Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Judge in abortion ballot summary case skeptical that GOP language is unbiased
Source: Arizona Mirror
By: Gloria Rebecca Gomez - July 25, 2024
Whether the phrase “unborn human being” will appear in a description of the Arizona Abortion Access Act sent to every voter in the state in advance of the November election is now in the hands of a Maricopa County Superior Court Judge.
During a Tuesday afternoon hearing, attorneys for the abortion rights ballot initiative and the GOP lawmakers who approved the phrase’s inclusion in a voter information pamphlet sparred over its legality. Arizona law mandates that lawmakers put together “impartial” descriptions of every ballot measure for a publicity pamphlet sent to voters before an election.
Dr. Patricia Habak, a local OB-GYN, testified on behalf of the Arizona for Abortion Access campaign to highlight its argument that “unborn human being” is not medically accurate. In court filings, the abortion rights campaign advocated for the phrase to be replaced with “fetus”, saying it is the more widely accepted term and not similarly linked to anti-abortion efforts.
Habak, who has been a practicing physician for more than two decades, said she has never used the phrase “unborn human being” when treating patients, nor has she ever seen it referenced in medical journals or heard it used by her teachers or colleagues. The goal of medical professionals, she said, is to use the most accurate language possible, and “fetus” and “embryo” are clearly defined.
During a Tuesday afternoon hearing, attorneys for the abortion rights ballot initiative and the GOP lawmakers who approved the phrase’s inclusion in a voter information pamphlet sparred over its legality. Arizona law mandates that lawmakers put together “impartial” descriptions of every ballot measure for a publicity pamphlet sent to voters before an election.
Dr. Patricia Habak, a local OB-GYN, testified on behalf of the Arizona for Abortion Access campaign to highlight its argument that “unborn human being” is not medically accurate. In court filings, the abortion rights campaign advocated for the phrase to be replaced with “fetus”, saying it is the more widely accepted term and not similarly linked to anti-abortion efforts.
Habak, who has been a practicing physician for more than two decades, said she has never used the phrase “unborn human being” when treating patients, nor has she ever seen it referenced in medical journals or heard it used by her teachers or colleagues. The goal of medical professionals, she said, is to use the most accurate language possible, and “fetus” and “embryo” are clearly defined.
Full article: https://azmirror.com/2024/07/25/judge-in-abortion-ballot-summary-case-skeptical-that-gop-language-is-unbiased/