GOP wanted to use 'unborn human being' to describe AZ's abortion measure. A judge rejected it

A Maricopa County judge on Friday rejected arguments from GOP legislative leaders and barred the use of “partisan” language in a description of an abortion rights ballot measure that will be sent to voters.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Whitten sided with Arizona for Abortion Access, the political campaign proposing the Arizona Abortion Access Act, in preventing the description from including the term “unborn human being.”

"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,” Whitten’s ruling reads.

Whitten directed the Legislative Council, a 14-lawmaker committee, to re-do the description using neutral language. The description would appear in an educational pamphlet mailed by the Secretary of State’s Office to registered voters.

Arizona for Abortion Access went to court earlier this month after the council's Republican majority objected to requests to use “fetus” in the description instead. State law charges the council with writing “an impartial analysis of the provisions of each ballot proposal of a measure or proposed amendment.”

House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen, who are both on the council, defended the term "unborn human being." Toma said the lawsuit was “frivolous” and that using both “fetus” and “unborn human being” in the ballot description was a compromise.

But Whitten dismissed the argument made by the Legislative leaders’ lawyers that because “unborn human being” is already in state law it is neutral. Whitten wrote he was "not persuaded that every word chosen by the legislature in every statute it enacts" is intended to be neutral.

“There is no requirement that the legislature chose its words in such a way, and plenty of evidence that they sometimes do not," Whitten wrote.

Arizona for Abortion Access said in a statement the ruling was “important progress” toward informing Arizona voters.

“We are pleased to be one step closer to making sure Arizona voters get accurate and impartial information about our citizen-led effort to restore abortion access before they vote this fall,” the statement reads.

Toma, who is running for Congress this year, and Petersen each said Friday it was the judge's ruling that was partisan.

"I'm confident he will be overturned on appeal," Petersen told The Arizona Republic in a text message. Toma pledged that appeal and said the judge's ruling was "just plain wrong" to discount existing law.

"The judge should run for the legislature if he wants to write the law," Toma said in a text message.

If approved by a majority of voters in November, the Arizona Abortion Access Act would create a fundamental right to abortion in the Arizona Constitution. The act has not yet cleared all the hurdles to appear on the ballot.

Election officials are reviewing the signatures submitted by the groups backing the measure. One opposition group, Arizona Right to Life, on Wednesday filed a lawsuit asking that signatures gathered by over 180 paid workers be rejected. The lawsuit also claims the measure is misleading and confusing, and asks a judge to keep it off the ballot.

Reach reporter Stacey Barchenger at [email protected] or 480-416-5669.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Judge rejects GOP-backed language of AZ's abortion ballot measure