Unborn baby murder in the state of Arizona is banned after 15 weeks with the sole exception being the life of the mother. It doesn’t make exception for rape or incest.
But abortion advocates have managed to get enough signatures to get a referendum on the ballot in November, asking people to vote on a right to abortion amendment for the state’s constitution.
At issue here is the language being used in the impartial official summary for the referendum, which is required by state law. Republican state lawmakers are the ones who write the summary and used the phrase ‘unborn human baby’ in place of ‘fetus’.
The coalition Arizona for Abortion Access didn’t like the language and sued to get it removed, calling the language “inherently political.”
But the state’s highest court said the language is impartial and allowed it to stay in the summary.
Here’s more from The Hill:
An informational pamphlet for Arizona voters about a constitutional amendment to create a right to abortion can use the words “unborn human being” to describe a fetus, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
The justices ruled the language was impartial, reversing a lower court’s decision and siding with the GOP state lawmakers who wrote the summary.
The brief order said a full explanation of the decision would be coming “in due course” but noted that Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer and Justice James Beene dissented.
The proposed amendment would allow abortions until fetal viability, with certain medical exceptions for later-term abortions. It would restrict the state from adopting or enforcing any law that would prohibit access to the procedure.
State law requires a summary of the laws that will be impacted by ballot initiatives, but it expressly calls for an “impartial” analysis. The informational pamphlet is mailed to voters by the secretary of state.
The Republican-controlled Legislative Council in July approved the inclusion of the phrase “unborn human being” instead of “fetus” in the pamphlet.
The coalition Arizona for Abortion Access sued, arguing the language was inherently political. A state judge agreed and ordered the committee to rewrite the summary using neutral language.
“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,” the lower court said.
Wednesday’s ruling drew quick backlash from the amendment’s backers.
Unborn human being is “a watchword for anti-abortion advocates with no basis in medicine or science” that the justices decided was “somehow impartial and objective,” Arizona for Abortion Access said in a statement.
“This means that Arizona voters won’t get to learn about the questions on their ballot in a fair, neutral, and accurate way but will instead be subjected to biased, politically-charged words developed not by experts but by anti-abortion special interests to manipulate voters and spread misinformation,” the group added.
These people are so evil that they refuse to acknowledge that the unborn baby is in fact a baby and want to hide it from the people actually taking the vote in November.
Kudos to the state supreme court for getting this right. It is a small victory to be sure, but hopefully it will precede a much bigger victory in November when this baby-murder amendment is defeated.