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

Trump admin live updates: President to announce 'Trump savings accounts' for parents, guardians

time14 minutes ago

Trump admin live updates: President to announce 'Trump savings accounts' for parents, guardians

The accounts are part of Trump's megabill. 1:40 As the Trump administration continues to ramp up its focus on Los Angeles and threatens to send troops to the city amid anti-ICE protests, the fallout from President Donald Trump and Elon Musk's feud continues. This comes as Republicans in Congress continue to work on agreeing on language for Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill." Meanwhile, U.S.-China trade talks in London this week are expected to take up a series of fresh disputes that have buffeted relations, threatening a fragile truce over tariffs. President Donald Trump will host a roundtable Monday to formally announce the provision in his massive funding bill called the "Trump savings accounts," which will allow parents and guardians to invest funds in the financial markets on behalf of children, a White House official confirms to ABC News. The savings account would be applicable to children born between January 1, 2025, and January 1, 2029. The government would deposit $1,000 into a tax-deferred, low-cost index fund account that will track the overall stock market for each newborn. Additional contributions can go up to $5,000 annually. When the children reach adulthood, they are able to take out the money to cover things like college or a down payment on a home. "The passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill will literally change the lives of working, middle class families across America by delivering the largest tax cuts in history, increasing the child tax credit, AND by creating this incredible new "Trump Account" program, which will put the lives of young Americans on the right financial path," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to ABC News. Multiple CEO's from companies, such as Dell Technologies, will appear with Trump to announce billions of dollars in collective investments into "Trump Accounts" for the children of their employees, according to the official. The event comes as the White House works to highlight Trump's so-called "One, Big, Beautiful Bill," as the Senate works through attempting to pass the budget bill and amid explosive criticism from Elon Musk last week. --ABC News' Lalee Ibssa

BlackRock calls antitrust claims "unprecedented, unsound and unsupported"
BlackRock calls antitrust claims "unprecedented, unsound and unsupported"

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

BlackRock calls antitrust claims "unprecedented, unsound and unsupported"

(Reuters) -An attorney for BlackRock called antitrust claims by Republican-led states "unprecedented, unsound and unsupported" on Monday and said they had failed to show how the firms' involvement with industry climate groups interfered with market competition. Gibson Dunn attorney Gregg Costa spoke as BlackRock and co-defendants Vanguard and State Street seek to dismiss the claims in the closely watched antitrust case brought by Texas and 12 other states.

Democrats are drawing closer to the crypto industry despite Trump divisions
Democrats are drawing closer to the crypto industry despite Trump divisions

The Hill

time23 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Democrats are drawing closer to the crypto industry despite Trump divisions

WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Donald Trump builds a crypto empire — including hosting a private dinner with top investors at his golf club — Democrats have united in condemning what they call blatant corruption from the White House. But the Democratic Party's own relationship with the emerging crypto industry is far less cut and dried. Work in the Republican-led Senate to legitimize cryptocurrency by adding guardrails has drawn backing from some Democrats, underscoring growing support for the industry in the party. But divisions have opened over the bill, with many demanding it prevent the Republican president and his family from directly profiting from cryptocurrency. 'I'm all on board with the idea of regulating crypto,' said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. 'But at this moment, when cryptocurrency is being so clearly used by Donald Trump to facilitate his corruption, I don't think you can close your eyes to that when you're legislating.' The legislation is moving ahead more rapidly than Congress usually acts when an industry is new. But the big money and campaign donations flowing from cryptocurrency firms have made them a new powerhouse on the political scene, one that's increasingly gaining allies and capturing the attention of lawmakers. A look at what to know about the industry's clout and the political fight over what's known as the GENIUS Act: To understand the growing clout of the crypto industry, look no further than the 2024 election. Fairshake, a crypto super political action committee, and its affiliated PACs spent more than $130 million in congressional races. Fairshake spent roughly $40 million supporting Republican Bernie Moreno in Ohio in an effort to defeat Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. Brown, who lost to Moreno by more than 3 percentage points, was seen as a chief critic of the industry as the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. 'DC received a clear message that being anti-crypto is a good way to end your career, as it doesn't represent the will of the voters,' Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, wrote in a social media post the day after the 2024 election. Coinbase — the largest crypto exchange in the U.S. and biggest contributor to Fairshake — does not view support for its industry as partisan, according to Kara Calvert, the company's vice president of U.S. policy. The industry also spent heavily to support Democrats Ruben Gallego and Elissa Slotkin in their races for open Senate seats in battleground states. Fairshake spent $10 million in support of Slotkin during her successful Senate run against Republican Mike Rodgers, and Slotkin, who won the Michigan race by fewer than 20,000 votes, spoke in favor of crypto on the campaign trail. Slotkin declined to be interviewed. Similar dynamics are setting up ahead of 2026 in contested House and Senate races. Fairshake said in January that it already had $116 million in cash on hand aimed at the 2026 midterm elections. 'We're not slowing down, and everything remains on the table,' Josh Vlasto, a spokesperson for Fairshake, told The Associated Press. Hours before a May 19 vote to move forward on cryptocurrency legislation in the Senate, an advocacy group tied to Coinbase sent an email to the offices of U.S. senators warning that the vote would count toward their crypto-friendliness scores. 'What the spending does is put crypto on the map. It lets members know that this is not a phase, this is real industry, with real dollars, that is developing its hold in Washington,' said Calvert. A significant number of Democrats, 16, joined Republicans in advancing the crypto legislation. The GENIUS Act would create a new regulatory structure for stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency typically pegged to the U.S. dollar. It is viewed as a step toward consumer protections and greater legitimacy for the industry. The sticking point for many Democrats is that while the bill prohibits members of Congress and their families from profiting off stablecoins, it excludes the president from those restrictions. Trump, once a skeptic of the industry, has vowed in his second term to make the U.S. the global capital of crypto. Meanwhile, he and his family have moved aggressively into nearly every corner of the industry: mining operations, billion-dollar bitcoin purchases, a newly minted stablecoin and a Trump-branded meme coin. Days after Trump's interests in the industry became public in early May, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York urged the Democratic caucus to unite and vote against the package to have a stronger hand in negotiations, according to a person familiar with the matter who insisted on anonymity to discuss private discussions. On May 8, a bloc of Senate Democrats who had previously backed the GENIUS Act reversed course — ultimately voting to block the bill from advancing. Negotiations between Senate Democrats and Republicans followed. The White House was also involved, and in contact with senators' offices on both sides of the aisle, according to a senior official granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. The new version of the bill is now expected to pass the 100-member Senate this month. Amendments are still possible. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. has filed an amendment — cosponsored by Schumer — that would bar the president and his family from profiting off stablecoins, though it's unlikely to pass. 'There is room for improvements as there often is with a lot of legislation. But with this in particular, we've got issues with the president,' said Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona 'Having said that, this was negotiated with Democrats and Republicans. We got to a place. We voted on it. I expect this is the version we're going to pass.' Still, the legislation is stirring unease. Schumer, asked if he's urging members to vote against the bill, noted that he has opposed the legislation and said 'there's division in our caucus on that issue.' 'There's a gaping hole in this bill that everybody sees,' Murphy said. 'After it's passed, it will be illegal for me to issue a cryptocurrency, but it's legal for the president of the United States.' 'If this bill passes, we kind of go from a dirt road to a paved road,' he said. If the Senate approves the stablecoin legislation, the bill will still need to clear the House before reaching the president's desk. Crypto advocates say the next priority is pushing Congress for market structure legislation, a far more sweeping effort than simply regulating stablecoins. 'Stablecoin is one step of the path. Then you need market structure. We're hopeful that the Senate works together to pass something quickly,' Calvert said. Some Democrats view the legislation as a chance to impose basic guardrails on a rapidly growing industry that's particularly popular among men and younger voters, two groups that drifted from the party in 2024. ___ Associated Press writers Alan Suderman, Lisa Mascaro, Matt Brown and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

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