Arizona for Abortion Access, a coalition aiming to enshrine legal access to abortion in the Arizona constitution, won their lawsuit against the Arizona Legislative Council regarding the language in a voter guide for their ballot measure.
On July 3, Arizona for Abortion Access successfully submitted over 823,000 signatures to put the abortion measure on the November ballot. Voters will decide whether abortion access should be protected in the Arizona constitution.
Currently, abortion is available up to 15 weeks in Arizona. However, access beyond that period has been uncertain since the Superior Court’s temporary reinstatement of an 1864 total abortion ban following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, leaving the issue to individual states.
After confirming the measure would be on the ballot, a non-partisan introduction was required to inform voters about its impact. This language was debated during a legislative council meeting where Republican lawmakers argued that the term “fetus” was subjective.
The measure from Arizona for Abortion Access states that abortions would be legal for any reason through fetal viability, with exceptions after that time for the mother’s physical and mental health.
The legislature voted 8-6 to replace the word “fetus” with “unborn human being.” Austin Yost, the attorney representing Arizona for Abortion Access, argued that “unborn human being” is not impartial.
Many committee members claimed that “fetus” was inaccurate despite it being the official medical term. Arizona for Abortion Access filed a lawsuit against the Arizona Legislative Council for not providing an impartial summary of the measure. The coalition won the lawsuit.
“We are pleased to be one step closer to ensuring Arizona voters receive accurate and impartial information about our effort to restore abortion access,” said Arizona for Abortion Access in a press release. “Though we expect an appeal, this is important progress toward giving Arizona voters the power to protect our reproductive freedoms.”
Speaker Ben Toma announced plans to appeal the ruling. “The ruling is wrong and clearly partisan. If the language of the actual law is not acceptable, the judge should run for the legislature. We are appealing.”
The pamphlet must be submitted by Aug. 29 to make it on the November ballot, so appeals must be resolved by then.