Justices Approve Abortion Measure Recognizing ‘Unborn Human Being’

The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that the term “unborn human being” will remain in the Legislative Council’s analysis of Proposition 139. This decision, issued on August 14, contradicts an earlier ruling from Maricopa County Superior Court.

The court determined that the report’s language meets state law requirements for impartiality in ballot analyses. A spokesperson for Arizona for Abortion Access, Dawn Penich, expressed disappointment, stating that voters will encounter biased language rather than a fair presentation of the issues.

Penich emphasized that the organization remains committed to educating voters about the significance of the Arizona Abortion Access Act and encouraging support for restoring access to abortion care.

House Speaker Ben Toma defended the ruling, arguing that it accurately reflects Arizona’s current 15-week abortion law, which he asserts protects unborn children. He described the legislative intent as straightforward, contrasting it with the proposal aimed at allowing more freedom regarding abortion procedures.

Senate President Warren Petersen supported Toma’s statement, asserting that common sense prevailed in the court’s decision.

Earlier, the council had released a draft analysis of the Arizona Abortion Access Act, citing that under existing law, abortion is prohibited beyond 15 weeks of gestation. The analysis utilized the term “fetus” in subsequent paragraphs, prompting debate among council members.

Despite opposition, Republican council members approved the draft analysis. Arizona for Abortion Access subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Legislative Council, alleging violations of state law requiring impartiality in ballot measure analyses.

In response, Republican members argued that the phrase is mandated by state statute. While Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Whitten acknowledged the term’s presence in the law, he concluded that all legislative language is not necessarily neutral.

He noted that words chosen by the Legislature often carry emotional weight, reinforcing the plaintiffs’ claims regarding partisanship and bias in the analysis description.

Following the lower court’s order to remove the term, the Legislative Council appealed, reaffirming that the phrase aligns with existing state law. The Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, ultimately sided with the Legislative Council, allowing the term to remain in the analysis.

Justice Clint Bolick recused himself due to familial ties to one of the council members, with former Justice John Pelander stepping in. Additionally, Arizona for Abortion Access sought the recusal of Justice William Montgomery but was denied.