ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÏñAV

In a new court filing, attorneys for the organization point out that no one has come forward to defend the state’s 15-week limit, which they challenged after voters approved Proposition 139 in November. That initiative places a right to terminate a pregnancy into the Arizona Constitution.

But Planned Parenthood noted at the time that the initiative, by itself, did not void the 15-week limit. The organization said after the election that it would not resume providing abortions beyond that point unless and until there is a clear ruling.

So they filed suit against the state, asking Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Frank Moskowitz to make such a declaration.

But Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes, who would otherwise defend the state against the lawsuit, told the judge she agrees with those who filed suit. As a result, Planned Parenthood is asking the judge to declare the law to be unconstitutional and permanently bar its enforcement.

“As all parties agree, the ban prohibits physicians from providing abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy — months before viability — upon pain of severe criminal, civil and professional penalties,’’ wrote Karin Scherner Aldama, lead attorney for Planned Parenthood.

The only thing left now is for the judge to rule on her motion.

Moskowitz may have little choice. Despite comments by abortion foes after Prop. 139 was approved, no one has sought to defend the 15-week limit in court.

State Senate President Warren Petersen, an abortion opponent, said at the time he was “looking into every option’’ to keep the law in place despite the public vote. To date, nothing has been filed.

Ditto with the Center for Arizona Policy. Cathi Herrod, president of the anti-abortion group, said after voter approval of Proposition 139 that it did not create an absolute right to abortion. She said it permits state regulations of abortions — even beyond 15 weeks — if there is a “compelling state interest.’’

But the center has not filed any paperwork in this case and Herrod said she does not know whether anyone else will intervene.

“The lawsuit and Attorney General Mayes’ response reflect the extreme abortion position that support abortion up until birth. It is a sad day,� she said.

Even if someone were to now come forward, it could be too late, as the lawsuit was filed nearly two months ago.

Abortions had been available in Arizona until fetal viability — generally considered between 22 and 24 weeks — until 2022.

That year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, the historic 1973 ruling that declared women had a constitutional right to abortion.

Republican Mark Brnovich, who was Arizona attorney general at the time, then got a judge to rule that decision legally resurrected a territorial-era law — never repealed even after Roe — outlawing the procedure except to save the life of the mother.

The state Court of Appeals later ruled that a 15-week ban approved by lawmakers before the 2022 Supreme Court ruling applies. But that, in turn, was overturned last year by the Arizona Supreme Court, reinstating the 1864 law.

In the interim, however, state lawmakers narrowly voted to repeal the old law, leaving the 15-week limit in place.

The initiative, approved by 61% of voters in November, bars the state from adopting or enforcing any law that denies, restricts or interferes with the fundamental right of abortion prior to fetal viability.

There also are provisions, not at issue here, to allow post-viability abortions to protect the life or health of the mother.

But Planned Parenthood announced it would not perform post-15-week abortions while the Legislature’s law remained on the books, due to the potential penalties, unless and until a judge declared the statute unenforceable.

The issue, their attorneys argued, starts with the fact the law spells out that any doctor who intentionally or knowingly violates the 15-week law is guilty of a Class 6 felony. That carries a presumptive sentence of one year in state prison.

Criminal liability aside, state law also allows the Arizona Medical Board to conduct its own independent investigations to determine if a physician has engaged in “unprofessional conduct,’’ something that includes violating any federal or state law and, specifically, committing a felony. The board then has the power to suspend or revoke a doctor’s license and impose penalties of up to $10,000 per violation.

“The ban penalizes health care providers who assist their patients ... forcing them to stop providing the critical care their patients seek in accordance with their best medical judgment under the threat of criminal prosecution, severe civil sanctions, and revocation of their medical licenses,’’ the challengers said in filing suit.

Now, with no legal opposition, they say the path is clear for Moskowitz to act.

“If the ban is not permanently enjoined, pregnant Arizonans will continue to suffer the deprivation of their fundamental rights and serious harm to their physical, psychological, and dignitary well being, as well as that of their families,’’ the new filing states. It also says failure to declare the 15-week law unenforceable will affect medical providers, keeping them from “providing constitutionally protected health care to their patients, contrary to their medical and ethical duties.’’

“There are thus no material factual disputes to resolve: Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment on the pleadings because, as the parties agree, the ban is unconstitutional as a matter of law.’’

Not all abortion providers have waited for Moskowitz to rule.

One of those who filed suit was Dr. Paul Isaacson, an obstetrician and gynecologist at Family Planning Associates Medical Group.

He noted that, despite the lack of a court ruling, Mayes had said her office won’t take any actions against any individual accused of violating the law while the case is being litigated. And Isaacson’s website says he provides surgical abortions up to 23 weeks and 6 days from the start of a woman’s last menstrual period.