Arizona's Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Republican anti-abortion lawmakers in a dispute over the language used to describe a ballot measure establishing a right to abortion in the state Constitution. The court has allowed the use of the term "unborn human being" in informational pamphlets sent to registered voters, despite objections from abortion rights groups. This decision comes just days after the secretary of state certified the signatures needed to put the measure, Proposition 139, on the November ballot. The term "unborn human being" is commonly used by anti-abortion groups to support their stance that life begins at conception. Abortion rights groups have expressed deep disappointment with the court's ruling, arguing that it muddies the waters and relies on lies to push an anti-abortion agenda. Despite this setback, polls indicate that most Arizona voters support the abortion rights measure, and Democrats are hopeful that it will drive higher turnout in their favor in the upcoming elections. The article also highlights the broader context of the abortion rights debate across the United States, with a focus on the efforts of Republicans and anti-abortion groups to shape the official state language and make it harder to get measures on the ballot or to pass them. The piece also discusses similar ballot measures in other states and the tactics used by opponents to influence voters' perceptions of the proposed amendments. Overall, the article discusses the legal and political battles surrounding the abortion rights measure in Arizona, shedding light on the broader national landscape of the abortion debate and the efforts of both sides to sway public opinion and influence the outcome of the upcoming elections.