Pro-abortion groups in Arizona managed to get a radical proposal on the November ballot but lost a recent court battle to get the final say on how potential victims are portrayed in information pamphlets sent to voters.
The claim that fetuses are “human babies” is based on fact and basic science, but is highly controversial among pro-abortion activists in Arizona. Treating past and potential abortion victims as human beings may ultimately cause voters to reconsider whether they support abortion.
Proposition 139 A referendum is scheduled for November and, if passed, would enshrine the right to abortion in the Arizona Constitution.
Republican lawmakers in the Arizona Legislature introduced a draft analysis of the bill last month, emphasizing that current law bans abortions when the “fetus” is less than 15 weeks old.
Reported Arizona Capitol Times. Elsewhere in the document, the term “fetus” was used, a term favored by abortion activists.
“The voting analysis prepared by the Legislative Council is intended to help voters understand current law. Arizona’s 15-week law protects the unborn, but the abortion bill essentially allows unlimited abortions up until birth,” Legislative Council Chair and Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma told the Arizona Capitol Times. “That’s really all it is.”
Arizona for Abortion Access, a group that supports the ballot initiative, filed a lawsuit to block the word “fetus” from appearing in the description of Proposition 139 in voter information pamphlets. Dispute That phrase is “carrying partisan overtones” and that total He condemned it as “illegal conduct that confuses voters.”
Abortion activists initially won victories in Maricopa County Superior Court, but the Arizona Supreme Court
The verdict was given A ruling was handed down against them this week suggesting the lower courts got it wrong.
According to the Arizona Supreme Court, the specific phrase “fetus” used in current law “is ‘substantially compliant’ with the statute’s fairness requirements.”
The higher court’s decision was overturned, and the pamphlet will be distributed with language originally drafted by Arizona lawmakers who are defendants in the lawsuit.
“Common sense and decency have prevailed,” said state Senate President Warren Petersen (R).
“It would be reckless to abandon these safeguards simply to expand abortion beyond what a majority of voters would support.”
In response to the failure, the Arizona Abortion Access Coalition released a statement. say“The Arizona Supreme Court today reversed a lower court’s well-founded decision, holding that the anti-abortion slogan ‘unborn human beings’, which has no basis in medicine or science, is somehow fair and objective.”
“This means that Arizona voters will not be able to fairly, neutrally and accurately learn the questions on their ballot, but will be subjected to biased, politically charged language created not by experts, but by anti-abortion special interests to manipulate voters and spread misinformation,” the activist group added.
The Arizona Abortion Access Coalition has expressed concern about the lawmakers’ use of language, while critics say Gov. Katie Hobbs and
Planned Parenthood of Arizona advocatewhich was itself a misleading statement.
The proposal suggests, for example, that states should not interfere with individuals seeking or obtaining abortions until the fetus is viable. But it would appear that a viable fetus could be killed at any stage if so-called medical experts could come up with a reason why the fetus would not survive outside the womb, or why the fetus’s survival would pose a threat to the health of the “pregnant individual.”
The opposition to the initiative has gone too far.
Notes The group’s website says its use of the term “medical professionals” means that such decisions can be made by individuals other than doctors, including abortion doctors who are motivated to kill.
Opponents further point out that the bill would allow Arizona to “eliminate parental consent requirements, locking out mothers and fathers from their minor daughters at a time when they need them most.”
Earlier this year, Cindy Dahlgren, a spokeswoman for It Goes Too Far,
said “Most voters are not informed that this open-ended, unlimited abortion amendment would remove necessary doctors and important common-sense safety standards for girls and women seeking abortions, and would mean that mothers and fathers would have no say in their minor daughters’ abortion decisions, forcing them to go through a painful and frightening process alone,” he said in an email to the Arizona Mirror.
“Abortion is legal in Arizona up to 15 weeks of pregnancy and we have common-sense safeguards in place to protect girls and women. It would be reckless to throw away those safeguards simply to expand abortion beyond what a majority of voters support,” Dahlgren added.
Ballotpedia
Shown Proposition 139 is one of several statewide ballot measures on abortion approved for this year’s general election ballot, as are those in Colorado, Florida, Missouri, New York and South Dakota that will test voters’ willingness to protect the unborn.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censorship and sign up for our newsletter to get stories like this directly to your inbox. Register here!
