The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that state legislators can use the phrase “unborn human being” in place of “fetus” in a publicity pamphlet describing an abortion access ballot initiative.
The court’s decision on Wednesday overturns a lower court ruling that found the term to be biased and emotionally charged.
In a brief three-page order, the justices determined that because the phrase “unborn human being” is already included in existing Arizona statutes, its use is legally permissible in the initiative description.
The court’s ruling states that the language used complies with the statutory requirement of impartiality under Arizona law.
“We conclude that the analysis provides the information required by A.R.S. § 19–124(C) and ‘substantially complies’ with the statute’s impartiality requirement,” the ruling reads.
A more detailed opinion from the court is expected in the coming days.
Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer and Justice James Beene dissented, expressing concerns about the neutrality of the language. Advocacy group Arizona for Abortion Access, which sponsors the initiative, criticized the ruling, stating that it allows anti-abortion rhetoric to be presented as neutral information to voters.
“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,” Arizona for Abortion Access said in a statement.
The group argues that the language misleads voters and injects political bias into a legal context where objective terminology is critical.
The dispute centers around the description of the Arizona Abortion Access Act, which seeks to enshrine the right to abortion up to fetal viability—typically 21 to 24 weeks—with exceptions for the health of the mother. The initiative gained over 800,000 signatures, well above the required threshold.
If passed, it would amend Arizona’s constitution to protect abortion rights, in contrast to the state’s current law banning most abortions after 15 weeks with no exceptions for rape or incest.
The controversy over language arose when the Legislative Council, a committee of state lawmakers responsible for drafting ballot descriptions, chose the term “unborn human being” instead of “fetus.”
Arizona for Abortion Access filed a lawsuit in July, arguing that the phrase introduces an unfair emotional bias favoring anti-abortion views.
However, the nine Republican lawmakers on the council, represented by attorney Kory Langhofer, defended the wording as factually accurate, citing its use in existing Arizona law.
Maricopa County Judge Christopher Whitten initially sided with the abortion rights group, stating that the phrase carries partisan meaning, but the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling has now reversed that decision.
Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma, who heads the Legislative Council, praised the ruling.
“The ballot analysis prepared by the legislative council is intended to help voters understand current law,” Toma said. “Arizona’s 15-week law protects unborn children, while the abortion initiative essentially allows unrestricted abortions up until birth. It’s really that simple. The Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling is correct.”
This legal battle follows a broader fight over abortion laws in Arizona, where a total abortion ban from the 19th century was briefly reinstated in 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Although that ban was repealed earlier this year by Governor Katie Hobbs, debates over abortion access remain heated.
Despite the court’s ruling, Arizona for Abortion Access remains determined to advance the initiative and believes voters will ultimately support it.
“We are deeply disappointed in this ruling, but will not be deterred from doing everything in our power to communicate to voters the truth of the Arizona Abortion Access Act and why it’s critical to vote YES to restore and protect access to abortion care this fall,” the group said.
As the ballot initiative moves forward, the debate over how the issue is framed underscores the ongoing tensions surrounding abortion rights in Arizona and across the country.
