An Arizona state court judge ruled Thursday that a ballot description of an Arizona voter initiative that would protect access to abortion is biased because it refers to an “unborn human being.”
The dispute centers on the summary that will accompany the proposed Arizona Abortion Access Act. Grand Canyon State law obliges legislators to prepare an “impartial” statement.
“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,” wrote Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Whitten.
Whitten explained that the use of the phrase cannot be justified on grounds that it was copied from Arizona statutes already on the books.
“The court is not persuaded that every word chosen by the legislature in every statute it enacts is intended to be a neutral in character,” he held. “There is no requirement that the legislature chose its words in such a way, and plenty of evidence that they sometimes do not.”
Eight Republican members of the Arizona legislature outvoted six Democratic members on a committee assigned to complete the task to include the language.
The proposed Arizona Abortion Access Act, if approved by voters in November, would amend the state’s constitution. It would forbid the state from interfering with a woman’s access to abortion up until the point of fetal viability.
At present abortion is legal in Arizona through the fifteenth week of fetal development.
About Author
