SB 1395 is a very short bill that repeals Title 36, Chapter 20, Article 2 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, which is the state’s abortion reporting requirements article. In practical terms, the bill would remove the statutory framework that requires abortion-related reporting under that article, eliminating those specific reporting obligations from Arizona law.
Because the bill is a repeal-only measure, it does not create a new regulatory scheme or replace the repealed provisions with alternative reporting rules. Its effect is limited to removing the existing abortion reporting article from the Arizona Revised Statutes, leaving any remaining abortion-related laws elsewhere in state law unchanged unless they depend on the repealed article.
Impact
If enacted, SB 1395 would amend Arizona law by deleting Title 36, Chapter 20, Article 2 from the statutes, thereby ending the state’s abortion reporting requirements contained in that article. The immediate impact would be on health care providers, facilities, and any state agencies that collect, process, or rely on abortion-related reports under the repealed provisions. The bill would also affect public access to abortion data compiled under that statutory scheme, since the legal basis for those reports would be removed.
Sentiment
The available context does not include committee testimony or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s sponsor list and subject matter, the measure appears to be part of a broader policy effort by its supporters to reduce abortion-related reporting requirements. With no transcripts or vote history, the overall sentiment can only be characterized as introduced by a group of senators likely aligned in favor of repealing the reporting mandate.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely whether abortion reporting requirements serve a legitimate public-policy, oversight, or public-health purpose versus whether they impose unnecessary burdens and intrude on patient privacy and provider operations. Supporters would generally favor repeal as a privacy and deregulation measure, while opponents would likely argue that the reporting requirements are important for state oversight, data collection, and monitoring abortion services. No specific committee disputes are documented in the provided record, so these are the likely policy fault lines rather than recorded arguments.