The Maricopa County Superior Court of Arizona on Friday barred the wording of an abortion-related ballot initiative pamphlet explaining a constitutional amendment proposal. Arizona Proposition 139 would enshrine the right to abortion into the Arizona Constitution, protecting abortion from state interference up until the point of “fetal viability” unless there is a “compelling reason” and it “does so in the least restrictive way possible.”

The Arizona Constitution allows for fifteen percent of voters to propose legislation. Arizona statutes require that the Arizona Legislative Council, a legislative committee tasked with performing administrative services for the Arizona legislature, file “an impartial analysis of … each ballot proposal” with the Arizona Secretary of State and provide the analysis to voters in a pamphlet.

In describing the current Arizona law on abortion access, the Legislative Council wrote in their proposed pamphlet writing:

Current state law prohibits a physician from performing an abortion if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being is more than 15 weeks, except when a pregnant woman’s medical condition necessitates an immediate abortion to avert the pregnant woman’s death or for which a delay creates a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.

Arizona for Abortion Access (AAA) sued Arizona officials for using the phrase “unborn human being” to describe a fetus because it found the phrase not to be an impartial analysis of the ballot proposal. It requested the court to prohibit the Legislative Council from using the term. The defendants argued that the phrase is impartial because it is the exact phrasing from Arizona’s current law on abortion access.

The court ruled in favor of AAA. They were unconvinced by the defendant’s argument, finding that the use of provocative phrases is partial and that “[t]he term ‘unborn human being’ is packed with emotional and partisan meaning[.]” It also noted that phrases that are accurate and impartial by themselves may be put in a context that makes them impartial.

The Arizona Capitol Times reported that defendant and House Speaker Ben Toma plans to appeal this case to the Arizona Supreme Court. It also reported that Toma stated, “The ruling is just plain wrong and clearly partisan if the language of the actual law is not acceptable” and “[t]he judge should run for the legislature if he wants to write the law.”

AAA Communications Director Dawn Penich posted on X (formally Twitter), “We are pleased to be one step closer to making sure Arizona voters get accurate and impartial information about our citizen-led effort to restore abortion access before they vote this fall.”