Arizona Legislature Approves Ban Of Abortions Due To Genetic Abnormalities

Arizona Legislature Approves Ban Of Abortions Due To Genetic Abnormalities

A controversial pro-life bill passed out of both the House and Senate on Thursday along party lines. SB 1457, which had previously passed out of the full House and Senate along party lines, but failed to pass the final Senate vote now heads to the governor’s desk.

The vote came just days after a federal appeals court upheld a similar law in Ohio, providing more evidence of constitutionality for the prohibition of abortion based on a genetic condition like Down syndrome, according to the Center for Arizona Policy.

Supporters say SB 1457, sponsored by Sen. Nancy Barto, is a “commonsense bill that prohibits abortion based on the diagnosis of a genetic abnormality, except for those with a lethal fetal condition.” Opponents say the bill is an assault on women’s reproductive rights and “ignores the complexities of high-risk pregnancies.”

The bill also repeals a pre-Roe law that punishes women who have abortions, and it establishes Arizona laws will be interpreted in the context of valuing all human life. It also prohibits public institutions from performing abortions or experimenting with aborted human remains.

Getting Back To Normal Shouldn’t Require Vaccine Passports

Getting Back To Normal Shouldn’t Require Vaccine Passports

By the Free Enterprise Club |

Vaccines should always be voluntary and never be forced. But COVID-19 came in like a wrecking ball last year, and perhaps its most significant contribution to the world has been an overwhelming growth in government overreach.

From the abuse of emergency orders to the senseless “mask mandates,” some government officials have leapt at the chance to dangle the carrot of “normalcy” in the faces of their citizens in order to take away more of their freedoms. Unfortunately, many have taken the bait. And now, we find ourselves at a crossroads.

The latest promise to return to normal comes in the form of “vaccine passports.” This ridiculous concept would serve as “proof” that a person has been vaccinated so he or she can have access to all the freedoms they should already be able to enjoy as an American citizen. As you would expect, Big Tech is first in line to team up with the government on such an initiative. And New York has already implemented the “Excelsior Pass” so that its citizens can “be a part of [the state’s] safe reopening.” (Given Governor Cuomo’s handling of the pandemic, what could go wrong?)

But nothing about this is normal.

It’s not normal for companies to collect the private health data of individuals. And it’s certainly not normal to force American citizens to submit to certain medical procedures as the price of doing business.

Thankfully, some of our lawmakers here in Arizona have not fallen asleep on this issue. Earlier this month, Congressman Andy Biggs introduced his No Vaccines Passports Act. This piece of legislation would prevent federal agencies from issuing any standardized documentation that could be used to certify a U.S. citizen’s COVID-19 status to a third party, such as a restaurant or an airline.

And just a few days ago, Arizona became the sixth state to ban COVID-19 passports when Governor Ducey signed Executive Order 2021-09. This prevents state agencies, counties, cities, and towns from issuing measures that require an individual to provide documentation of their COVID-19 vaccination status in to order to enter a business, building, or area to receive a government service, permit, or license. It also prevents businesses that contract with the state to provide services to the public from requiring documentation.

While this is certainly a step in the right direction, Governor Ducey’s executive order still allows for businesses, schools, and health providers to ask about an individual’s vaccine status.

That’s why lawmakers should consider additional action on this issue. One option being considered is HB2190. This bill, sponsored by Rep. Bret Roberts (R-LD11) and Sen. Kelly Townsend (R-LD16), would prohibit a company that conducts business in Arizona from refusing to provide everyday services, transportation, or admission because a person does not divulge whether they have received a particular vaccine. It would also prohibit a state, county, or local government entity from offering anyone a special privilege or incentive to receive a vaccine.

Currently, HB2190 is awaiting action in the senate, and negotiations are underway on potential amendments to the bill. Regardless of what those amendments are, Arizona lawmakers need to work toward stopping vaccine passports. They are a serious threat to our civil liberties. And while we all want to return to normal, we must remember that “normal” shouldn’t come with a price tag.

Arizona Supreme Court Considers Prop 208 Fate

Arizona Supreme Court Considers Prop 208 Fate

By Corinne Murdock |

The Arizona Supreme Court convened on Tuesday to hear arguements in the case, Karen Fann, et al v State of Arizona, et al. In making their decision, the court will consider two main questions:

  1. Can Proposition 208 a statutory initiative, exempt itself from the expenditure limitations for school districts imposed by article IX, section 21 of the Arizona Constitution, and, if it cannot, would rational voters have adopted the Proposition’s tax knowing that its revenues could not be spent?
  2. Can the Proposition impose a new tax without a supermajority vote of both houses of the legislature, as required by article IX, section 22 of the Arizona Constitution?

Prop 208 was a statutory initiative that sought to become a constitutional amendment. The voter referendum proposed a new income tax of 3.5% on anyone who makes over $250,000 individually or anyone making $500,000 jointly in order to fund public education. The referendum passed on Election Day last year.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Dominic Draye with Greenberg Traurig asserted that the proposition has problems squaring up with the Arizona Constitution. Specifically, regarding its proposed spending patterns.

“It’s attempted to declare itself exempt from a portion of the constitution fails out of the gate. So its backers turn to the grant gift exemption,” stated Dray.

Attorney for the state Andy Gaona argued that the bill didn’t have problematic spending patterns. He said that the intent of Prop 208’s drafters was to provide “a permanent, dedicated funding source” for schools. Additionally, Gaona likened Prop 208 to other state funding.

“[It’s not unconstitutional in] the same way that there’s nothing inherently unconstitutional about state aid and state appropriations that may go towards the expenditure cap, that may ultimately cause the expenditure cap to be exceeded,” said Gaona. “In the same way there was nothing inherently unconstitutional about the fact that Prop 208 spending in a particular year may cause the expenditure cap to be exceeded. The truth is that, if there’s a conclusion that not only does the grant exception not apply [… then] there’s a process that’s in place already, and has been in place for years, that dictates how the expenditure cap will be dealt with.”

On behalf of the state, a spokesperson for the Arizona Department of Revenue explained to the judges that the anti-injunction act hasn’t ever been used in the contest of a personal income tax.

“Our research hasn’t revealed that the anti-injunction act hasn’t applied directly to a personal income tax issue, nor has there been any sort of ruling that the statute has been ineligible for application,” stated Bergen. “There is a bit of vacuum there. All instances of the law that we’ve seen have been applied to the context of property taxes.”

In closing, Draye reiterated that Prop 208 would be unconstitutional – partly for the expenditure limits outlined in the Arizona Constitution, but mainly for the reason that it imposes a new tax without legislative approval.

“The offending act is not the expenditure of funds in violation of the cap – I want to be clear about that. The thing that’s unconstitutional about this statute – well there are two things – there’s a section 22 part we haven’t talked about, which I think is fairly straightforward,” stated Draye. “The problem there is [that] a portion of the Arizona Constitution doesn’t apply to Prop 208. That has happened already – that is not true and will never be true.”

Draye said that Prop 208 invited taxes to be created by mob rule in the state.

“This is not a case where you have the legislature versus the people, or something like that. This is the people acting in their capacity as amenders of the Constitution to bind themselves  so that bare majorities can’t grow the size of government and impose new taxes,” added Draye.

Immediately following the election, private citizens requested a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to stop the tax. Groups including the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Goldwater Institute joined the suit.

The court promised to issue its ruling at a later date.

Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.

Ducey Acted Maliciously With Veto Of Sex Ed Bill

Ducey Acted Maliciously With Veto Of Sex Ed Bill

By Diane Douglas, Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 2015-2018 |

When it came to SB1456 (sex ed instruction, parental rights), IF I were a bettin’ woman, I would have been betting Governor Doug Ducey would take the cowardly way out and have allowed the bill to pass into law without his signature.

Instead Ducey took the malicious way out – on so many levels. He vetoed SB1456 and replaced it with yet another worthless Lord Ducey decree – Executive Order 2021-11. One can’t help but wonder if this veto isn’t a bone Ducey threw to Kathy “no promo homo” Hoffman as it came just one day after he rescinded the school mask mandate she loved so much. But I digress.

Ducey’s statement in the veto letter that sex education in Arizona is “Opt-In” is disingenuous at best; if for no other reason than the conflicts and loopholes in statute – none of which were addressed in his executive order.

ARS 15-102(A) (4) reads: If a school district offers any sex education curricula pursuant to section 15-711 or 15-716 or pursuant to any rules adopted by the state board of education, procedures to prohibit a school district from providing sex education instruction to a pupil unless the pupil’s parent provides written permission for the child to participate in the sex education curricula. (All emphasis mine)

OPT-IN

Except ARS 15-716(E), which defines requirements for HIV/AIDS instruction, reads: At the request of a parent, a pupil shall be excused from instruction on the acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the human immunodeficiency virus as provided in subsection A of this section. The school district shall provide a description of the course curriculum to all parents and notify all parents of their ability to withdraw their child from the instruction.

OPT-OUT

ARS 15-102 (A)(5) reads: Procedures by which parents will be notified in advance of and given the opportunity to withdraw their children from any instruction or presentations regarding sexuality in courses other than formal sex education curricula.

OPT-OUT

And I would remind parents that when the Genderbread Person was taught in a Flagstaff school it was brought into an elementary English Language Arts class. And while technically the teacher notified parents “in advance” the actual subject of the lesson and content of the instruction was not disclosed to parents.

So which is it – opt-in or opt-out? As any good attorney will no doubt tell you the answer is – it depends. But I can virtually assure parents under current law it will be whichever is most expedient for the district, which is opt-out.

SB1456 would have corrected these contradictions in statute and made Arizona truly an opt-in state.

But most importantly what SB1456 would have prohibited is the sexualization of children in Kindergarten through 4th grade.

Ducey’s “rationalization” for his veto of this vital protection for our youngest students is that SB1456 will stand “in the way of important child abuse prevention education in the early grades for at risk and vulnerable children.” It would be laughable if the subject was not so serious and his veto not more threatening to susceptible children.  Exposing these young children to comprehensive sex education can for some children have the effect of desensitizing them and making them MORE vulnerable and, in the wrong hands, potentially groom them for sexual abuse.

Child abuse and comprehensive sex education are NOT one and the same and should NEVER be put under the same umbrella. Isn’t child abuse protection services one of the reasons Ducey added $20 million to the $15 million in grant funding for school counselors and social workers?

Any parents who has ever tried to get a school district to provide them access to instruction materials – before or after the fact – knows Arizona is NOT the land of parental rights that Ducey paints in his veto letter. Parental rights statutes in Arizona are about as effective as an old, toothless guard dog. There are no consequences for districts, schools or teachers that don’t comply with statute and fulfill the parent’s request for instructional materials.

As for Ducey’s self-congratulatory back slapping about encompassing what he deems the “heart of the bill” – parent “involvement” and online availability of sex ed curriculum – could have just as easily and effectively been expanded through State Board of Education rules which already set requirement for public meetings to review and adopt sex ed curricula. But whether by executive order or SBE rulemaking neither have stability nor durability of Arizona Revised Statutes. It has become very apparent over the past 13 months that our governor no longer respects a representative form of government for Arizona and continues to rule by decree rather than govern. But, again, I digress.

But no, Governor Ducey, the true heart of SB1456 was protecting the innocence of our youngest, students, ages 5 to 9 years old. Nothing is more important that safeguarding our precious children at the earliest ages, actually all ages, from the evil of Alfred C. Kinsey, Siecus and Planned Parenthood’s comprehensive sexual instruction and indoctrination. Well, nothing other than teaching our children to read, write and do arithmetic something else at which our system fails.

I’m sure glad that I am not a bettin’ woman because betting on Doug Ducey to protect parental rights and children’s innocence is a losing proposition – big time.

Governor, Legislators Visit Yuma To Call On Biden Administration To Address “Humanitarian And Security Crisis”

Governor, Legislators Visit Yuma To Call On Biden Administration To Address “Humanitarian And Security Crisis”

On Wednesday, Governor Doug Ducey and a delegation of state lawmakers travelled to Yuma to call on the Biden administration to address the escalating humanitarian and security crisis on the U.S. / Mexico border. The officials received a briefing from U.S. Border Patrol, local law enforcement and community leaders.

The Governor was joined by Senate President Karen Fann, House Speaker Rusty Bowers, Adjutant General Kerry Muehlenbeck, Yuma County Sheriff Leon Wilmot, Yuma Mayor Doug Nicholls, Yuma County Supervisor Jonathon Lines, San Luis Mayor Jerry Sanchez, Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels, local agriculture leaders and other leaders and members of the legislature.

The officials received a briefing on Border Patrol operations from Chris T. Clem, Chief of the Border Patrol Yuma Sector. The Yuma Sector encompasses 126 miles of international border with Mexico, with three checkpoints currently manned by over 700 Border Patrol agents.

The tour follows the Governor’s Declaration of Emergency and decision to deploy the Arizona National Guard to the border to support law enforcement efforts.

Ducey declared a state of emergency in six counties including Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz, Yuma, Maricopa and Pinal. The team of up to 250 Guardsmen, along with state troopers and other law enforcement agencies, will assist with medical operations in detention centers, install and maintain border cameras, monitor and collect data from public safety cameras, and analyze satellite imagery for current trends in smuggling corridors.

The state will provide up to $25 million in initial funding for the mission.