Arizona GOP Legislators Rally Behind ‘Unborn Human Being’ Terminology in Abortion Rights Ballot Debate

Republican lawmakers in Arizona are defending their use of the term “unborn human being” to describe the Arizona Abortion Access Act in a voter information pamphlet, amidst a lawsuit accusing them of partisanship. The GOP legislators argue that the term is impartial and legally accurate.

Attorneys representing the lawmakers stated, “The accuracy of this statement is uncontroverted and incontrovertible,” dismissing claims that the Legislative Council altered state laws to fit political preferences. The dispute originates from a summary of the abortion rights ballot measure approved by a GOP-majority legislative council using the term “unborn human being” in the first sentence.

Opponents, led by the campaign behind the abortion initiative, claim the summary introduces partisan language into what should be a neutral description. They have filed a lawsuit aiming to prevent the inclusion of the contested phrase in the voter information pamphlet. The campaign’s attorneys have requested the term be replaced with the medically accurate term “fetus”.

GOP lawmakers have countered by filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. They maintain that the use of “unborn human being” was based on an objective analysis of existing state abortion laws, which forbid abortions after 15 weeks of gestation without exceptions for rape or incest victims. If approved by voters, the ballot initiative would overturn this 15-week limit, extending access to abortion up to around 24 weeks of pregnancy with exceptions for the health of the woman.

Republican legislators argue that their description mirrors the wording already present in the 15-week law to provide voters with the necessary legal context. They claim this should alleviate concerns of partisan bias.

They also highlight that the phrase “unborn human being” is contained within state laws and noted that both terms – “fetus” and “unborn human being” – describe the same entity, asserting that neither is less medically accurate than the other.

The GOP lawmakers added that the choice of language is up to the legislators, and the role of judges is to interpret legal terms, not mediate opinions from external sources. They emphasize that medical terms could potentially confuse voters, further arguing that the legislative mandate requires avoiding technical terms where possible.

The Republican attorneys stated that the usage of “unborn human being” has been sanctioned by the elected representatives of Arizona, thus rendering it a legal term free from political bias.

The court hearing for the case is scheduled for July 25 at 12:00 PM.