House of Representatives
SB 1324
abortion clinics; medication abortions
Prime Sponsor: Senator Yee, LD 20
Overview
SB 1324 requires abortion procedure rules to include that any medication, drug or other substance used to induce or cause a medication abortion be administered in compliance with the Mifeprex final printing label protocol approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and in effect as of December 31, 2015.
Provisions
1. States that the rule adopted by the Director of the Department of Health Services (ADHS) must require any medication, drug or other substance used to induce or cause a medication abortion is administered in compliance with the Mifeprex final printing label protocol approved by the FDA and in effect as of December 31, 2015.
2. Defines medication abortion using an existing definition in A.R.S. § 36-2151.
3. Provides a one-year rulemaking exemption for ADHS for implementation.
4. Makes technical and conforming changes.
Current Law
A.R.S. § 36-449.03 outlines administrative rules that the director of ADHS must adopt in regard to abortion clinics and abortion procedures. The section was amended in 2012 by Laws 2012, Ch. 250, which in part requires any medication, drug or other substance used to induce an abortion be administered in compliance with the protocol authorized by the FDA and outlined in the final printing labeling instructions for that medication, drug or substance. In response to Laws 2012, Ch. 250 ADHS promulgated A.A.C. R9-10-1508(G) which includes in part:
“A medical director shall ensure that any medication, drug, or substance used to induce an abortion is administered in compliance with the protocol authorized by the United States Food and Drug Administration and that is outlined in the final printing labeling instructions for that medication, drug, or substance.”
Two lawsuits were filed after the changes to A.R.S. 36-449.03 and the subsequent adoption of changes to A.A.C. R9-10-1508. In Planned Parenthood Arizona Inc v Humble, plaintiffs challenged the statute and sought a temporary restraining order to block implementation. The District Court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the preliminary injunction because they were not likely to succeed on their claim that the statute was void for vagueness nor on the basis of undue burden challenge. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, reversed the decision not to grant a preliminary injunction and remanded the case back to the District Court for the issuance of the injunction (Planned Parenthood Inc v Humble, C.A. 9 (Ariz.) 2014, 753F. 3d 905. The underlying case is still pending.
In a separate action in Maricopa County (Planned Parenthood Arizona Inc v Cara Christ), plaintiffs filed suit alleging in part that A.R.S. § 36-449.03 is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority because it gives the power to make law to drug companies and the FDA and adopts a changeable standard. The Court found the law to be an unconstitutional delegation of authority (CV2014-006633, 10/13/2015).
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
Fifty-second Legislature
Second Regular Session 2 Judiciary
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------