American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona (1956– )

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, or ACLU of Arizona, is an organization that protects the individual liberties of people in Arizona. Tucson, Arizona, residents Alice Bendheim, Helen Mautner, and Cornelius Steelink established the ACLU of Arizona on 22 June 1959 in Phoenix, Arizona, and Tucson, Arizona. Among other activities, the ACLU of Arizona challenges restrictive abortion laws in Arizona through litigation, advocacy, and public education. The ACLU of Arizona is part of the national ACLU, which advocates for the rights of all people in the United States. Attorneys managed two chapters in Arizona in 1959, with the goals of influencing policy against systemic injustice and protecting the civil rights of all Arizonans. The ACLU of Arizona is one of the largest organizations that advocates against restrictive abortion laws through filing legal motions to safeguard abortion access and supporting initiatives like the Arizona for Abortion Access proposition, to ensure reproductive freedom and uphold the right to access abortion for people in Arizona.

1. Relationship to National Organization
2. Early Years of the ACLU of Arizona
3. Structure and Work of the ACLU of Arizona
4. Context of the National ACLU’s Advocacy for Reproductive Rights
5. Abortion Access in Arizona: ACLU of Arizona
6. Impact

Relationship to National Organization

As of 2025, the national ACLU operates in all fifty US states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C., and has four million members and supporters across the country. According to Fran Dickman, National Board Representative of the ACLU of Arizona, the ACLU was founded in November of 1915 as a committee called the Civil Liberties Bureau of the American Union Against Militarism, or AUAM. In July 1917, the Civil Liberties Bureau left the AUAM to become a committee of the Fellowship of Reconciliation of the National Civil Liberties Bureau. On 19 January 1920, the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, held one of its first official meetings, separated from the Fellowship of Reconciliation, and dissolved the name National Civil Liberties Bureau.

As stated on the national ACLU’s website, Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Jane Addams, and Albert DeSilver founded the national organization in 1920. Baldwin was a social worker and advocate for the rights of laborers. Eastman was a lawyer and leader of the women’s suffrage movement. Addams was one of the first American women to win the Nobel Peace Prize and a leader of the women’s suffrage movement. DeSilver was a graduate of Columbia Law School in New York, New York. At that time, the goal of the ACLU was to uphold the Bill of Rights and advocate for people, like Native Americans, people of color, lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people, women, mental patients, prisoners, people with disabilities, and the poor, whom the US government had denied the protections of the Bill of Rights. Early efforts from the national ACLU involved advocating for free speech regarding anti-war literature during the year 1920, advocating for Japanese-American liberation during World War II, and challenging state-sanctioned violence against African Americans.

Early Years of the ACLU of Arizona

In September 1958, three Tucson-based members, Alice Bendheim, Helen Mautner, and Cornelius Steelink, of the national ACLU sent a questionnaire to the other 120 members of the national ACLU to ask if there was a need for an ACLU chapter in Arizona. The majority response was a yes. On 22 June 1959, the national ACLU chartered the ACLU of Arizona and established two chapters in Arizona, the northern chapter in Phoenix and the southern chapter in Tucson.

Bendheim was on the National ACLU Board, the Arizona affiliate representative to the National ACLU Board of Directors, and became a member of the ACLU in Arizona in 1954 before the ACLU of Arizona received official recognition from the nationwide organization. Bendheim convened a group of people committed to individual civil rights, often called civil libertarians, from Tucson and Phoenix to become a part of the ACLU of Arizona in 1959. In the early 1960s, as Cold War tensions heightened between the US and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR, concerns about communist influence spread across the US. The US House Un-American Activities Committee, as part of the US House of Representatives, investigated suspected communists. Bendheim, a school teacher, spoke out against the committee as a spokesperson for the ACLU because it went against the First Amendment right to freedom of association to investigate people based on their political affiliations.

The public school in Arizona that Bendheim was teaching at forced her to resign due to her advocacy, and she left the teaching profession to become a lawyer. Bendheim attended law school at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, in the 1970s. After she graduated, Bendheim opened her own family law practice. According to Bendheim, she supported the ACLU because she wanted to protect First Amendment rights and stand against the government when it tried to limit civil liberties. She was one of the longest-serving members of the ACLU of Arizona Board of Directors and served from 1959 to 2018. During her time with the ACLU of Arizona, Bendheim served as president, secretary, and treasurer.

Mautner, the second founder of the ACLU of Arizona, worked in the ACLU of Arizona Tucson office. According to a member of the US House of Representatives, Raúl Grijalva, Mautner, who spent most of her early years in Chicago, Illinois, wanted to become an activist for people in the slums of Chicago. Mautner graduated from the University of California in Berkeley, California, with her bachelor’s degree in sociology and her master’s degree in social work. After Mautner graduated, she taught sixth grade for several years. Also, before moving to Tucson, Mautner was a school social worker in California. Mautner and her husband, Robert Mautner, moved to Tucson in 1965, during which time Mautner was a stay-at-home parent to three children for the next ten years. Also, during that time, Mautner volunteered for the ACLU of Arizona office in Tucson. Initially a volunteer activist, Mautner joined the paid staff at the ACLU of Arizona in 1976 as the assistant director of the Southern Arizona Chapter of the ACLU of Arizona. She was affiliated with a broad range of organizations, including the Children's Action Alliance, the University of Arizona Retirees Association, Planned Parenthood of Arizona, the Tucson Police Citizens Review Board, the Arizona Superior Court Judicial Review Committee, and the City of Tucson Magistrate Selection Committee.

Steelink, the third founder of the ACLU of Arizona, moved to Arizona in 1957 after he founded the northeastern chapter of the ACLU of Southern California. Upon moving to Tucson, Steelink became an assistant professor of chemistry at the University of Arizona in Tucson. From 1957 to 1989, he was a professor and conducted research on soil humic acid, which helps plant roots receive water and nutrients. Steelink also started the toxicology degree program at the University of Arizona in 1973. Along with teaching chemistry, Steelink was a consultant to the City of Tucson on water quality and pollution chemistry, a consultant on air pollution chemistry to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, and a consultant for the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest. In 1959, he joined Mautner and Bendheim to create the ACLU of Arizona. Steelink was an active member of the ACLU of Arizona for over fifty years.

Structure and Work of the ACLU of Arizona

From the beginning of its chartering, the ACLU of Arizona has received funding in various ways. Funding sources have included donations, membership dues, grants from private foundations and individuals, and the ACLU Foundation, which is the ACLU’s initiative that allows tax-deductible donations. The ACLU of Arizona does not receive any government funding and uses its money to support causes like defending reproductive freedom.

The ACLU developed chapters in Arizona because of multiple violations of the Bill of Rights. During the late 1950s in Arizona, the time of the chapter’s founding, it was illegal to marry a person of a different race, be a vagrant or a person with no means of support, and distribute birth control information in Maricopa County. Also, it was legal to deny public accommodations to people of color and for police to arrest suspects without informing them of their legal rights. The ACLU of Arizona claims that it defends the civil rights and issues of Arizonans against government agencies, in which law, policy, or practice affect constitutional rights. An affiliate of the National ACLU, the ACLU of Arizona defends civil liberties through activities including the support for legislation, litigation of problematic laws, and public education.

In 1960, the ACLU of Arizona challenged the 1887 Arizona miscegenation law that prohibited marriage between what it called any Caucasian person and any Black, Hindu, Malayan, or Oriental person. The ACLU of Arizona filed a writ of mandamus, or a court order for a government official to fulfill their duty and follow the law, in the court case Oyama v. Grace Gibson O’Neil (1960). The ACLU of Arizona filed that writ of mandamus on behalf of a Tucson resident of Japanese descent, Henry Oyama, who wanted to marry Mary Ann Jordan, who was White. The Pima County Clerk refused Oyama and Jordan a marriage license. The county superior court sided with the ACLU of Arizona that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the government from denying citizens’ civil rights on the basis of race. The court deemed the 1887 Arizona miscegenation law unconstitutional, and in 1967, the US Supreme Court declared a similar law in Virginia unconstitutional, which made interracial marriages legal throughout the United States.

In the court case Planned Parenthood Committee v. Maricopa County (1962), the ACLU of Arizona challenged the 1901 Arizona law that prohibited the advertising or publication of birth control information. The Planned Parenthood Committee of Phoenix, a nonprofit organization that advocates for reproductive rights, initiated the case against Maricopa County. The ACLU of Arizona filed suit on behalf of many county employees who the law prohibited from referring people to Planned Parenthood. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that healthcare providers could not recommend birth control by brand names. However, the court placed no restrictions on information concerning the use and availability of birth control materials.

In 1966, the ACLU of Arizona was a proponent for the defendant Ernesto Miranda’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights in the decision of Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Police arrested Miranda for kidnapping and rape, and Miranda confessed to the crimes without the police telling him that he had the right to an attorney or the right to remain silent. John P. Frank, cooperating attorney of the ACLU of Arizona, argued to the US Supreme Court that law enforcement must notify defendants under arrest that they have the right to remain silent and the right to counsel before interrogation per the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The US Supreme Court ruled on behalf of the ACLU of Arizona, stating that upon arresting a person, a police officer must read the person their right to remain silent and their right to counsel. As of 2025, the rights are called Miranda rights or a Miranda warning.

The development of the ACLU of Arizona continued when the Tucson and Phoenix chapters joined forces in the 1960s to create a collaborative effort in advocating for civil rights across the state. In the early years of the ACLU of Arizona, unpaid attorneys and advocates managed the organization. Representatives from Tucson and Phoenix set up regular meetings in Casa Grande, Arizona, halfway between Phoenix and Tucson. The ACLU of Arizona board meetings took place in the basement of a Presbyterian church since many cafes and other public meeting places in the 1960s did not serve people of color. In 1966, the ACLU of Arizona hired Ted Mote as its first paid staff member. Mote served as the executive director with an office in Tempe. The ACLU of Arizona continued to add chapters around the state after 1966. As of 2025, the chapters in Arizona focus on cases including but not limited to censorship, criminal justice reforms, voting rights, and racial justice.

In 1977, the ACLU of Arizona defended the law firm of Bates and O’Steen against the Arizona State Bar because it censured Bates and O’Steen’s law firm. At that time, attorneys were not allowed to publicly advertise their services because the Arizona State Bar forbade lawyers in that state from advertising their services except in select cases in 1976. In the court case Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of the law firm claiming that the Arizona Bar could not censor the advertising of their law firm. Although the Arizona court agreed with the Arizona State Bar, the ACLU of Arizona appealed the case to the US Supreme Court and won. The US Supreme Court ruled that attorneys have the right to advertise.

In February 2008, the ACLU of Arizona and the ACLU Voting Rights Project filed the lawsuit Rubio v. Brewer (2008) to restore the voting rights of former felons in Arizona. Under Arizona law, any person who commits a felony loses their civil rights and cannot have those rights restored even after leaving prison unless they have paid their financial obligations to the state and their victims. Those financial obligations include docket and filing fees, court cases, restitution, costs of incarceration, and interest on those debts. The ACLU of Arizona argued that denying the right to vote based on a felon’s inability to pay is the equivalent of a poll tax. A poll tax is a tax of a fixed amount per person levied on adults who are usually required to deal with voting. The ACLU of Arizona also argued that denying the right to vote based on a failure to pay was unconstitutional and a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The ACLU of Arizona stated that a felon should still have the right to vote and an obligation to pay their financial dues.

The District Court dismissed the ACLU of Arizona’s case in March 2008. Shortly after, the ACLU of Arizona submitted a brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the amended complaint was dismissed by the District Court in November 2008. As of 27 May 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stood behind the District Court’s decision to dismiss the. Since 2010, the ACLU of Arizona has continued to defend Arizonans against violations of the Bill of Rights. They have done so through written reports, such as reports on inhumane conditions regarding federal immigration custody in Arizona, and through lawsuits, like one against an officer who used minor traffic stop violations to racially profile drivers based on their appearance.

Context of the National ACLU’s Advocacy for Reproductive Rights

The ACLU of Arizona collaborates with other ACLU affiliate locations across the country and the national ACLU to advocate for reproductive and abortion rights. Dating to before the ACLU of Arizona was chartered, the federal appeals court issued the landmark United States v. Dennett (1930) decision, which expanded the interpretation of what counts as obscene under the First Amendment. The decision acknowledged that the government should not restrict educational material on sex, if intended for informational purposes, under the Comstock Act, which banned the distribution of obscene content through the mail. The plaintiff of the case, Mary Ware Dennett, was a national ACLU member and founder of the National Birth Control League and the Voluntary Parenthood League.

Throughout the mid-1900s, the national ACLU played a role in the advancement of women’s rights. In 1944, Dorothy Kenyon established the Committee of Discrimination Against Women in Employment in the national ACLU. In 1964, Harriet Pilpel, another member of the national ACLU board, and Kenyon led the first campaign to repeal New York’s abortion ban. Kenyon stated in a letter to the national ACLU board that it is a mockery of democracy that the government forced women to bear children against their will. In 1970, the ACLU helped persuade New York to repeal all abortion restrictions, making it one of the first states to do so, three years before Roe v. Wade (1973). That same year, the ACLU endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment, supported the Fourteenth Amendment as it applied against sex discrimination and discrimination against women, and placed women’s rights as its top priority. In 1971, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a graduate of Columbia Law School, created the national ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project to seek equality for women through litigation. According to Ginsburg, she joined the ACLU because she supported the civil liberties and equality of all humans.

Later, in 1971, the national ACLU argued its first abortion case, U.S. v Vuitch (1971), in the US Supreme Court. Milan Vuitch, a physician, had performed illegal abortions, which violated the District of Columbia’s abortion law. Vuitch appealed his conviction, citing that the abortions were necessary to protect the physical and mental health of the women involved. The national ACLU argued the case on behalf of Vuitch. The US Supreme Court upheld Vuitch’s conviction but expanded the definition of life and health of the woman to include psychological and physical well-being.

In 1973, the US Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade established abortion as a constitutional right. Then-president of the ACLU, Norman Dorsen, was a part of the team of lawyers who represented the plaintiffs in the case. The US Supreme Court ruled that it is a woman’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy through abortion. That decision removed the authority from states to determine the legality of abortion and remained in effect until the US Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022 in their Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) decision.

The national ACLU also argued the Doe v. Bolton (1973) and the Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) cases. In the Doe v. Bolton decision, the US Supreme Court stated that whether an abortion is necessary rests with the judgment of the physician. In the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, attorney Kathryn Kolbert of the national ACLU defended abortion rights. The US Supreme Court upheld the constitutional protection for abortion. However, it allowed for state regulations of abortion on the grounds that it did not pose a substantial obstacle for a woman accessing an abortion.

In the years following the Roe v. Wade decision, state ACLU chapters and the national ACLU continued to advocate for reproductive rights as a constitutional right. They engaged in various court cases against state governments if the states tried to infringe on the reproductive rights of women and supported legislative initiatives like the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE. FACE provided criminal penalties against the use of force, property damage, or physical obstruction aimed at those obtaining or providing abortions or other reproductive health services.

In the mid-2010s, the national ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona collaborated with the Center for Reproductive Rights and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in the court case Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Brnovich (2016). On 4 June 2015, those organizations challenged Arizona’s Senate Bill 1318, which forced physicians to provide misleading information that medication abortions may be reversible. On 16 October 2015, the federal court blocked the law, and on 17 May 2016, then Arizona Governor Doug Ducey nullified Senate Bill 1318.

Abortion Access in Arizona: ACLU of Arizona

Following the US Supreme Court’s Decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), which overturned the right to abortion access on a federal level, the ACLU of Arizona and the Center for Reproductive Rights took legal action to maintain abortion access in Arizona. In March 2022, Ducey signed Senate Bill 1164 into law, which only allowed physicians to provide abortion care up to fifteen weeks of pregnancy, with few exceptions for medical emergencies.

The ACLU of Arizona and the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a motion to ensure that abortion was available in Arizona on 25 June 2022. The ACLU of Arizona filed that motion on behalf of two Arizona physicians, Paul Isaacson and Eric Reuss, the Arizona Medical Association, National Council of Jewish Women Arizona, and the Arizona National Organization of Women. The motion blocked the passage of the personhood law, the specific statute in Senate Bill 1457, or the requirement that classified fetuses and embryos as people starting at the point of conception. The motion also blocked the ban on abortion if the reason is a fetal medical condition or diagnosis. On 11 July 2022, a federal district court judge granted the motion to ensure that abortion was available in Arizona. Without the personhood law or Senate Bill 1457 in effect, both providers of abortions and pregnant people could not face legal consequences if they performed or received an abortion.

In July 2022, then Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed a motion to reinstate the state’s total abortion ban from 1864, before Arizona became a state. The 1864 Arizona abortion law banned all abortions unless the mother’s life was at risk. In September 2022, a Pima County Superior Court judge granted the motion for the total abortion ban. At that time, all abortion providers had to stop abortion services in the state.

On 4 October 2022, the ACLU of Arizona, the national ACLU, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Perkins Coie filed a lawsuit on behalf of abortion provider Paul Isaacson and the Arizona Medical Association to ask the Arizona state court to allow abortion access to resume until fifteen weeks of pregnancy. In December 2022, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled to allow abortion care for up to fifteen weeks.

In September 2023, Arizona for Abortion Access, a coalition of reproductive health, rights, and justice organizations, launched the Arizona for Abortion Access ballot initiative to expand abortion access in Arizona by placing a constitutional amendment on the November 2024 ballot in Arizona. The ACLU of Arizona, Affirm Sexual and Reproductive Health, Arizona List, Healthcare Rising Arizona, Reproductive Freedom for All, and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona all supported the effort. The Arizona for Abortion Access ballot secured a spot on the November 2024 ballot, which allows Arizona voters to decide whether Arizona can legally restrict abortion before the point of fetal viability. The US Supreme Court defined fetal viability in Roe v. Wade as the point when the fetus has a chance of surviving outside the womb without extreme medical help.

In June 2023, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs signed Executive Order 2023-11, which has several provisions to protect reproductive freedom in Arizona. In April 2024, the Supreme Court of Arizona issued a decision in Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Mayes (2024) that the state can enforce the 1864 abortion ban. Shortly after, the Arizona House of Representatives passed House Bill 2677 to repeal the 1864 abortion ban. In May 2024, the Arizona Senate passed the bill to repeal the 1864 abortion ban. As of 5 November 2024, Arizonans voted to pass the Arizona for Abortion Access ballot, or Proposition 139. The ballot amends the state constitution and allows abortion services up to twenty-four weeks.

Impact

Since 1959, the ACLU of Arizona has contributed to legal decisions that continue to shape civil liberties in Arizona, including decisions regarding reproductive rights. Through cases and initiatives like Miranda v. Arizona, Oyama v. Grace Gibson O’Neil, and the Arizona for Abortion Access ballot initiative, the ACLU of Arizona advocates for the protection of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights, racial equality, and abortion access.

Following the 2022 Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned the right to abortion access on a federal level, the ACLU of Arizona took legal action to maintain abortion access in Arizona. They blocked the passage of Senate Bill 1457, or the personhood law, upheld the rights of healthcare professionals who provide abortions, filed a lawsuit to allow abortion access to resume until fifteen weeks of pregnancy, and launched the Arizona for Abortion Access ballot initiative, which allows Arizonans to vote on whether Arizona can legally restrict abortion before the point of fetal viability.

In 2017, the ACLU of Arizona reported having over 21,000 members, sixteen staff members, and an annual operating budget of $2.1 million. That same year, the organization opened its second office in Tucson to extend the reach of the ACLU of Arizona to residents in southern Arizona. The ACLU of Arizona claims it will continue to fight in the courts, in Congress, and in communities across the state for safe and reliable reproductive care.

As of 2025, the ACLU of Arizona advocates for reproductive rights, including access to abortion. By challenging restrictive abortion laws in Arizona, the ACLU of Arizona has contributed to efforts to keep abortion legal. The organization remains engaged in legal efforts, like the Arizona for Abortion Access ballot, related to reproductive rights, and collaborates with other groups in advocating for legal reform.

Sources

1. ACLU of Arizona. “Abortion in Arizona.” ACLU of Arizona. https://www.acluaz.org/en/issues/abortion-arizona (Accessed July 15, 2025).
2. ACLU of Arizona. “Accomplishments.” ACLU of Arizona. https://www.acluaz.org/en/about/accomplishments (Accessed July 15, 2025).
3. ACLU of Arizona. “ACLU and Partners File Emergency Motion to Ensure that Abortion is Still Legal and Available in Arizona.” ACLU of Arizona. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/lawsuit-filed-restore-abortion-access-arizona (Accessed July 15, 2025).
4. ACLU of Arizona. “ACLU of Arizona Mourns the Loss of Founder Alice Bendheim.” ACLU of Arizona. https://www.acluaz.org/en/news/aclu-arizona-mourns-loss-founder-alice-bendheim (Accessed July 15, 2025).
5. ACLU of Arizona. “Arizona Law Granting ‘Personhood’ to Fetuses Blocked in Court.” ACLU of Arizona. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/arizona-law-granting-personhood-fetuses-blocked-court (Accessed July 15, 2025).
6. ACLU of Arizona. “Closed Court Cases.” ACLU of Arizona. https://www.acluaz.org/en/closed-court-cases (Accessed July 15, 2025).
7. ACLU of Arizona. “Criminal Justice Reform.” ACLU of Arizona. https://www.acluaz.org/en/issues/smart-justice (Accessed July 15, 2025).
8. ACLU of Arizona. “Lawsuit Filed to Restore Abortion Access in Arizona.” ACLU of Arizona. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/lawsuit-filed-restore-abortion-access-arizona (Accessed July 15, 2025).
9. ACLU of Arizona. “Our Mission.” ACLU of Arizona. https://www.acluaz.org/en/about/our-mission (Accessed July 15, 2025).
10. ACLU of Arizona. “Reproductive Freedom.” ACLU of Arizona. https://www.acluaz.org/en/issues/reproductive-freedom (Accessed July 15, 2025).
11. ACLU of Arizona. “Speak the Truth: ACLU of Arizona Oral History Project.” ACLU of Arizona. https://www.acluaz.org/en/speak-truth-aclu-arizona-oral-history-project (Accessed July 15, 2025).
12. ACLU of Arizona. “Voting Rights.” ACLU of Arizona. https://www.acluaz.org/en/issues/voting-rights (Accessed July 15, 2025).
13. American Civil Liberties Union. “About the ACLU.” American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/about/about-aclu (Accessed July 15, 2025).
14. American Civil Liberties Union. “ACLU History: Showing Up for Abortion Rights Since 1920.” American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/news/reproductive-freedom/aclu-history-showing-up-for-abortion-rights (Accessed July 15, 2025).
15. American Civil Liberties Union. “Financial Info.” American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/about/about-membership/financial-info (Accessed July 15, 2025).
16. American Civil Liberties Union. “The ACLU and Women's Rights: Proud History, Continuing Struggle.” American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-and-womens-rights-proud-history-continuing-struggle (Accessed July 15, 2025).
17. Arizona Daily Star. “Helen Sally Mautner.” Arizona Daily Star, July 26, 2014, Tucson edition. https://tucson.com/lifestyles/announcements/obituaries/helen-sally-mautner/article_c79bb47a-e007-5ef6-b6c2-16035c14d93c.html (Accessed July 15, 2025).
18. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1176004052156446158&q=Bates+v.+State+Bar+of+Arizona+(1977)&hl=en&as_sdt=806 (Accessed July 15, 2025).
19. Center for Reproductive Rights. “Isaacson, et al. v. Brnovich, et al.” Center for Reproductive Rights. https://reproductiverights.org/case/isaacson-et-al-v-brnovich-et-al-arizona-abortion/ (Accessed July 15, 2025).
20. Center for Reproductive Rights. “Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. et al. v. Brnovich, Christ, et al.” Center for Reproductive Rights. https://reproductiverights.org/case/planned-parenthood-arizona-inc-et-al-v-brnovich-christ-et-al/ (Accessed July 15, 2025).
21. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15560296770592570126&q=Dobbs+v.+Jackson+Women’s+Health+Organization&hl=en&as_sdt=806 (Accessed July 15, 2025).
22. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11713857759343795310&q=Doe+v.+Bolton&hl=en&as_sdt=806 (Accessed July 15, 2025).
23. Grijalva, Raúl M. “Congressional Record – Extensions of Remarks.” Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/crec/2010/06/24/CREC-2010-06-24-pt1-PgE1202.pdf (Accessed July 15, 2025).
24. Jones, Kierra B. “What to Know About Abortion Access and Arizona’s Ballot Measure.” American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/what-to-know-about-abortion-access-and-arizonas-ballot-measure/ (Accessed July 15, 2025).
25. Kilar, Steve. “ACLU of Arizona Opens Second Office to Strengthen Presence in Southern Arizona.” ACLU of Arizona. https://www.acluaz.org/en/press-releases/aclu-arizona-opens-second-office-strengthen-presence-southern-arizona (Accessed July 15, 2025).
26. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6386252699535531764&q=Miranda+v.+Arizona+(1966)&hl=en&as_sdt=806 (Accessed July 15, 2025).
27. Peterson, Taylor. “Henry Oyama.” The University of Texas at Austin Voces Oral History Center. https://voces.moody.utexas.edu/collections/stories/henry-oyama (Accessed July 15, 2025).
28. Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc v. Brnovich, 172 F. 1075 (3d Cir. 2016). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17559007085824917561&q=Planned+Parenthood+Arizona,+Inc+v.+Brnovich&hl=en&as_sdt=806 (Accessed July 15, 2025).
29. Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc v. Mayes, 545 Ariz. 3d 892 (2024). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9382635598486422250&q=Planned+Parenthood+Arizona+v.+Mayes&hl=en&as_sdt=806 (Accessed July 15, 2025).
30. Planned Parenthood Committee v. Maricopa County, 92 Ariz. 2d 719 (1962). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=471459579722282869&q=Planned+Parenthood+v.+Maricopa+County&hl=en&as_sdt=806 (Accessed July 15, 2025).
31. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6298856056242550994&q=Planned+Parenthood+v.+Casey&hl=en&as_sdt=806 (Accessed July 15, 2025).
32. Relating to Abortion, S.B. 1318, 52nd Cong. (2015). https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/52leg/1r/bills/sb1318h.pdf (Accessed July 15, 2025).
33. Relating to Abortion, S.B. 1457, 55th Cong. (2021). https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/1r/bills/sb1457c.pdf (Accessed July 15, 2025).
34. Relating to Enforcement of Immigration Laws, S.B. 1164, 57th Cong. (2025). https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/57leg/1R/bills/SB1164P.pdf (Accessed July 15, 2025).
35. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12334123945835207673&q=Roe+v.+Wade&hl=en&as_sdt=806 (Accessed July 15, 2025).
36. Senesi, Nicola. “Professor Emeritus Cornelius Steelink (1922-2016).” International Humic Substances Society. https://humic-substances.org/wp-content/uploads/Steelink-Cornelius.pdf (Accessed July 15, 2025).
37. Steelink, Cornelius. “A Brief History of the ACLU of Arizona.” ACLU of Arizona. https://www.acluaz.org/en/brief-history-aclu-arizona (Accessed July 15, 2025).
38. United States v. Dennett, 39 F. 564 (2d Cir. 1930). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13482364592557808136&q=United+States+v.+Dennett+(1930)+&hl=en&as_sdt=806 (Accessed July 15, 2025).
39. University of California Los Angeles College of Physical Sciences Chemistry & Biochemistry “Alumni News.” University of California. https://www.chemistry.ucla.edu/news/alumni-news-4/ (Accessed July 15, 2025).
40. Walker, Sam. “Conscientious Objectors.” American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/conscientious-objectors (Accessed July 15, 2025).