Arizona’s abortion rights battle heats up, lawsuit filed over “unborn human” terminology in voter pamphlet

The contentious debate over abortion rights in Arizona took a legal turn on Wednesday, as supporters of a ballot measure aiming to enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution filed a lawsuit against Republican lawmakers.

The dispute centers on the language used in a voter pamphlet set to be distributed ahead of the November polls.

Arizona for Abortion Access, the advocacy group championing the ballot measure, has taken their grievance to the Maricopa County Superior Court. The group’s lawsuit demands that the Arizona Legislative Council, which oversees the pamphlet’s content, revise its language to be more impartial. Specifically, they argue that the term “unborn human” is biased and propose that “fetus” is a neutral and medically accurate alternative.

The pamphlet in question, a legally mandated document summarizing the ballot measure, states that current Arizona law prohibits abortions if the gestational age of the “unborn human being” exceeds 15 weeks, with certain exceptions.

This language mirrors existing statutes but has drawn criticism for lacking neutrality. Notably, the ballot measure itself does not use the term “unborn human.”

“We believe the Legislative Council drafted an unbiased description that accurately reflects the measure,” asserted Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen, a defendant in the lawsuit. Petersen, along with other Republicans on the council, maintains that the summary is fair and lawful. Conversely, Arizona for Abortion Access insists that while the language of laws can be non-neutral, the pamphlet summary must adhere to a standard of impartiality.

This legal battle is unfolding in a state with a tumultuous history regarding abortion laws. In May, Arizona legislators repealed a near-total abortion ban from 1864, opting instead to uphold a 15-week ban enacted in 2022. This decision came in the wake of the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling, which allowed prosecutors to enforce the archaic Civil War-era ban following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision that overturned the federal right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade in 1973.

Arizona is not alone in this fight; other states, including Florida and Nevada, are also poised to address abortion rights in upcoming November ballots. The outcome of these measures could significantly influence the national landscape of reproductive rights post-Roe v. Wade.

As the lawsuit progresses, all eyes will be on the Maricopa County Superior Court to see if the language in the pamphlet will be altered. The decision could have far-reaching implications for how abortion rights are communicated to voters and may set a precedent for other states grappling with similar issues.

The stakes are high, and the legal wrangling in Arizona underscores the deeply polarizing nature of abortion rights in the United States. As the November elections approach, the battle over wording in a pamphlet symbolizes the broader struggle over bodily autonomy and legislative control.