logo
AZ Supreme Court: ‘Unborn human being' in abortion ballot description wasn't partisan

AZ Supreme Court: ‘Unborn human being' in abortion ballot description wasn't partisan

Yahoo04-04-2025

Photo by Jim Small | Arizona Mirror
Nearly eight months after the Arizona Supreme Court allowed 'unborn human being' to be included in a description of the state's abortion rights initiative, the court explained why it determined the phrase wasn't politically biased.
In a 24-page opinion, Justice Kathryn King wrote that a Republican-controlled legislative panel didn't violate state law when it approved a summary of the Arizona Abortion Access Act that started off with a sentence that included the words 'unborn human being' because it was simply quoting existing law.
The court ruled 5-2 to let the Republican-crafted language stand.
'The reference to 'unborn human being' when describing 'current state law' does not depart from or inaccurately describe the text of existing law or the proposed measure; does not contain extraneous adjectives, adverbs or commentary chosen by the (Legislative) Council; does not omit relevant contextual information; and does not selectively emphasize one omission in the initiative to the exclusion of others,' King wrote. 'In this case, the Council recited the precise term used in existing law to illustrate the changes the Initiative would make if adopted.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ann Scott Timmer wrote that quoting state law doesn't make the description impartial if the law being quoted was written to advance an ideological viewpoint.
For instance, she wrote, lawmakers referring to a fetus as a 'sweet, innocent baby' in state law wouldn't automatically make that term somehow neutral.
State law requires that the Legislative Council, a panel composed of lawmakers from both parties but controlled by the GOP majority, draft summaries of each ballot measure for a voter publicity pamphlet, which is meant to give Arizonans a quick rundown of what they'll be voting for in the next election. That same law mandates those summaries be impartial, and the courts have long held that language 'tinged with partisan coloring' is unlawful. Last year, the panel, made up of eight Republicans and six Democrats, approved a description of the Arizona Abortion Access Act that included the phrase 'unborn human being' in the first sentence.
The Arizona for Abortion Access Committee quickly took the legislative panel to court, arguing that the summary should be thrown out and rewritten with 'unborn human being' replaced by the neutral and medically accurate term 'fetus.' In legal filings, Republicans claimed that 'unborn human being' is impartial because it's pulled directly from the 2022 law prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks that would be overturned if the initiative passed.
While Arizona law demands impartiality in publicity pamphlet summaries, it also allows for a description of how proposed ballot measures might affect current laws.
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge sided with the abortion rights group, writing that the term is 'packed with emotional and partisan meaning' — something that Arizona courts, including the state's highest court, have long rejected. Less than a month later, the state Supreme Court overturned that ruling.
Despite what abortion advocates viewed as an attempt from anti-abortion Republicans to put 'its thumb on the electoral scale,' an overwhelming majority of Arizona voters cast their ballots in November in favor of Proposition 139, enshrining it in the Arizona Constitution and making the procedure a fundamental right.
The court's majority — Justices King, John Lopez, Bill Montgomery, Robert Brutinel and John Pelander — agreed with Republicans that quoting existing law is as impartial as it gets, and 'fetus' is just as loaded a term as 'unborn human being.'
Notably, King and Lopez were among the four justices who reinstated a near-total abortion ban from 1864 last year, and Montgomery faced criticism when he refused to recuse himself from the case in light of his past statements that Planned Parenthood was responsible for overseeing the 'greatest generational genocide known to man.' The Arizona branch of Planned Parenthood was one of the main groups involved with the creation and advocacy for the abortion rights initiative.
King, writing for the majority, pointed out that the summary description for Prop. 139 'began by accurately describing' the 15-week law and ended by outlining the impacts of the ballot measure, and even used the proposition's own language, including the terms 'fetus' and 'fetal.' On top of that, King wrote, another Arizona law recognizes a 'human being' starting at conception and even widely accepted dictionary definitions refer to unborn human beings when explaining what a fetus is. (That law was also part of the legislation that enacted the 15-week abortion ban.)
She chided abortion groups for fixating on the phrase and said the courts have historically been concerned with Legislative Council analyses that are biased or inaccurate, and not with whether a specific term, especially one that is already enshrined in state law, is appropriate.
'This Court has never found that an analysis violated the impartiality requirement where, as here, the Council used precise statutory language to describe existing law and then explained the text of the proposed measure and its effects,' she wrote. 'Instead, this Court has concluded that analyses were not impartial where they departed from or inaccurately described the text of the existing law or the proposed measure or failed to include relevant contextual information.'
The justices also argued that Arizona law prefers the use of 'unborn human being' over 'fetus' because the latter might confuse voters. The law governing how to write publicity pamphlet summaries calls for 'clear and concise' language that avoids technical terms. 'Fetus,' according to the high court's majority, may be too difficult for Arizonans to understand, and the difference between it and 'unborn human being,' the justices posited, is akin to the difference between 'myocardial infarction' and 'heart attack.'
'Put simply, (the law) recognizes that the use of non-technical terms where possible is more likely to assist voters with understanding and rationally assessing a proposed measure, in particular with voters who lack specialized training or expertise in a technical area,' the majority concluded.
King added that removing the phrase 'unborn human being' would amount to the high court tipping the scales in favor of abortion rights groups. She argued that some voters might be swayed by the difference in language, and that lawmakers were trying to highlight the 'moral' policy change that Prop. 139 was seeking to achieve.
'By accurately noting that existing statutory law describes a pregnancy as involving an 'unborn human being' and then identifying that the Initiative proposes adding the terms 'fetus' and 'fetal' into the Arizona Constitution when creating 'a fundamental right to abortion,' the Analysis provides background information about existing law and the measure's proposed changes,' King wrote. 'This approach impartially puts voters on notice of exactly what they are voting for or against.'
By lobbying for replacing the phrase with 'fetus,' the justices said that abortion groups were really trying to push for a description that would benefit their initiative. And that's unlawful, because Arizona state law expressly bars legislative council from taking a side.
'If 'fetus' were used, the Council would have deviated from existing law's text and placed its thumb on the scale in favor of the Initiative under the guise of 'neutral terminology,'' the court ruled.
Timmer, the court's chief justice, and Justice James Beene disagreed, arguing that waving away the phrase as nothing more than a direct quote ignores its partisan origins.
Timmer wrote in the dissenting opinion that, even though the U.S. Supreme Court toppled Roe v. Wade and gave states the power to regulate abortion, the debate over the procedure continues to be as 'politically, morally, philosophically, and emotionally divisive' as ever. And the central question in that debate is when, exactly, a pregnant woman is carrying an 'unborn human being.' By inserting that phrase into the publicity pamphlet summary, Timmer said, the Legislative Council took a side in that argument.
She also reminded the court that, while Arizona law demands impartiality from Legislative Council and its summaries, no such requirements exist for lawmakers.
That means that a ballot measure summary which quotes a law also risks carrying with it any biased language or motives that were enshrined in that statute. Timmer lambasted the majority opinion for unhesitatingly accepting the phrase 'unborn human being' as impartial simply because it was pulled from existing law and said it was a shaky foundation on which to approve legislative council summaries.
'To illustrate with a far-fetched example, if the legislature had used the term 'sweet, innocent baby' in (the 2022 law), I doubt anyone would view that term as 'impartial' if used in describing an abortion-related measure, although it would be accurate to say that the term is used in the statute,' she wrote. 'Our job is to determine whether the analysis is impartial as required by (Arizona law), meaning we cannot rubberstamp language as 'impartial' merely because the legislature used it in an affected statute.'
But while the majority opinion clarified that it wasn't intended to set a precedent for automatically regarding every state statute as impartial, Montgomery conceded as much in a concurring opinion. Just because a phrase as colorful as 'sweet innocent baby' is included in a hypothetical state law, he wrote, doesn't immediately render a Legislative Council description which quotes it biased. Instead, the court must look at the analysis as a whole.
And, he concluded, simply because 'unborn human being' has been a sticking point for advocates on both sides of the abortion debate, it doesn't mean that the summary of Prop. 139 should have been thrown out.
'The mere fact that the phrase might also be used in debates concerning the legal rights and statuses that ought to be afforded (or not) to human fetuses/unborn human beings does not render this use of the phrase partial,' Montgomery wrote.
In the dissenting opinion, Timmer and Beene criticized the Legislative Council summary for advancing a phrase that sought to sway voters and convince them, with alarming language right off the bat, that Prop. 139 directly conflicted with their 'moral interests.'
'In starting the legislative analysis by using the term 'unborn human being' when paraphrasing the statute that currently prohibits abortions after fifteen weeks' gestation, the Council promoted that value judgement that a fetus is a 'human being',' Timmer wrote. 'For that reason, I cannot find that the legislative analysis is impartial.'
Timmer also took issue with the claim that keeping 'unborn human being' in the summary gave voters the opportunity to decide which term to back. Prop. 139, Timmer wrote, was never about what language Arizona should use.
'Word choice in Arizona law was not the issue in the Initiative,' she said. 'Indisputably, the Initiative did not give voters the option of inserting the term 'unborn human being' into Arizona law.'
King accused Timmer of failing to address the fact that 'fetus' carries just as much partisan implication as 'unborn human being,' and argued that only by including both terms could Legislative Council create a fully impartial analysis.
But Timmer responded that the courts have never accepted 'cancelling out' influence as a solution, and said that the justices are only responsible for identifying unlawful summaries. There's no reason, she wrote, that the legislative council couldn't have avoided any impropriety by simply leaving both terms out.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Judge blocks Trump admin from deporting Mahmoud Khalil using Rubio power
Judge blocks Trump admin from deporting Mahmoud Khalil using Rubio power

Politico

time10 minutes ago

  • Politico

Judge blocks Trump admin from deporting Mahmoud Khalil using Rubio power

A federal judge in New Jersey blocked the Trump administration from deporting pro-Palestinian Columbia University protest organizer Mahmoud Khalil on foreign policy grounds. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration's effort to deport Khalil under a provision of federal law that allows the deportation of any foreign citizen whose 'presence or activities' in the U.S. is determined to 'have serious adverse foreign policy consequences' and is chilling Khalil's First Amendment free speech rights. In a 14-page order, Farbiarz said the rarely used statute Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked against the former Columbia graduate student is likely unconstitutional. He also ruled that the activist and legal U.S. resident who has been in immigration custody in Louisiana since March can't be detained further on that basis. The judge said it was unlikely the Trump administration could justify detaining Khalil via another rationale it tacked on after his arrest in Manhattan: that when he applied for a green card, he failed to disclose all his past employment and membership in certain organizations. Immigrants are almost never detained for those sorts of omissions, the judge noted, finding it likelier that Rubio's determination was the basis for Khalil's ongoing detention. However, the judge's ruling did not foreclose Khalil's continued detention on alternative grounds, emphasizing that he had only definitively rejected Rubio's determination and that his decision had 'no impact' on other aspects of the effort to deport Khalil. Farbiarz, a Biden appointee, put his ruling on hold until Friday morning to allow the Trump administration to appeal. A lawyer for Khalil, Baher Azmy, said in an email that he believes Farbiarz's order means Khalil should be released from custody by Friday morning unless an appellate court intervenes. 'We are relieved that the Court determined that both his detention and his removal based on the ridiculous, overbroad Rubio determination would be unconstitutional,' Azmy said, 'and that he is suffering severe ongoing harms [from] the government's grotesque, vindictive retaliation for his constitutionally protected expression in support of Palestine.' The departments of Justice, State and Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment. While Khalil has remained detained, others who have been similarly swept up as part of the Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian academics have been released. In early May, a Vermont federal judge ordered the release of Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish Tufts University Ph.D. student. A few days later, a federal judge in Virginia ordered the release of a Georgetown researcher, Badar Khan Suri. Like Khalil, both Ozturk and Suri had been detained in March.

Senate rejects effort to block arms sales over Trump's dealings with Qatar and UAE
Senate rejects effort to block arms sales over Trump's dealings with Qatar and UAE

Hamilton Spectator

time13 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Senate rejects effort to block arms sales over Trump's dealings with Qatar and UAE

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans have blocked an effort by Democrats to temporarily block arms sales to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in response to President Donald Trump's dealings in the region. Democrats forced two procedural votes Wednesday to protest Qatar's donation of a $400 million plane to be used as Air Force One and a $2 billion investment by a UAE-backed company using a Trump family-linked stablecoin, a form of cryptocurrency. Sen. Chris Murphy, who led the Democratic effort, said the U.S. Senate should not 'grease the wheels' for Trump. 'We can do that by voting to block these two arms sales to Qatar and to the UAE — not permanently, but until both countries commit to deny Trump's requests for personal enrichment as part of the bilateral relationship,' Murphy said. Trump's administration is still sorting out the legal arrangement for accepting a luxury jet from the Qatari royal family and how the plane would be modified so it is safe for the president, who has called the arrangement a 'no brainer' as a new Air Force One has faced delays at U.S.-based Boeing. Trump said he wouldn't fly around in the gifted Boeing 747 when his term ends, but Democrats, and even some Republicans, have strongly questioned the ethics of the arrangement. At a hearing on Wednesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth refused to provide details on plans for his department to accept the jet. He said budgeting and schedules for security upgrades to turn the plane into the president's aircraft are classified. 'A memorandum of understanding remains to be signed,' Hegseth said. Democrats have also raised ethical questions about the Trump family's stake in World Liberty Financial , a cryptocurrency project that has launched its own stablecoin, USD1. Earlier this year, World Liberty announced an investment fund in the United Arab Emirates would be using $2 billion worth of USD1 to purchase a stake in Binance, the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange. Murphy forced the votes under a mechanism known as a joint resolution of disapproval that allows the Senate to reject arms sales. The procedural vote Wednesday blocked a Democratic motion to discharge the resolution from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and move to an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. The effort was mostly symbolic, as the measures would have had to pass both chambers of Congress and withstand any presidential veto to become law. But Murphy said the Senate should exercise its powers to oversee arms sales around the world. 'We place immense trust in the president not to abuse these incredible authorities that are given to him,' he said. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Trump's mass deportations leave Democrats more ready to fight back
Trump's mass deportations leave Democrats more ready to fight back

Hamilton Spectator

time14 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Trump's mass deportations leave Democrats more ready to fight back

WASHINGTON (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom looked straight into the camera and staked out a clear choice for his Democratic Party. The governor positioned himself as not only a leader of the opposition to President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda, but a de facto champion of the immigrants now being rounded up in California and across the country. Many of them, he said in the video address, were not hardened criminals but hard working people scooped up at a Home Depot lot or a garment factory, and detained by masked agents assisted by National Guard troops. It's a politically charged position for the party to take, after watching voter discontent with illegal immigration fuel Trump's return to the White House. It leaves Democrats deciding how strongly to align with that message in the face of blistering criticism from Republicans who are pouring billions of dollars into supporting Trump's strict immigration campaign. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Wednesday he's proud of Newsom, 'he's refusing to be intimidated by Donald Trump.' From the streets of Los Angeles to the halls of Congress, the debate over Trump's mass deportation agenda is forcing the U.S. to reckon with core values as a nation of immigrants , but also its longstanding practice of allowing migrants to live and work in the U.S. in a gray zone while not granting them full legal status. More than 11 million immigrants are in the U.S. without proper approval, with millions more having arrived with temporary protections. As Trump's administration promises to round up some 3,000 immigrants a day and deport 1 million a year , the political stakes are shifting in real time. The president rode to the White House with his promise of mass deportations — rally crowds echoed his campaign promise to 'build the wall.' But Americans are watching as Trump deploys the National Guard and active U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, while pockets of demonstrations erupt in other cities nationwide, including after agents raided a meat packing plant in Omaha, Neb. Joel Payne, a Democratic strategist, said the country's mood appears to be somewhere between then-President Barack Obama's assertion that America a 'nation of laws and a nation of immigrants' and Trump's 'more aggressive' deportation approach. 'Democrats still have some work to do to be consistently trustworthy messengers on the issue,' he said. At the same time, he said, Trump's actions as a 'chaos agent' on immigration, at a time when there's already unrest in the U.S. over his trade wars and economic uncertainty, risk overreaching if the upheaval begins to sow havoc in the lives of Americans. Republicans have been relentless in their attacks on Democrats, portraying the situation in Los Angeles, which has been largely confined to a small area downtown, in highly charged terms as 'riots,' in a preview of campaign ads to come. Police said more than 200 people were detained for failing to disperse Tuesday, and 17 others for violating the 8 p.m. curfew over part of Los Angeles. Police arrested several more people for possessing a firearm, assaulting a police officer and other violations. Two people have been charged for allegedly throwing Molotov cocktails toward police during LA protests. House Speaker Mike Johnson said Newsom should be 'tarred and feathered' for his leadership in the state, which he called 'a safe haven to violent criminal illegal aliens.' At a private meeting of House Republicans this week with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Rep. Richard Hudson, the chairman of the GOP's campaign arm, framed the situation as Democrats supporting rioting and chaos while Republicans stand for law and order. 'Violent insurrectionists turned areas of Los Angeles into lawless hellscapes over the weekend,' wrote Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal, suggesting it may be time to send in military troops. 'The American people elected Donald Trump and a Republican Congress to secure our border and deport violent illegal aliens. That's exactly what the president is doing.' But not all rank-and-file Republicans are onboard with such a heavy-handed approach. GOP Rep, David Valadao, who represents California's agriculture regions in the Central Valley, said on social media he remains 'concerned about ongoing ICE operations throughout CA' and was urging the administration 'to prioritize the removal of known criminals over the hardworking people who have lived peacefully in the Valley for years.' Heading into the 2026 midterm election season, with control of the House and Senate at stake, it's a repeat of past political battles as Congress has failed repeatedly to pass major immigration law changes. The politics have shifted dramatically from the Obama era, when his administration took executive action to protect young immigrants known as Dreamers under the landmark Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Those days, lawmakers were considering proposals to beef up border security as part of a broader package that would also create legal pathways, including for citizenship, for immigrants who have lived in the country for years and paid taxes, often filling roles in jobs Americans won't always take. With Trump's return to the Oval Office, the debate has turned toward aggressively removing immigrants, including millions who were allowed to legally enter the U.S. during the Biden administration as they await their immigration hearings and proceedings. 'This anniversary should be a reminder,' said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., at an event at the U.S. Capitol championing DACA's 13th year, even as protections are at risk under Trump's administration. 'Immigration has many faces.' Despite their challenges in last year's election, Democrats feel more emboldened to resist Trump's actions than even just a few months ago, but the political conversation has nonetheless shifted in Trump's direction. While Democrats are unified against Trump's big tax breaks bill, with its $150 billion for new detention facilities, deportation flights and 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, they talk more openly about beefing up border security and detaining the most dangerous criminal elements. Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, points to the example of Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi who won a special election in New York last year when he addressed potential changes to the immigration system head on. At one point he crashed a GOP opponent's press conference with his own. 'Trump said he was going to go after the worst of the worst, but he has ignored the laws, ignored due process, ignored the courts — and the American people reject that,' she told the Associated Press. 'People want a president and a government that is going to fight for the issues that matter most to them, fight to move our country forward,' she said. 'They want a Congress that is going be a coequal branch of government and a check on this president.' __ Associated Press writer Matt Brown contributed to this story. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store