to 15 weeks of pregnancy.
The hearing was covered by all local media, with KGUN-9 providing pool video to other television outlets and The Arizona Daily Star providing still photos to news organizations. The resulting coverage came from The Arizona Republic and through the Associated press in publications far from Arizona from the Plains to the East Coast, including The Washington Post.
A Pima County Superior Court judge took the arguments under advisement and intends to issue a decision in late September.