An informational pamphlet for Arizona voters about a constitutional amendment to create a right to abortion can use the words “unborn human being” to describe a fetus, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
The justices ruled the language was impartial, reversing a lower court’s decision and siding with the GOP state lawmakers who wrote the summary.
The brief order said a full explanation of the decision would be coming “in due course” but noted that Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer and Justice James Beene dissented.
The proposed amendment would allow abortions until fetal viability, with certain medical exceptions for later-term abortions. It would restrict the state from adopting or enforcing any law that would prohibit access to the procedure.
State law requires a summary of the laws that will be impacted by ballot initiatives, but it expressly calls for an “impartial” analysis. The informational pamphlet is mailed to voters by the secretary of state.
The Republican-controlled Legislative Council in July approved the inclusion of the phrase “unborn human being” instead of “fetus” in the pamphlet.
The coalition Arizona for Abortion Access sued, arguing the language was inherently political. A state judge agreed and ordered the committee to rewrite the summary using neutral language.
“The term ‘unborn human being’ is packed with emotional and partisan meaning, both for those who oppose abortion and for those who endorse a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion,” the lower court said.
Wednesday’s ruling drew quick backlash from the amendment’s backers.
Unborn human being is “a watchword for anti-abortion advocates with no basis in medicine or science” that the justices decided was “somehow impartial and objective,” Arizona for Abortion Access said in a statement.
“This means that Arizona voters won’t get to learn about the questions on their ballot in a fair, neutral, and accurate way but will instead be subjected to biased, politically-charged words developed not by experts but by anti-abortion special interests to manipulate voters and spread misinformation,” the group added.
The ruling comes just days after the Arizona secretary of state’s office said it had certified 577,971 signatures on the measure — far more than the required number to put the question before voters.
But the amendment faces another legal hurdle, as the anti-abortion group Arizona Right to Life is challenging the signatures. Lower courts rejected the group’s arguments that the 200-word summary of the amendment shown to Arizonans who signed petition sheets was misleading. But the group has appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Abortion is banned after 15 weeks of pregnancy in Arizona, with an exception for the life of the mother — but not rape or incest.
In a 4-2 decision earlier this year, the same court said a Civil War-era abortion ban passed before Arizona was even a state was legal and should be enforced.
The GOP-controlled Legislature narrowly repealed that law in May after a massive nationwide backlash, including from former President Trump.
