Congressman Ruben Gallego (D-AZ-07) took to Twitter to attack Republican congressional candidate Tanya Wheeless for including her maiden name, Contreras, in her campaign.
Gallego launched his brief attack on Wheeless in response to her jest alluding to First Lady (FLOTUS) Jill Biden’s controversial comparison of Hispanics to breakfast tacos on Monday. Little attention was paid to FLOTUS’ mispronunciation of “bodegas,” a gaffe similar to her mispronunciation of the Spanish phrase “Si Se Puede,” meaning “Yes You Can,” last April.
The congressman retweeted the same tweet from Wheeless three times with different criticisms, calling her race “convenient” and claiming that she “hid” behind her husband’s English surname.
“Glad you are a proud Latina now[,] hope it will stay after you lose,” wrote Gallego. “If you were Latino in Arizona around 2010 people were telling us to go back to Mexico. On the phone you would hear I am not voting for a ‘spic.’ We know people that couldn’t get jobs or leases. Did Tanya use Contreras then… no she hid as Wheeless. We took the arrows for her.”
In the years I have known of you in Arizona it wasn’t until you ran for office that you added Contreras. Glad you are proud Latina now hope it will stay after you lose. FYI… google Tanya Wheelers see how often Contreras comes up prior to her running. https://t.co/FUGHEMNiPG
If you were Latino in Arizona around 2010 people were telling us to go back to Mexico. On the phone you would hear I am not voting for a “spic”. We know people that couldn’t get jobs or leases. Did Tanya use Contreras then… no she hid as Wheeless. We took the arrows for her. https://t.co/FUGHEMNiPG
In response, Wheeless issued a press release countering that Gallego’s attacks were sexist and racist. She explained that changing a last name through marriage doesn’t change an individual’s identity or heritage. Wheeless reaffirmed that she’s proud of her heritage.
“Ruben Gallego’s claim that I am not sufficiently Latina because I don’t always use my full name is disappointing, but not surprising,” wrote Wheeless. “These gross attacks have sadly become too frequent in our political discourse.”
Gallego’s ex-wife, Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego, still uses his last name despite not being Hispanic.
Gallego changed his own last name from Marinelarena, his father’s surname, to Gallego in 2008. He decided to change his surname to honor his single mother and distance himself from his father, who he revealed had abandoned his family early on.
Watch FLOTUS compare Latino diversity to breakfast tacos below:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Despite dedicating nearly two decades of his life to the military, one Phoenix man learned Wednesday that he may not receive the military benefits he’s earned, due to the COVID-19 vaccine and a Fox News interview. The fate of the man, an Air Force Master Sergeant named Nick Kupper, and thousands of other military members rests in the court system through ongoing cases like Doster v. Kendall.
Of well over 2.1 million American troops (over 1.3 million active duty and over 795,000 reserves), over 113,700 troops (5 percent) aren’t vaccinated. Nearly 269,000 troops (over 12 percent) are partially vaccinated, and 1.7 million troops (82 percent) are fully vaccinated. Of those who are partially vaccinated, only about 20,000 were granted temporary or permanent exemptions. However, it appears that those were exemptions in name only due to multiple reports that the exemption recipients were already scheduled to end their service.
Kupper appeared on Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s show, “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” last Thursday. He shared that several legislators were intervening in cases like his, but not enough to stop a forced mass military exodus that he warned would be detrimental for national security.
“After 19 years they’re going to throw everything away that I’ve worked for,” said Kupper. “This is not a problem to be solved for tomorrow, or the next day — this is a problem right now. You’re talking about over 10 percent of your military is looking to be canned right now. I mean, if I were China or if I were Russia, I’d be chomping at the bit right now.”
Kupper shared on Wednesday that he received his separation package for not taking the COVID-19 vaccine as well as a Department of Defense (DOD) letter of reprimand for appearing on Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s show. Kupper disclosed that the DOD accused him of aiding our enemies through his interview.
I just received my separation package for not taking an EUA vaccine. I also received a surprise letter of reprimand for appearing on @TuckerCarlson’s show.
However, the DOD determinations in Kupper’s case may not be set in stone. On Thursday, Ohio Southern District Court Judge Matthew McFarland issued an injunction preventing the Air Force from punishing those who sought a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine. That impacts around 10,000 service members nationwide.
McFarland was appointed in 2019 by former President Donald Trump under the bipartisan recommendation of Ohio Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).
Judge McFarland, in the lawsuit Doster v. Kendall, just provided an injunction preventing the Air Force from punishing anyone who sought a religious exemption! The AF has 14 days to argue it, but if they are unsuccessful it will become a permanent injunction.#winning#THANKGOD
On Wednesday, Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (R-AZ-08) introduced a bill to prohibit the Biden administration from denying schools federal funds for meal programs if they don’t adhere to the government’s gender ideology.
The legislation, “Protecting Kids, Protecting Lunches Act,” would prevent the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from imposing gender ideology adherence in order for schools to receive the funds that feed underprivileged students. The Biden administration mentioned open bathrooms and sports teams as part of their gender ideology.
Lesko asserted in a press release that schools shouldn’t have to decide between feeding their students and safe bathrooms.
“I am deeply concerned that the Department of Agriculture could weaponize funding for children in need to advance the gender ideology of the radical Left,” said Lesko. “We have already seen proof that biological boys in girls’ school bathrooms threaten girls’ safety. I am proud to introduce this legislation to ensure that the Department of Agriculture cannot withhold funding for school meals because these schools refuse to allow boys in girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, sports, or showers.”
Although Lesko didn’t cite any specific incidents, she may have been referring to the Daily Wirereport last year of a teenage girl’s sexual assault in a school bathroom by a skirt-wearing boy — which the school allegedly covered up. That report sent shockwaves worldwide, challenging the push to allow gender dysphoric individuals to use whatever bathrooms or locker rooms they desired.
(1/2) I introduced the Protecting Kids, Protecting Lunches Act to ensure the USDA does NOT make funding for school meal programs conditional on promoting the Far-Left’s gender ideology. https://t.co/Ib3vauirF3
— Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (@RepDLesko) July 14, 2022
As AZ Free News reported last month, the USDA announced in May that its anti-discrimination policy protections extended to sexual orientation and gender identity. The USDA warned that failure to comply with this updated policy would result in the loss of its Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) funding. The FNS ensures children in need have access to free or reduced lunches, which about half of Arizona’s children rely on.
In support of Lesko’s bill were the Family Research Council and the Independent Women’s Forum.
Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04) signed onto Lesko’s bill. They were joined by Congressmen Louie Gohmert (R-TX-01) and Ralph Norman (R-SC-05).
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Wednesday, Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) requested that the House Oversight Committee investigate the claims made in the controversial election fraud documentary, “2000 Mules.”
The premise of “2000 Mules” is that thousands of individuals, or “mules,” delivered harvested ballots to election drop boxes in key states during the 2020 election. The documentary relied on geotracking data and 4 million minutes of ballot drop box video feed to arrive at this claim.
“2000 Mules” featured Arizona significantly. Notable testimony came from a San Luis whistleblower, who alleged that there was a network of harvesters that worked under what she described at length as the “Mexican Mafia” of Yuma County.
Biggs declared in a press release and on Twitter that the House Oversight Committee chairwoman, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY-12), had a duty to investigate the documentary’s claims.
The congressman pointed out in his request letter that Maloney held hearings on significant election-related issues of late — notably the Arizona Senate’s audit of the 2020 election and Texas’ voting laws — as well as social issues like flea and tick collars, the Washington Commanders football team, electric vehicles for the Postal Service, environmental justice, and vaping. Biggs declared that the latter collective of issues addressed was far less important than the “2000 Mules” claims.
“As the chairwoman of the House’s oversight committee, Congresswoman Maloney has an obligation to hold an immediate hearing to further determine the veracity of these claims,” said Biggs. “The film exposes serious, potentially illegal activity related to the 2020 election. The committee should investigate these allegations to ensure the integrity of our elections.”
As the chairwoman of the House's oversight committee, @RepMaloney has an obligation to hold an immediate hearing to further determine the veracity of the claims made in the 2000 Mules film. https://t.co/mamUKvnS26
The filmmaker behind “2000 Mules,” conservative pundit Dinesh D’Souza, holds that the 2020 election was thoroughly fraudulent and stolen from former President Donald Trump.
The 2016 election was not stolen, yet leading Democrats questioned Trump’s legitimacy for four years. The 2020 election was stolen, yet somehow it’s a grave offense to question the outcome? You have to be born yesterday to fall for such nonsense! #January6thCommittee#2000Mules
In his request letter, Biggs highlighted the documentary’s estimation that Phoenix had over 200 individuals who were potential mules that visited over 20 drop boxes each. He also mentioned the estimated numbers of mules from other states, noting that the total came to more than 54,000 individuals delivering votes to five drop boxes across four states.
Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (R-AZ-08) signed onto the letter, as well as Representatives Andrew Clyde (R-GA-09), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA-14), Mary Miller (R-IL-15), Randy Weber (R-TX-14), Pete Sessions (R-TX-17), Lauren Boebert (R-CO-03), Byron Donalds (R-FL-19), and Diana Harshbarger (R-TN-01).
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Monday, a federal judge determined that a 2021 law recognizing the personhood of unborn children was unconstitutionally vague and in conflict with other state laws.
The law, referred to as the “Interpretation Policy,” declares that all state laws should be interpreted and construed to acknowledge that unborn children have the same rights, privileges, and immunities as all other Arizonans. The statute includes specific cause of action exemptions for individuals who perform in vitro fertilization procedures and women who indirectly harm their unborn children due to improper or insufficient self-care.
The law also defines “unborn child” as the “offspring of human beings from conception until birth.” Conception is synonymous with fertilization, although the federal judge in the case, Arizona District Court Judge Douglas Rayes, an Obama appointee, contended that certain medical journals recognized conception as the moment a fertilized egg implants in the uterus.
Rayes opined that Arizona’s Interpretation Policy was unclear in what it meant to “acknowledge” the equal rights of the unborn, pointing to the lack of definition anywhere in Arizona statutes and comparing the variety of definitions offered by Merriam-Webster and Black’s Law Dictionary. He agreed with the plaintiffs that authorities might employ a maximalist view of acknowledging the equal rights of the unborn.
On the subject of definitions, Rayes further contended that neither the Interpretation Policy or any other Arizona law amended the definition of “person” to include unborn children. Rayes added that the legal team of the lead defendant, Attorney General Mark Brnovich, couldn’t explain why that was in court proceedings.
“The Interpretation Policy either does absolutely nothing, or it does something. What that something might be is a mystery or, as Defendants put it, ‘anyone’s guess,’” wrote Rayes. “A law which requires such extraordinary effort to decipher fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it permits and proscribes.”
Brnovich hasn’t issued a statement on Rayes’ ruling. His latest press release announced a lawsuit excoriating the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) latest dishwasher and laundry machine regulations. On the day Rayes issued his ruling, Brnovich only tweeted a statement about an ongoing lawsuit to prohibit charitable donations from being an alternative to class payouts.
Further on in his ruling, Rayes argued that the Interpretation Policy’s personhood requirement conflicted with other current laws regulating abortion: abortion providers’ licensing and credentialing requirements in A.R.S. §§ 36-2155, 36-2153(E), 32-3531(B), 36-449.03(C)(3)(a)–(b); abortion clinic licensing requirements in A.R.S. §§ 36-449.02; 36.449.03; abortion informed consent requirements in A.R.S. §§ 36-2153, 36-2156; abortion statistical and demographic data reporting requirements in A.R.S. §§ 36-449.03(I), 36-2161–62; second trimester abortion method restriction in A.R.S. § 13-3603.01; ban on abortion for reasons of race or sex in A.R.S. § 13-3603.02(A)(1); consent requirements for minors in A.R.S. § 36-2152; and restrictions on telemedicine for abortion care in A.R.S. § 36-3604.
Additionally, Rayes expressed concern that other parts of Arizona’s criminal code could leave abortion providers vulnerable to prosecution since they didn’t have exemptions for lawful abortions, such as statutes on assault, child endangerment, and child abuse.
“Abortion providers do not have fair notice of whether, if they conform their conduct to these laws, they nonetheless may face criminal, civil, or professional liability under other statutes based solely on what licensing, law enforcement, or judicial officials think it means to ‘acknowledge’ the rights of the unborn,” wrote Rayes.
In his concluding remarks, Rayes clarified that his ruling didn’t focus on abortion but rather the law’s justice.
“[This motion] is about giving people fair notice of what the law means so that they know in advance how to comply,” wrote Rayes. “The Interpretation Policy is so vague that it ‘makes it impossible for plaintiffs to do their work with fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required, in violation of their procedural due process rights.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) filed the initial complaint on behalf of doctors Paul Isaacson and Eric Reuss, the National Council of Jewish Women Arizona (NCJW AZ), the Arizona National Organization for Women (AZ NOW), and the Arizona Medical Association (ArMA).
Isaacson is a Phoenix-based abortionist with Family Planning Associates (FPA) Medical Group, and previously a University of Arizona College of Medicine professor. After SCOTUS denied the existence of a constitutional right to abortion last month, Isaacson began crowdfunding $100,000. FPA Medical Group closed due to the current legal limbo concerning abortion in the state.
In an update last Saturday, Isaacson shared that the funds raised — at the time, just under $6,000 — enabled FPA Medical Group to keep its staff employed another week.
“We continued to dismantle the clinic today — very emotional moment taking my diplomas off the wall,” wrote Isaacson.
Our office has concluded the Arizona Legislature has made its intentions clear regarding abortion laws. pic.twitter.com/jvjKXaXKwd
Reuss is a Scottsdale-based OBGYN who served previously on the board of Planned Parenthood of Arizona (PPAZ). Phoenix Magazine named Reuss a “Top Doc” seven times from 2010 to 2018.
Both Isaacson and Reuss have engaged in pro-abortion legal battles alongside ACLU and CRR before. Most recently, the parties came together to defeat Arizona’s requirement that abortion providers inform their patients about reversal procedures prior to taking an abortion pill.
Reuss wrote an opinion piece for the Arizona Republic in 2015 claiming that abortion pill reversal wasn’t evidence-based, calling the requirement “legislative overreach” and “hearsay.”
“There is absolutely no evidence-based data that the process can be reversed,” wrote Reuss.
Certain studies and current treatments for reducing risks of recurring miscarriage and premature births conflict with Reuss’ claim. A study specific to abortion pill reversal found that 64 to 68 percent of pregnancies were saved within 72 hours of taking the first abortion pill.
The Interpretation Policy was one part of a larger bill introduced by State Senator Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix), SB1457. The bill also made it a class 6 felony to abort children due to a genetic abnormality, except in a medical emergency. This provision added to current protections prohibiting the abortion of a child based on its sex or race. Last September, the court issued a preliminary injunction for that restriction. At the end of last month, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) vacated that injunction.
BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court just vacated the injunction in Brnovich v. Isaacson. Arizona’s ban on discriminatory abortions is now in effect. pic.twitter.com/vAZD9iB1WS
Additionally, the bill prohibited public education institution facilities from performing or providing abortions except in a medical emergency. Instead, the bill required that abortion clinics either cremate or inter fetal remains, with the decision of the child’s final resting place given to the mother.
The bill also required that only qualified physicians provide abortion-inducing drugs and prohibited anyone from delivering or mailing those drugs.
Finally, the bill prohibited public or tax money from allocation to research projects using aborted fetal remains.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
