Abortion Ballot Faces Dual Legal Challenge

An anti-abortion group filed a lawsuit on July 24 aiming to prevent an initiative to enshrine abortion rights into Arizona’s Constitution from going to the ballot. Arizona for Abortion Access, the group behind the measure, is in court arguing for the removal of the phrase “unborn human being” from an informative pamphlet sent to voters ahead of the election.

Arizona Right to Life, the anti-abortion organization behind the lawsuit, claims the citizen-led petition is “inherently misleading” in its portrayal of the measure’s effects. The group argues that the petition, described to allow abortions up to fetal viability, would actually permit abortions up to any point if a doctor deems it necessary for the mother’s mental health. Fetal viability is generally considered to be between 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Attorney Timothy La Sota, representing Arizona Right to Life, argued that the petition’s “ambiguity” could lead some voters to back it without fully understanding its implications. He highlighted potential confusion over who determines fetal viability due to the omission of the key word “treating” in the phrase “a treating healthcare provider.”

La Sota further contended that the initiative’s provisions for abortion after fetal viability based on the mother’s mental health are too broadly defined, potentially allowing abortion up to birth. He also accused circulators for the initiative of using “fraudulent means” and not adhering to circulator regulations, such as having felony convictions or failing to register properly.

Despite these accusations, Arizona for Abortion Access submitted 823,685 signatures in support of their proposal, significantly higher than the 383,923 required. If Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Melissa Julian does not find the petition misleading and La Sota cannot invalidate 439,762 signatures, the measure will appear on the Nov. 5 ballot.

In a press release, Arizona for Abortion Access called the lawsuit “desperate,” labeling the complaints as deceptive attempts to silence over 820,000 Arizona voters. The group remains confident in prevailing and restoring abortion access in Arizona.

The lawsuit came a day prior to a July 25 hearing before Judge Christopher Whitten. There, the pro-abortion group sought to exclude “unborn human being” from a publicity pamphlet summary. The Legislative Council, composed of a Republican majority, had included the phrase, arguing it balanced with the term “fetus” later in the description.

Attorney Andrew Yost, representing Arizona for Abortion Access, requested Whitten to have the measure’s summary reconsidered by the Legislative Council to use “fetus” instead. Kory Langhofer, attorney for Republicans on the Legislative Council, argued that technical terms should be avoided, supporting the use of “unborn human being.”

To support their case, Yost presented testimony from Dr. Patricia Habak, a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist. Habak stated that “unborn human being” is not medically accepted but conceded that it might be used in specific contexts, which bolsters Langhofer’s argument.

Langhofer pointed out that the phrase “unborn human being” originates from existing law permitting abortions until 15 weeks of pregnancy. He maintained that lawmakers have the right to use the same terminology when describing changes.

Judge Whitten has taken the matter under advisement.

Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services contributed to this article.