By Staff Reporter |
On Wednesday the Arizona Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling, validating the use of the phrase “unborn human being” as an impartial descriptor for Proposition 139, the ballot measure to legalize abortion totally.
The court’s 5-2 decision was a mere three pages long. In it, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the Arizona legislature’s choice to use the phrase “unborn human being” rather than “fetus” meets the standard of substantial compliance required by law for drafting an impartial analysis of ballot measures.
That phrase, “unborn human being,” resides in existing state law as well, something the Arizona Supreme Court did note in its order.
Vice Chief Justice John Lopez didn’t elaborate on his analysis in this ruling, just that the phrase complied with the standards of the law. Lopez promised that the court would issue an opinion in the future to more fully explain the decision.
The Maricopa County Superior Court’s slightly longer ruling had determined that “unborn human being” couldn’t qualify as an impartial analysis of the ballot proposal making abortion a constitutional right because the phrase carried an “emotional and partisan meaning” for both supporters and opponents of abortion.
Contrary to the Arizona Supreme Court’s view, the superior court had determined that the existence of the phrase “unborn human being” in state law was irrelevant to the question of neutrality.
The offending phrase at the heart of this legal battle was part of the Arizona Legislative Council’s nonpartisan descriptor intended for the informational pamphlets given to voters about the Arizona Abortion Access Act and other ballot measures:
“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.”
An abortion does occur through the intentional killing and removal of an unborn human being from the womb of his or her mother.
The Arizona Abortion Access Act would create a fundamental, constitutional right to abortion up until birth, should a health care professional deem the abortion to be necessary to protect the mother’s life or health. The act would also impose a preemptive ban on any legislation seeking to punish those who assist mothers in obtaining abortions.
The group behind the proposal, Arizona for Abortion Access, said in a statement that describing an unborn child as an “unborn human being” was a manipulative ploy by anti-abortion advocates lacking “basis in medicine or science” or expert approval.
“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,” said the group.
The group went on to urge voter support for the proposal; they didn’t indicate whether they planned on challenging the ruling.
Justice Clint Bolick recused himself from the case due to his wife, State Senator Shawnna Bolick, serving on the legislative council and crafting the contested language. Retired Justice John Pelander was selected by Chief Justice Ann Timmer to assume Bolick’s place; Pelander sided with the majority.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
