Arizona Supreme Court Declares ‘Unborn Human Being’ Official Term in Abortion Law

By Staff Reporter |

In a significant ruling on Wednesday, the Arizona Supreme Court overturned a prior decision by the Maricopa County Superior Court regarding Proposition 139, which seeks to legalize abortion in the state. The court’s 5-2 verdict affirms that the term “unborn human being” serves as an appropriate and neutral descriptor for the measure.

The brief ruling, composed of just three pages, clarified that the Arizona legislature’s use of this terminology meets legal standards for impartial language in ballot measure analyses. The phrase is already present in existing state law, an aspect the court pointed out in its decision.

While Vice Chief Justice John Lopez did not provide detailed commentary, he indicated that a full opinion would follow to further elucidate the court’s stance. This decision contrasts with the lower court’s assessment, which suggested that the phrase lacked neutrality and held emotional weight for both pro-choice and anti-abortion supporters.

The superior court argued that the term’s presence in state law does not inherently satisfy the criteria for unbiased analysis. The term under scrutiny is part of the Arizona Legislative Council’s nonpartisan descriptors destined for voter pamphlets, detailing provisions related to the Arizona Abortion Access Act.

The proposed act aims to enshrine the right to an abortion through to birth, contingent on the medical necessity as determined by health care professionals. It would also seek to prevent any punitive measures against those aiding women in obtaining abortions.

Arizona for Abortion Access, the organization behind the proposition, criticized the courtroom ruling. They claimed that using the phrase “unborn human being” is a tactic employed by anti-abortion advocates lacking grounding in medical expertise or scientific rationale. They argue this contributes to an imbalanced presentation of facts before voters.

Amidst the ongoing legal dispute, Justice Clint Bolick recused himself due to his wife’s involvement with the legislative council, and retired Justice John Pelander stepped in to participate in the majority ruling.

This development raises critical questions about the impartiality of language in political discourse and the legal processes shaping reproductive rights in Arizona.