(The Center Square) – The Arizona Supreme Court ruled today that “unborn human being” is the legally objective term for fetus, rolling back the decision made by the trial court when determining the language for an informational pamphlet that will accompany Prop. 139 on the November ballot.
Prop. 139, only officially securing a place on the ballot yesterday, would put abortion access in the Arizona constitution. The law states that an individual has access to abortion up until the point of viability, but can be given exceptions to preserve the physical and mental wellbeing of the pregnant person.
At this time, abortion is only legal up to 15 weeks in Arizona, but access to abortion in Arizona has been uncertain after the Superior Court’s temporary reinstatement of the 1864 total abortion ban.
When originally determining the language in the pamphlet, the Arizona Legislature proposed language that used the term “unborn human being” instead of fetus, to which the organization proposing the measure, Arizona for Abortion Access, sued the legislature for using a “subjective term.”
“Unborn human being is language that is used frequently by anti-abortion folks and we feel that description falls outside of the law’s requirements that it be neutral,” said Chris Love, spokesperson for Arizona for Abortion Access.
Arizona for Abortion Access won the legal battle, but the Arizona Legislature appealed, resulting in today’s ruling allowing “unborn human being.”
“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,” reads a statement from Arizona for Abortion Access.
Nevertheless, the proposition will still be on November’s ballot, with slightly different language, for Arizona voters to vote on whether they want abortion to be a constitutional right.
