Abortion Rights Advocates Sue Over ‘Partisan’ Summary of Arizona Constitutional Amendment Ballot Measure

Arizona Republicans are facing legal challenges for their last-minute attempt to influence the state’s abortion rights ballot measure. They inserted the term “unborn human being” in the description for the voter information pamphlet, allegedly violating state law that mandates impartial and nonpartisan language.

Cheryl Bruce, campaign manager for Arizona for Abortion Access, condemned the move, accusing GOP lawmakers of trying to sway voters to confuse them. This comes just a week after the campaign submitted a record number of voter signatures to qualify for the November election.

“These are the same legislators who imposed an extreme abortion ban without exceptions for rape or incest, and now they’re trying to tip the electoral scales,” said Bruce during an online news conference announcing the lawsuit.

On July 8, a panel of state lawmakers met to finalize summaries for the upcoming ballot proposals, including the Arizona Abortion Access Act. This Act aims to overturn the current 15-week restriction on abortions and enshrine the right to obtain an abortion up to fetal viability, roughly around 24 weeks, into the state constitution.

All eight Republicans on the Legislative Council committee, who supported the 15-week ban in 2022, approved the inclusion of the term “unborn human being” in the ballot measure summary. Reproductive rights advocates contend this decision directly defies Arizona law.

Austin Yost, attorney for the Arizona for Abortion Access Committee, urged lawmakers to replace “unborn human being” with “fetus,” arguing it is the medically accurate and impartial term. He emphasized that state law requires the legislature to provide an unbiased analysis.

“The statute sets impartiality as the north star,” he asserted. Yost pointed out that “unborn human being” carries political overtones often used by anti-abortion groups.

However, Republican lawmakers countered that the term “fetus” is politically charged. House Speaker Ben Toma compared the issue to a biblical compromise, suggesting that using both terms would represent both sides of the debate fairly.

“There is no way to avoid it,” Toma said, emphasizing that both terms are politically loaded depending on one’s stance.

Yost rebutted that “fetus” is the medically accurate term and should be used to maintain impartiality. He argued that partisan opinions belong in the arguments section of the voter pamphlet, where advocates and opponents can make their cases to the public.

Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, D-Tucson, questioned Toma on whether he saw a difference between a fetus and an “unborn human being.” Toma insisted his concern was with the political implications rather than medical accuracy.

Rep. Travis Grantham, R-Gilbert, questioned Yost on whether removing “unborn human being” would breach a 2021 state law that grants rights to fetuses. However, that law is currently blocked by a court order and holds no legal weight.

Yost clarified that while “unborn human being” appears in other statutes, it should not influence the committee’s obligation for impartial summaries. He stated lawmakers have the liberty to use partisan terms in laws, but ballot summary descriptions must remain neutral.

Rep. Teresa Martinez, R-Casa Grande, disagreed with Yost’s assessment and asserted that lawmakers have the final say in the summary’s wording.

The lawsuit, filed by Democratic attorney Andy Gaona, argues that state law requires an “impartial analysis” and advocates for neutral language in the voter pamphlet. Gaona cited a 2013 state Supreme Court case supporting this requirement for neutrality.

Gaona added that using “unborn human being” while also using the term “fetus” in the same summary creates inconsistency and confusion. Therefore, he argued, the court should mandate a new, neutral summary to protect the rights of Arizona voters.

Republican lawmakers defended their actions, insisting their summary is unbiased. House Speaker Toma called the lawsuit frivolous, asserting that the 15-week law clearly pertains to “unborn children.” President Warren Petersen echoed these sentiments, expressing confidence in their description’s neutrality and the eventual court ruling in their favor.