GOP Lawmakers Rally Behind ‘Unborn Human Being’ Terminology in Abortion Rights Debate

Republican lawmakers defending the use of the phrase “unborn human being” in the Arizona Abortion Access Act voter pamphlet are facing a lawsuit accusing them of unlawful partisanship. They argue the term is both impartial and legally accurate.

“The accuracy of this statement is uncontroverted and incontrovertible,” GOP legislators’ attorneys stated. “Plaintiff’s indignation that the Legislative Council did not bowdlerize the laws of the state to suit its political sensibilities is not a redressable legal claim.”

The controversy began with a summary of the abortion rights ballot measure, approved by a GOP-majority legislative council, which includes the term “unborn human being.” Unless changed by a court ruling, this will appear in the voter information pamphlet before the November election.

State law mandates an “impartial analysis” for voters. The campaign backing the abortion initiative sued to stop the summary, arguing it injects partisan language into what should be a neutral description. They want the term replaced with “fetus.”

GOP lawmakers countered, claiming the term “unborn human being” is unbiased and aligns with existing state abortion laws. They stressed the impartial nature of their summary, quoting current statutes verbatim.

In Arizona, abortions are currently illegal after 15 weeks, with no exceptions for rape or incest. Should voters approve the ballot initiative, the 15-week limit will be nullified, expanding access to abortion up to fetal viability, around 24 weeks.

Republican lawmakers argue the term mirrors the 15-week law’s language, thereby aiding voter understanding. They added that the state’s abortion laws have seen significant changes following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling striking down constitutional abortion rights.

Proponents of the abortion rights initiative prefer “fetus,” arguing it’s more neutral and commonly used by medical and scientific communities. They contend “unborn human being” is often used by anti-abortion groups.

Republican lawmakers acknowledge the phrase is favored by pro-life advocates but argue there’s no evidence it is more incendiary than “fetus.” Both terms are used in state laws, court rulings, and medical journals.

The lawmakers’ attorneys insisted that the term’s acceptance by the medical community is irrelevant. They noted that state lawmakers decide the language of laws, and it is the judiciary’s role to interpret them.

The lawsuit argues that non-technical terms are required to avoid voter confusion. Attorneys claim elected GOP lawmakers’ approval of “unborn human being” within the 15-week law validates its use as a legal term.

The brief concluded, “The people of Arizona, through their elected representatives, have employed the words ‘unborn human being’ to describe the object of an abortion. In this context, that phrase is not a pro-choice or a pro-life term; it is a legal term.”

A court hearing is set for July 25 at 12:00 PM.