Arizona permitted to call potential victims of abortion initiative 'unborn human babies' in voter pamphlet

An Arizona pro-abortion outfit was able to get its radical proposition onto the November ballot but failed in its recent legal battle to secure the final say on how to describe its potential victims in the informational pamphlets sent to voters.

The assertion that the unborn are "human babies" is a statement of fact and basic science, yet it has proven incredibly controversial among pro-abortion activists in Arizona. The humanization of past and potential abortion victims may, after all, prompt voters to think twice about supporting Proposition 139 — the November ballot initiative that, if passed, would enshrine the right to abortion in the Arizona Constitution.

Republican members of the Arizona Legislative Council presented a draft analysis of the initiative last month, which highlighted that existing law prohibits abortion if the "unborn human being" is younger than 15 weeks, reported the Arizona Capitol Times. The document elsewhere employed abortion activists' preferred term "fetus."

"The ballot analysis prepared by the Legislative Council is intended to help voters understand current law. Arizona's 15-week law protects unborn children, while the abortion initiative essentially allows unrestricted abortions up until birth," Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma, chairman of the Legislative Council, told the Arizona Capitol Times. "It's really that simple."

Arizona for Abortion Access, the group championing the ballot initiative, sued to prevent the phrase "unborn human being" from appearing in the voter information pamphlet's description of Prop. 139. The group's contention was that the phrase is "tinged with partisan coloring" and that the language amounted to an "illegal effort to confuse voters."

While the abortion activists enjoyed initial success in the Maricopa County Superior Court, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled against them this week, indicating the lesser court was in error.

According to the Arizona Supreme Court, "unborn human being," which is the specific phrase used in existing law, "'substantially complies' with the statute's impartiality requirement.'"

The superior court's ruling has been reversed, and the pamphlet can go out with the language initially drafted by the defendants in the case, the members of the state Arizona Legislative Council.

State Senate President Warren Petersen (R) noted, "Common sense and good judgment prevailed."

'It's reckless to lose those safety precautions just to expand abortion beyond what most voters support.'

In the wake of its failure, Arizona for Abortion Access issued a statement saying, "The Arizona Supreme Court today reversed the trial court's well-reasoned ruling and held that the phrase 'unborn human being' — a watchword for anti-abortion advocates with no basis in medicine or science — is somehow impartial and objective."

"This means that Arizona voters will not be able to know the questions on their ballot in a fair, neutral, and accurate manner, but will be subjected to biased, politically charged words, developed not by experts, but by anti-abortion special interests to manipulate voters and spread misinformation," added the activist group.

While Arizona for Abortion Access has expressed concern about lawmakers' word use, critics have alternatively suggested the abortion outfit's ballot initiative, supported by Gov. Katie Hobbs and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, was itself deceptively worded.

The initiative suggests, for instance, that the state cannot interfere with an individual seeking or getting an abortion up until viability. However, it appears that even viable babies can be killed at any stage if a so-called health care professional can think up a reason why that baby does not stand a chance of survival outside of the uterus or, alternatively, why the baby's continued existence threatens the health of the "pregnant individual."

It Goes Too Far, the opposition campaign fighting the initiative, notes on its site that the use of the term "health care professional" means that individuals besides doctors, including abortionists incentivized to kill, can make such decisions.

The opposition campaign further indicates that the initiative would have Arizona shut out "moms and dads when their minor daughter needs them most by removing the parental consent requirement."

Earlier this year, Cindy Dahlgren, spokeswoman for It Goes Too Far, told the Arizona Mirror in an emailed statement, "Most voters are not told that under this unregulated, unlimited abortion amendment they will lose the required medical doctor, critical and commonsense safety standards for girls and women seeking abortion, and moms and dads will be shut out of their minor daughter's abortion decision, leaving her to go through the painful and scary process alone."

"Abortion is legal in Arizona up to 15 weeks, and we have commonsense safety precautions to protect girls and women. It's reckless to lose those safety precautions just to expand abortion beyond what most voters support," added Dahlgren.

Ballotpedia indicated that the Prop. 139 is one of several statewide ballot measures pertaining to abortion that has been certified for the general election ballot this year. Colorado, Florida, Missouri, New York, and South Dakota will similarly test voters' willingness to protect unborn human babies.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!