In its appeal to the Supreme Court, McGrane’s attorneys said they disagreed with the state appeals court’s ruling that the 2022 law that allows doctors to perform surgery until the 15th week of pregnancy trumps the old law.

But his ability to prosecute doctors for violating old laws depends on whether the state’s superior court sees things his way. Now that he has determined that the position taken by Mark Brnovic is legally indefensible, he fears it is in jeopardy because no government lawyer has made such a claim. .

In fact, his petition states that the only government attorney involved in the case was Pima County Attorney Laura Conover.

She’s there because Pima County was involved when the case first went to court in 1971. And like Mays, she too has ruled that the Court of Appeals was right, an old law outlawing abortion except it saves women’s lives. Her mother is no longer coercive.

That old law will not go unprotected. The court allowed Dr. Eric Hazelrigg, medical director of the Center for Crisis Pregnancy, to intervene.

However, Jacob Warner of Alliance Defending Freedom, the same legal team representing Hazelrigg, told the judge that Hazelrigg was appointed to represent the interests of the unborn child.

According to Warner, what McGrain wants is to represent “the interests of all those under his jurisdiction,” and what that means is that the laws of the territorial era should be “fully enforced.” It is to be.

“This interest is now in serious jeopardy,” Warner told the judge.

The balance is whether abortion remains legal in Arizona.

Planned Parenthood unsuccessfully challenged the Territorial Age Act in 1971. From 22 weeks he is considered between 24 weeks.

Based on that, an Arizona judge barred the state from enforcing the law.

But last year, a US Supreme Court overturned Roe’s ruling and remanded the abortion issue back to the states.

This reinstated the original lawsuit. And the trial judge lifted the injunction, making most abortions illegal again, pointing out that legislators never repealed the territorial-era law.

The only thing is, state legislators had enacted similar legislation here earlier, anticipating that the U.S. Supreme Court would rule abortion illegal only after 15 weeks. The state appeals court said there was a way to “harmonize” the two laws, with the new law applying to doctors and the old law applying to everyone else.

For the time being, this means that medical abortions will remain legal for up to 15 weeks.

It also sent the case to the state Supreme Court.

Warner told the judge that McGrain had the right to argue that the Court of Appeal’s ruling was wrong, and to prosecute any doctor, or anyone, who violated the laws of the Territorial Era.

“No state official will defend the law,” Warner said, referring to Mays’ decision not to appeal the Court of Appeals decision.

“Just because the attorney general chose not to defend state law, the county attorney risks being bound by a judgment mandating valid state law,” Warner said. “Not only that”

These discussions drew ridicule from Conover’s office.

“The Yavapai County Attorney wants to have an obligation to enforce the law, as opposed to an obligation to enforce the law passed through the legislative branch and interpreted, so he has the “right to enforce” the law. Based on his belief that the claimed “benefit” is claimed. by the court,” wrote Samuel Brown, Pima’s Chief Civil Deputy County Attorney. “But he does not support his repeated claims that such rights exist.”

He also noted that the attorney general and the Pima County prosecutor, by virtue of being named as defendants in the first lawsuit in 1971, were “concerned with ensuring that the law was clear, unambiguous, and fairly applied. There is.” The appointment of a new Attorney General will not change that.

Andy Gaona, president of Planned Parenthood, agrees.

He said, legally speaking, McGrain’s interest in the outcome of the lawsuit had nothing to do with his personal feelings about whether territorial law should be enforced. McGrain has the same interests as other county attorneys, he said.

“They need to be clear about what constitutes criminal conduct under Arizona law…so they are subject to prosecution,” he said.

“If McGrain County Attorney’s allegations differ from the interests of Conover County Attorneys or Mays Attorneys, it is simply a matter of his alleged desire to ‘fully enforce’ this particular law according to his interpretation and what It’s because you’re confusing it with the statutory duty to know: constitute a criminal act and enforce the law accordingly,” Gaona said. “His eagerness to do what he says is not in his legitimate interests.”

And then there’s something else.

Gaona said Hazelrigg, through his own petition to the Supreme Court, said the judge said the old law prohibited everyone, including doctors, from performing abortions except to save the life of the mother, and that the 2022 It argued that the law should be made clear that it would not be invalidated. Or It also states that McGrain is not only being represented by the same attorney for Hazelrigg, but will not be filing any additional pleadings.

“The mere addition of voices claiming essentially the same position is not sufficient to justify intervention.

A judge isn’t expected to take up the issue until at least May.