By Staff Reporter |

The Maricopa Superior Court ruled against the Arizona legislature’s use of “unborn human being” as a valid nonpartisan descriptor for an informational pamphlet to be given to voters.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Whitten ruled in a brief, five-page ruling for Arizona For Abortion Access v. Toma that the phrase “unborn human being” wasn’t an “impartial analysis” of the ballot proposal making abortion a constitutional right: the Arizona Abortion Access Act (Proposition 139). 

The Legislative Council submits all impartial analyses of each ballot proposal in order for the secretary of state to create the publicity pamphlet that all voters receive. The council wrote the following as their analysis of the ballot proposal to make abortion a constitutional right:

“Current state law prohibits a physician from performing an abortion if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being is more than 15 weeks, except when a pregnant woman’s medical condition necessitates an immediate abortion to avert the pregnant woman’s death or for which a delay creates a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”

Whitten ordered the Legislative Council to strike the phrase “unborn human being” from its description of the Arizona Abortion Access Act, and to instead swap it for a “neutral term.” 

Citing court precedent, Whitten said that the Legislative Council’s analysis, while not inaccurate or partial, was still used in a context resulting in “a misleading tendency,” accomplished by using “provocative phrasing [that] belie[s] neutrality and impermissibly advocate[s] against the measure.” 

“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,” said Whitten.

Whitten also stated the House GOP leadership argument that the phrase “unborn human being” came from current law was irrelevant to the question of neutrality. 

“The court is not persuaded that every word chosen by the legislature in every statute it enacts is intended to be neutral in character,” wrote Whitten. “There is no requirement that the legislature chose its words in such a way, and plenty of evidence that they sometimes do not.”

The Arizona Abortion Access Act would create a fundamental right to abortion up until birth, should any involved health care professional determine an abortion “necessary” to protect the mother’s life or health. The proposition, if approved, would also preemptively ban lawmakers from imposing punishments on those who provide assistance in obtaining abortions. 

The organization behind the proposition, Arizona for Abortion Access, said in a statement that they anticipate an appeal from the GOP lawmakers behind the denied Legislative Council language. 

“Though we expect and are prepared for an appeal, this is important progress toward giving Arizona voters the power to make an informed decision in support of protecting our reproductive freedoms once and for all,” stated the organization. 

AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.