Exactly a century ago this year, the Supreme Court, in its decision in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, recognized the right of parents to direct the education of their children, writing that “[t]he fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children . . . The child is not the mere creature of the state.” Today, just as they did a century ago, parents rely on the courts to serve as a backstop against abusive government policy.
Sadly, some courts in America are shutting the door of justice in the face of parents seeking to vindicate their rights and the rights of their children. In a case out of Wisconsin called Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area School District in the Seventh Circuit, the federal court of appeals with jurisdiction over cases arising in Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana, parents challenged the school district’s policy directing school officials to hide a child’s “social gender transition” from their parents. As the school told its employees, “parents are not entitled to know their kids’ identities.That knowledge must be earned.”
Incredibly, the Seventh Circuit found that the parents’ harm in that case was merely speculative. Apparently, since plaintiffs must show harm to have standing to sue, parents must wait until they find out that their son’s school has been helping him dress as a girl and use the girls’ restroom for six months before they can challenge the policy.
The Supreme Court chose not to review the Seventh Circuit’s decision in that case. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a short dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, explaining that the parents’ harm is not speculative and that “some federal courts are succumbing to the temptation to use the doctrine of Article III standing as a way of avoiding some particularly contentious constitutional questions.”
Nor is this an isolated incident of judges dodging the controversy of gender ideology. The Fourth Circuit, the appeals court with jurisdiction over Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, came to the same conclusion in John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education. A district court in Ohio did the same in Doe v. Pine-Richland School District.
Parents’ fundamental rights to direct the upbringing of their children, and the right of children to be free from ideological indoctrination by school officials, depends on courts that are willing to protect those rights. That is why Advancing American Freedom is filing an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to take up Blake Warner’s challenge to an Eleventh Circuit rule which effectively requires parents to hire a lawyer before they can represent their children’s interests in court. Specifically, while people can bring their own claims in court without a lawyer, and parents can sue on behalf of their children, the Eleventh and some other courts have found that parents cannot sue on behalf of their children without hiring a lawyer. While Mr. Warner’s claim is not related to gender ideology, his challenge to this rule is essential because his success would ensure that parents who are unable to afford an attorney can still seek judicial protection for the rights of their children.
On Jan. 29, President Trump issued an executive order that, among other things, ordered the removal of federal funding from schools that engage in “social transitions of a minor student” and directed the attorney general to work with state and local officials “to enforce the law and file appropriate actions” against school officials who “facilitate the social transition of a minor student.” Trump’s order is important but know that gender ideologues will undoubtedly stage massive resistance. Parents must remain vigilant, and courts must begin to take their claims seriously. The Supreme Court should entrench parents’ rights by taking Mr. Warner’s case and striking down the counsel mandate.
A powerful Arizona legislator is continuing to shine the light on the governor’s reported shenanigans with the state’s finances.
Earlier this week, Arizona State Senator T.J. Shope introduced SB 1612 “to hold the Executive Branch accountable and prevent any future conflicts of interest from arising within the state procurement process” by “remov[ing] an exemption allowing the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) to create their own procurement code.” The bill would also “prohibit an agency and state employees from destroying notes and documents created during a request for proposal (RFP) [and] require anyone responding to a state issued RFP or applying for a state administered grant to disclose any donations made to the Governor and campaign affiliates.”
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen is a cosponsor of the legislation.
The need for this bill, according to Shope’s press release, became heightened after “an administrative law judge concluded AHCCCS improperly awarded contracts for healthcare services for 26,000 elderly and physically disabled individuals enrolled in the Arizona Long Term Care System…based on several factors, including violations of statutes and rules by AHCCCS, prejudice, a lack of transparency, contract awards based on best interests of the agency and not the state, an arbitrary and flawed ranking system of bid proposals, as well as deceptive criteria provided by AHCCS to health care companies on the evaluations of their bid proposals.”
In a statement accompanying the announcement of his bill, Senator Shope said, “The Hobbs Administration has a track record of engaging in questionable and unethical practices where favoritism is given, using taxpayer dollars, to those who are close to or have provided benefits to the Governor, her cabinet, and her allies. This legislation should help address these scandals and prevent future unfair advantages from being provided. Arizonans expect their elected officials to make decisions based on what’s best for the state and its citizens; not what’s best for their own personal agendas and political bank accounts.”
Last year, The Arizona Republic broke a story about the Arizona Department of Child Safety “approv[ing] what amounts to a nearly 60% increase in the rate that Sunshine Residential Homes Inc. charges to care for a child for a day.” The alleged action to approve the rate increase for the one organization was made while “DCS has denied pay increases to home operators and cut loose 16 providers during the contract renewal process.” The Republic also asserted that “no other standard group home provider was approved for any rate increase during Hobbs’ tenure.”
After the story ran in the Republic, Shope sent a letter on June 5 to both Attorney General Kris Mayes and Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, asking both officials to “examine the facts surrounding the Department of Child Safety’s alleged decision to approve a nearly 60% rate increase for Sunshine Residential Homes and determine if conduct by any of the involved parties warrants a criminal or civil investigation.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne announced his endorsement of new legislation proposed by Rep. Leo Biasiucci that would forbid Arizona schools from providing foods on campus which are deemed harmful. Horne was joined by Education Committee Chairman Rep. Matt Gress and Registered Nurse, Sen. Janae Shamp, announcing the bill to “cut the chemicals,” on Tuesday.
In a press release, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) revealed that HB 2164 would establish a ban on schools serving or selling foods found to contain ingredients that scientific studies have found to be harmful to students health, including potassium bromate, propylparaben, titanium dioxide, brominated vegetable oil, yellow dyes 5 and 6, blue dyes 1 and 2, red dyes 3 and 40, and green dye 3.
“Our kids deserve better than artificial dyes and cheap fillers in their lunches. If we’re providing meals at school, they should be real, nutritious food—not the kind of processed junk that’s banned in other countries. This bill puts the health of Arizona’s children first, plain and simple,” Biasiucci said in the release.
In a statement, Horne said, “The time has come to eliminate harmful foods from public schools and vending machines. Synthetic food dyes are associated with behavioral issues which then affect a child’s ability to perform academically and engage socially.”
Horne explained the extent of the discrepancy between food ingredients permitted in other developed nations versus those allowed by federal authorities in the U.S.
“There are approximately 10,000 ingredients approved for use in the U.S. versus about 400 in Europe, and these issues need to be addressed. Replacing foods that contain these ingredients and synthetic dye with those that are minimally processed is achievable. Manufacturers have already worked over the past few years to remove trans-fat and reduce sodium to meet USDA requirements. ADE also administers the ‘Try it Local’ program which provides additional reimbursement to school nutrition program operators who purchase locally grown, minimally processed foods.”
Horne concluded his comments adding, “This is a familiar crusade for me. In 2006, I was successful in getting sugared sodas out of schools, and I am just as enthusiastic about seeing this effort succeed. I urge passage of this bill, and the governor should sign it.”
The move was hailed by actor, health food advocate, and an increasingly prominent figure in Arizona conservative politics, Rob Schneider, who said, “The needs of the most precious members of our community, our children, must come first. We can no longer allow school lunches to be junk foods filled with toxic chemicals, unhealthy additives, dyes and preservatives. Our kids deserve better! I look forward to working with Representative Leo Biasiucci and the wonderful Chef’s in Arizona to bring healthy organic real food to our state school’s lunch programs!”
In a post to X, Schneider followed up, “The KEEP AMERICA’S CHILDREN SICK Food Lobbyists are TRULY DESPICABLE (SEE VIDEO BELOW) & I am GLAD THE ARIZONA LEGISLATURE is NOT FALLING FOR THEIR ‘SICK’ LIES. They are JUST AS AWFUL PEOPLE AS THE CIGARETTE companies that CLAIMED THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT ADDICTIVE or CANCEROUS!”
The KEEP AMERICA’S CHILDREN SICK Food Lobbyists are TRULY DESPICABLE (SEE VIDEO BELOW) & I am GLAD THE ARIZONA LEGISLATURE is NOT FALLING FOR THEIR ‘SICK’ LIES. They are JUST AS AWFUL PEOPLE AS THE CIGARETTE companies that CLAIMED THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT ADDICTIVE or CANCEROUS! https://t.co/CMay5GWfxB
Senator Shamp, who as President Donald Trump pointed out, “is not a politician—she’s a registered nurse,” and holds her degrees from ASU in Molecular Biosciences & Biotechnology with a Nursing degree from Grand Canyon University, enthusiastically endorsed the bill.
“What we feed our kids matters. Schools shouldn’t be serving ultra-processed, chemically engineered, junk food. I’m proud to back HB2164 because Arizona’s children deserve better. And this is just the beginning—I’m excited to launch the Make America Healthy Caucus with Rep. Biasiucci to start making real change. Let’s Make Arizona Healthy Again!”
A coalition of Arizona legislators are taking steps to improve the state’s wildfire mitigation efforts.
This week, State Representative Lupe Diaz, the Chairman of the House Committee on Land, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs, updated constituents on the progress of bills in the Arizona Legislature, which are meant “to protect lives, property, and communities from the growing threat of catastrophic wildfires.”
Those bills include:
HB 2201, which was sponsored by Representative Griffin. The bill “requires utilities to develop and submit biennial Wildfire Mitigation Plans, which include clearing hazardous vegetation around power lines to prevent utility-caused wildfires.”
HB 2219, which was sponsored by Representative Marshall; HB 2395, HB 2398, and HB 2400, which were sponsored by Representative Blackman; and HB 2694, which was sponsored by Representative Griffin. These bills “allocate funding for fire contingency planning and wildland firefighting efforts in Arizona’s high-risk areas.”
HB 2456, which was sponsored by Representative Marshall. This bill would “establish fire incident management grants to assist districts across the state.”
HB 2577, which was sponsored by Representative Griffin. The bill “cuts red tape to give the State Forester more flexibility to protect communities.”
HB 2639, which was sponsored by Representative Griffin. This bill “extends the ‘healthy forest’ tax incentive to encourage responsible forest thinning and prevent catastrophic fires.”
In a statement, Representative Diaz said, “Public safety is more than law enforcement and border security – it means defending our communities from preventable disasters. Arizona has seen what happens when wildfires are mismanaged in places like California. We refuse to let that happen here. Our plan prioritizes proactive fire mitigation efforts, responsible forest management, and ensuring that Arizonans are protected when disaster strikes.”
Diaz added, “Preventing wildfires means enacting responsible management before disaster strikes. We are working with state agencies, local officials, and private utilities to get boots on the ground, clear hazardous areas, and stop wildfires before they start. This is what leadership looks like, and it’s exactly what Arizonans expect from us.”
Governor Katie Hobbs did not mention plans to address wildfire mitigation efforts in her State of the State address to the Arizona Legislature at the beginning of the 57th Regular Session last month. Chairman Diaz’s release highlights that the Democrat governor’s “proposed budget offers zero funding for hazardous vegetation removal or forest thinning despite recognizing that wildland fire costs have been ‘much higher in recent years’ due to neglected forest maintenance.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
It’s taken the better part of a year for vigilant Scottsdale parents, but the vulgar books they discovered will no longer be in their district’s libraries.
Last July, Scottsdale mom Jill Dunican wrote to the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) governing board about 17 books allegedly containing “vulgar or educationally unsuitable content.” Dunican wrote on behalf of several advocacy organizations and individuals: Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity, Arizona Women of Action, Restore Parental Rights in Education, Protect Arizona Children Coalition, A Legal Process, Not In Our Schools, Shiry Sapir, Dan Kleinman (SafeLibraries), EZAZ, Save CFSD, Kids First, Mom Army, and Moms For Liberty.
The contested books were “A Stolen Life” by Jaycee Dugard; “Doomed” and “Haunted” by Chuck Palahniuk; “Lucky” by Alice Sebold; “PUSH” by Sapphire; “Sold” by Patrick McCormick; “Tricks,” “Perfect,” “People Kill People,” “Identical,” and “Smoke” by Ellen Hopkins; “Icebreaker” by Hannah Grace; “A Court of Frost and Starlight” by Sara J. Maas; “Anatomy of a Boyfriend” and “Anatomy of a Single Girl” by Daria Snadowsky; “Breathless” by Jennifer Niven; “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl” by Jesse Andrews; and “Lawn Boy” by Jonathan Evison.
Most of these books were only available at the various high schools within the district. One contested title — “Sold” — was available at the Desert Canyon K-8 school.
In her letter to the board, Dunican claimed these books violated Arizona’s laws on furnishing harmful items to minors and Arizona’s parental bill of rights.
“The negative impacts of vulgar material on children include: ‘greater acceptance of sexual harassment, sexual activity at an early age, acceptance of negative attitudes to women, unrealistic expectations, skewed attitudes of gender roles, greater levels of body dissatisfaction, rape myths, and sexual aggression,’ as well as sexual risk taking, mental health problems, decreased academic performance and detachment from family and friends,” wrote Dunican.
SUSD agreed. Following a temporary pull of the books and investigation by a review committee, SUSD found that nearly all of the contested books needed to be kept out of circulation permanently — meaning these texts violated Arizona laws on furnishing harmful materials to minors.
Last Friday, SUSD advised Dunican of the removal of 15 of the 17 contested books. The district determined the other two books — “Sold” and “Stolen Life” — may remain in circulation under the condition of parental consent for checkouts.
In a response email to Dunican, SUSD director Kim Dodds Keran added that the 15 books to be removed from circulation had “very limited circulation,” meaning they were checked out five or fewer times over the past three years.
In an email shared with AZ Free News, Dunican asked SUSD to adopt a policy complementing Arizona law prohibiting public schools from referring students to or using sexually explicit material in any manner.
This law maintains exemptions for works that possess “serious educational value” or “artistic, literary, political, or scientific value.” In those cases, schools must obtain written parental consent on a per-material basis.
Dunican suggested the proposed SUSD policy could have librarians rely on rating services to review book ratings ahead of book purchases.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
