Democratic Sen. Linda Lopez said she’d received more than 150 emails critical of the proposal, “and they’re still coming in. People don’t know it’s not going anywhere.”

Supporters turned to the state constitution, saying it required them to act on Pearce’s behalf.

Pearce backer Sen. Steve Smith said the bill was not advanced “because people like him, to give him money,” but rather because “we have to do it.”

Pearce did not return calls from The Associated Press seeking comment.

He stepped into the national spotlight by spearheading the effort to pass the immigration enforcement law known as SB1070, which is under review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 2010 law contained provisions that led to protests from civil rights groups and boycotts of the state, including a requirement that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person’s immigration status based on suspicion and a requirement that all immigrants obtain or carry registration papers.

Pearce’s recall in November, forced by a petition drive, was the first for an Arizona lawmaker.

His allies led the push to have the Legislature reimburse him for the nearly $262,000 his campaign spent in fighting the effort.

A particular point of irritation for opponents was that a fundraising effort covered Pearce’s expenses.

The Arizona Constitution says officials who are subjects of recall elections can have their expenses paid by the state. However, there’s no law that would allow that to happen.

The legislation proposed by a small group of Pearce supporters on a special joint legislative committee would have added such a law.

The bill was pulled from consideration in the Senate on Thursday with Majority Leader Andy Biggs, a Pearce ally, saying it lacks enough votes to pass.

Republicans who make up two-thirds of the Senate were split on the issue. Democrats were united in opposition.

Under the bill, employers with religious or moral objections could decline to provide employees with coverage for birth control drugs being used to avoid pregnancy. Only religious entities such as churches now have that right in Arizona.

Coverage to use the drugs for medical purposes other than avoiding pregnancy, such as treatment for acne, still would be provided through a reimbursement process, but employers could require that workers provide evidence that the drugs aren’t being sought for avoiding pregnancy.

Critics say employers could force workers to disclose their personal medical circumstances in order to get reimbursements. Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, disputed that employers would get that information.

Brewer, a Republican, said Friday she didn’t have a position on the bill, but she expressed unease that it could result in women having to disclose private medical information to employers.

On Sunday, McCain, R-Ariz., also voiced reservations about the bill, saying Republicans should focus on jobs and the economy and not allow critics to paint Republicans as waging a war on women.

Arizona Senate President Steve Pierce pulled the bill from a Senate committee agenda Monday. Spokesman Mike Philipsen cited Brewer’s comments and objections from members of the public.

Philipsen said Pierce’s move doesn’t mean the bill is dead, but at a minimum, the move delays its consideration by the full Senate.

Herrod said any information workers provide to get reimbursements would go only to the health plans.

However, the legislation isn’t clear on that. Some provisions of the bill specify that evidence would be submitted to the insurer or health plan, but at least one other provision specifies that the reimbursement claim and evidence would go to the company opting out of coverage for avoiding pregnancy.

A health law expert said workers can be required to waive privacy rights and allow employers to have the information in order to get reimbursements.

“It’s not unusual for the employer to have to ask for medical confirmation of specific things,” said James G. Hodge, an Arizona State University professor who specializes in health law and ethics.

Unlike health care providers and insurance plans, employers generally aren’t subject to privacy requirements of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accounting Act, also known as HIPAA, Hodge said.

In many cases, an employee already has to plead for coverage of a type of care, such as when an insurer denies coverage and tells the worker to take it up with her employer, he said. “If she wants reimbursement, legally she is going to have to waive privacy interests.”

Herrod said the planned amendment to change the bill hadn’t been written yet, but it would be intended to make sure any information goes to the insurer but not to the employer.

“The employer would not be able to coerce the employee into waiving any of this,” she said.

Herrod said she expects Brewer and McCain won’t stand as roadblocks to the bill and that it will enjoy strong support from the Senate “once the facts are clear.”

The current bill has already been approved by the House, but the bill would have to return there if the Senate makes any changes.

The U.S. Justice Department has argued the law intrudes on its exclusive authority to regulate immigration and burdens legal immigrants.

Less than a day before the law was to take effect in July, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton blocked key provisions of the law from being enforced.

Those included requirements that immigrants get and carry immigration registration papers and that police, in enforcing other laws, question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally.

Bolton let other parts take effect, such as a ban on obstructing traffic while seeking or offering day-labor services on streets.

The law was passed in April 2010 amid years of complaints that the federal government hasn’t done enough to lessen the state’s role as the nation’s busiest illegal entry point. Its passage inspired protests, led to lawsuits seeking to overturn the law and a debate about whether the law would lead to racial profiling.

The Arizona law isn’t the only one that has challenged federal primacy in immigration.

The U.S. Supreme Court is mulling arguments in an appeal by groups that are trying to overturn a 2007 Arizona law prohibiting employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

Associated Press reporter Jacques Billeaud contributed to this story.