Arizona Judge Questions GOP’s Neutrality in Abortion Ballot Summary Debate

The inclusion of the phrase “unborn human being” in the description of the Arizona Abortion Access Act, which will be sent to every Arizona voter ahead of the November election, now rests with a Maricopa County Superior Court Judge.

In a court session on Tuesday, attorneys for both the abortion rights ballot initiative and the GOP lawmakers fiercely debated the legality of this phrasing. Arizona law mandates unbiased descriptions of every ballot measure in voter information pamphlets preceding an election.

Dr. Patricia Habak, an OB-GYN supporting the Arizona for Abortion Access campaign, testified that the phrase “unborn human being” is not medically accurate. She argued for the replacement of the term with “fetus,” which she described as more widely accepted and devoid of anti-abortion connotations.

Having practiced for over 20 years, Dr. Habak emphasized that she has never encountered the term “unborn human being” in her professional experience or medical literature. She stressed the importance of precise language in medicine, noting that terms like “fetus” and “embryo” are clearly defined.

Attorney Kory Langhofer, representing the Republican lawmakers, interrogated Dr. Habak on the accuracy of the term “unborn human being,” questioning whether there is any medical policy labeling it as inaccurate. Dr. Habak conceded there isn’t such a policy.

Langhofer also challenged the exclusivity of the term “fetus” for humans, pointing out that it can refer to any mammal, as highlighted during a Legislative Council meeting by Sen. Sonny Borrelli, a Republican from Lake Havasu. Borrelli noted that “fetus” could describe an “unborn horse,” stirring controversy.

GOP lawmakers suggest that “unborn human being” and “fetus” are interchangeable, asserting both are medically accurate. Langhofer questioned if these terms could be synonyms, to which Dr. Habak responded that it depends on personal beliefs. She outlined that accuracy in this context is contingent on individual values concerning what defines a human being.

Republican attorneys argue the phrase “unborn human being” is unbiased, as it references existing law. By contrast, the Arizona for Abortion Access campaign contends that the 15-week gestation law, which includes this phrase, should be nullified if their initiative succeeds, extending abortion access to around 24 weeks of fetal viability.

In closing, Langhofer claimed that quoting existing law maintains impartiality. He cautioned that forcing lawmakers to revise the language could lead to endless legal challenges. Judge Christopher Whitten appeared skeptical, questioning whether mere technical accuracy suffices for impartiality.

Langhofer contended that the presence of partisan language in laws does not necessitate unbiased descriptions in voter pamphlets. He argued that the term “unborn human being” is widely documented in medical texts and legal contexts, making it a reasonable inclusion.

Judge Whitten is expected to issue a ruling by the end of the week.