ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥

But an attorney for the other side says the law can still be enforced, and violations could send doctors and medical staffers to prison for a year.

U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Rayes signed an order this week dismissing the lawsuit filed by a Phoenix obstetrician and gynecologist and others, challenging a 2021 law that makes it illegal to perform an abortion because of fetal defects. That means the law remains on the books.

However, Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes has promised she will never prosecute physicians who perform abortions. She also contends that, based on an order from Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, she is the only one in the state with the power to consider such charges.

An aide to Mayes said she believes the 2021 law is unconstitutional.

Mayes will not always be the attorney general, though. Even if she wins reelection to another four-year term in 2026 — there are already two high-profile Republicans lined up to try to unseat her — she cannot serve more than two terms.

But Civia Tamarkin, president of the National Council of Jewish Women ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥, said she and others who filed suit believe the law is unenforceable. The key is voters’ decision to enshrine a right to abortion in the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Constitution.

“The dismissal is because of the constitutional amendment that now makes this lawsuit unnecessary,’’ Tamarkin said.

That’s also the position of Gail Deady, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, who cited Prop. 139 when explaining the decision to drop the federal court lawsuit.

“ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ns made it clear last year: They do not want politicians meddling with their fundamental right to abortion,’’ she said in a prepared statement. “These baseless restrictions have no place under ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥â€™s new constitutional amendment.’’

But an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom, representing Republican legislative leaders who defended the 2021 law, said he believes it remains legally defensible.

The measure makes it a Class 6 felony, with a one-year prison term, to terminate a pregnancy if the woman is seeking the procedure solely because of a fetal genetic defect. It was pushed by then-Sen. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix.

“We must stand for those at risk, the children with Down’s syndrome and other genetic abnormalities,’’ she said at the time.

She had the backing of Gilbert Republican Warren Petersen, who is now the Senate president. He pointed out that ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ already has laws against discriminating against those with disabilities.

“If we take actions to protect those with disabilities outside the womb, we should also protect them from discrimination inside the womb,’’ Petersen said.

But there is more in the law, including a provision that requires all ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ laws to be interpreted to give all fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses the same “rights, privileges and immunities available to all other persons.’’

The first lawsuit filed in 2021 argued the law is vague, leaving medical professionals unclear about what actions could land them in prison.

Judge Rayes initially blocked the law, saying it imposes an undue burden on women and outweighs any interest the state claims in promoting life. He also said it places doctors in a no-win situation where they are being asked to determine if the only reason a woman is seeking an abortion is because of a fetal defect, versus that being just one factor.

But then the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 overturned Roe v. Wade, the historic 1973 ruling that women had a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy for any reason, or for no reason. Rayes then reversed his ruling, saying that meant doctors no longer had a constitutional right to perform elective abortions and their patients did not have a constitutional right to receive them.

That sent challengers back to court with new arguments about why the law is flawed. In 2023, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in to say doctors have the legal right to contest the 2021 law because there is a “credible threat’’ they could end up being prosecuted for violating it.

Since then, there have been a series of legal briefs and court hearings, with no final resolution.

That, then, led to the new decision by the plaintiffs to simply drop the case in the wake of voter approval of Proposition 139.

Alliance Defending Freedom has defended the law on behalf of Petersen and now-former House Speaker Ben Toma. Its attorney, Kevin Theriot, asked Rayes to rule the law is valid even with approval of Prop. 139.

The judge, in dismissing the case, ignored that request.

Whatever the legal fate of this law, there are still parallel restrictions that remain legal in ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥. Two laws make it a crime for a doctor to terminate a pregnancy if they know that the reason a woman is seeking the procedure is the race or gender of the child. There are currently no challenges to either law.