A scale and gavel
The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that the use of “unborn human being” is permissible in publicity pamphlets when it is used to quote the law.
Publicity pamphlets, which are drafted by a bipartisan group of lawmakers on the Legislative Council, contain information for voters about any measure or proposed amendments to the state’s constitution that are on the ballot. The Legislative Council’s analysis must be free from any “misleading tendency, whether of amplification, of omission, or of fallacy,” and it cannot have partisan coloring, according to a previous ruling in Reform v. Greene.
Last year, Arizona for Abortion Access sued state officials after conservative lawmakers tried to use the phrase “unborn human being” in reference to Arizona’s now-nullified 15-week abortion ban. That phrase is frequently used by abortion opponents. The group, which was advocating for Arizona’s newest amendment that protects abortion, argued that the term fetus was neutral, objective, and medically accepted, while unborn human beings carry emotional and partisan meaning.
The court sided with conservative lawmakers, who argued they were just using language that was already written into law.
“The mere fact that the phrase might also be used in debates concerning the legal rights and statuses that ought to be afforded (or not) to human fetuses/unborn human beings does not render this use of the phrase partial,” the majority court wrote.
The court’s decision reinforces a decision the state’s high court made last August. At the time, the bench reversed a lower court’s ruling that found the phrase to be partial.
“The term ‘unborn human being’ is packed with emotional and partisan meaning, both for those who oppose abortion and for those who endorse a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion,” Maricopa Superior Court Judge Christopher Whitten wrote in July before his ruling was reversed in August.
Chief Justice Ann Timmer and Justice James Beene disagreed with the majority court’s most recent ruling, writing that they “doubt anyone would view (unborn human being) as ‘impartial’ if used in describing an abortion-related measure, although it would be accurate to say that the term is used in the statute.” However, the majority opinion did acknowledge how the language used may influence a voter.
“Certain voters may find the existing statutory law’s reference to ‘unborn human being’ and the Initiative’s reference to ‘fetus’ and ‘fetal’ important enough to tip the scale in favor of voting for or against the Initiative,” the court wrote.
While it does not impact Arizona’s newest constitutional amendment, the ruling can affect any future measures that may be on the ballot.
By submitting your comments, you hereby give AZPM the right to post your comments and potentially use them in any other form of media operated by this institution.