This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Voters in Arizona can be told about an "unborn human" in an election campaign about the state's abortion laws, according to a court ruling.

The decision from the state Supreme Court said lawmakers can use that term in place of "fetus" in a pamphlet describing an abortion proposal on the election ballot.

Terminology long has been a huge issue for the abortion industry, as disposing of a "clump of cells" or "tissue" is far less objectionable to people than the truth, which is that the industry routinely tears apart the bodies of unborn infants to complete an abortion, sometimes using a vacuum to suck out the brains.

A report at Courthouse News notes the new development in which five of the seven justices on the high court overturned a lower court's decision that using the phrase is partisan.

The Supreme Court reverse that decision based on the fact that the phrase is, in fact, found elsewhere in 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 justices wrote in their initial opinion, which will be followed by a full legal analysis soon.

An organization promoting abortion claimed that the phrase is "a watchword for anti-abortion advocates" and it actually has "no basis in medicine or science."

The fight erupted over plans to have on the ballot this fall a plan to have virtually unlimited abortion access in the state.

The report said, "Before they cast their ballots, voters will have the chance to review a publicity pamphlet with detailed descriptions of each race and ballot initiative they'll vote on. Written by a committee of state lawmakers called the Legislative Council, ballot initiative descriptions must be impartial."

Abortion industry promoters sued the Legislative Council after it finished its description of the plan because it uses "unborn human being."

The members of the council said that the language is impartial because it's factually true, and it also appears in Arizona's current abortion law.

Ben Toma, the state House speaker and chief of the council, said, "The ballot analysis prepared by the legislative council is intended to help voters understand current law. 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."