Religious Protections for Adoptive, Foster Care Parents Passes Arizona Legislature

Religious Protections for Adoptive, Foster Care Parents Passes Arizona Legislature

By Corinne Murdock |

A bill prohibiting the state from discriminating against those with religious beliefs engaging or working within the adoption and foster care systems passed the State House on Thursday. The legislation now heads to Governor Doug Ducey’s desk.

SB1399 offers protections for potential adoptive or foster parents, as well as individuals who advertise, provide, or facilitate adoption or foster care services. The House passed the bill along party lines, just as the Senate did at the beginning of March.

Senate Democrats in opposition to the bill claimed it fixed a nonexistent problem. They warned that the legislation would only serve to create problems, such as the government meddling with religious beliefs. 

That stance echoed the arguments presented by progressive organizations such as the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a nonprofit that pushes for total eradication of any vestiges of religion from government. The nonprofit has intervened in a number of famous cases, such as that of the Christian baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple’s wedding: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. A little over a decade ago, the nonprofit intervened in a case challenging whether taxpayers should be allowed to direct part of their tax payments to religious organizations supporting religious school students: Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn

The Arizona chapter of the American Defense League (ADL) also opposed the bill.

Under the bill, the only potential situation for the government to discriminate against an individual’s religious beliefs when determining placement of a child would be when determining whether the individual shares the same religious beliefs as the child. Otherwise, the legislation prohibits the government from discriminating against individuals offering adoption or foster care services or attempting to adopt or foster a child on the basis of their religion.

The legislation defines “discriminatory action” as altering an individual’s tax treatment, such as assessing penalties and refusing tax exemptions; disallowing or denying tax deductions for charitable donations; withholding, reducing, excluding, terminating, or materially altering the terms or conditions of benefits such as a state grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, guarantee, loan, or scholarship; withholding, reducing, excluding, terminating, or adversely altering the terms or conditions of or denying any entitlement or benefit under a state benefit program, or a license, certification, accreditation, custody award or agreement, diploma, grade, recognition, or other similar benefit, position, or status; imposing, levying, or assessing a monetary fine, fee, penalty, damages, or an injunction; and refusing to hire or promote, force to resign, fire, demote, sanction, discipline, adversely alter the terms or conditions of employment, retaliate or take other adverse employment action against a person employed or commissioned by the state government.

Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.

Phoenix Family Fights FDA Restrictions to Save Children’s Lives

Phoenix Family Fights FDA Restrictions to Save Children’s Lives

By Corinne Murdock |

One Phoenix family is fighting for their daughters’ lives: not only against the odds of the fatal genetic disease they both suffer from, but against the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulations that prohibit access to a potential cure. The life-saving treatment, a gene therapy, is only available in Milan, Italy — thousands of miles away at the cost of anywhere between $1,000 to $2,000 per round trip flight ticket. 

The two of three daughters in the Riley family, Keira and Olivia, were born with metachromatic leukodystrophy, a sudden-onset, fatal disease that causes a buildup of lipids on critical nerves in the brain and spinal cord, which in turn damages the myelin sheath that protects nerve cells. Medical journals identify this occurrence as a result of a deficiency in sulfatide enzymes, which break down lipids. The Riley family had to raise tens of thousands of dollars at the height of the pandemic in 2020 to relocate to Italy for five months so they could save Keira. 

Olivia didn’t qualify for the experimental gene therapy because she was already symptomatic. Within 90 days of showing her symptoms, Olivia lost the ability to walk and talk. 

“How do you even deal with that as a parent? Imagining two out of your three kids will soon be gone?” said their mother, Kendra. 

Due to cases like that of the Riley family, the Arizona legislature is considering a new law to expand on current laws enabling terminally ill patients to try treatments not yet approved by the FDA: SB1163, or the “Right to Try for Individualized Treatments.”

The Goldwater Institute pioneered the original Right to Try law that began in Arizona and eventually was approved by Congress under President Donald Trump, guaranteeing patients with life-threatening illnesses that exhausted all other options to participate in clinical trials of the treatments of their choosing. 

Christina Sandefur, Goldwater Institute Executive Vice President, dubbed SB1163 the “Right to Try 2.0” — an expanded upgrade to the original law tailored for more individualized needs. The State Senate passed the bill last month, and it’s awaiting a final vote before the House.

“It is unconscionable that an American patient has to travel to another country to Europe in order to be able to get access to a treatment that could save their lives,” said Sandefur. 

For the Riley family, it appears that the experimental gene therapy worked — since January 2021, Keira hasn’t exhibited any symptoms and has developed normally. In mid-January, the FDA granted the same treatment Keira received in Italy. The treatment was given approval, in part, because of results from the Milan, Italy trials.

Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.

Maricopa County’s Democratic Attorney Candidate Pledges to Disregard Abortion Law

Maricopa County’s Democratic Attorney Candidate Pledges to Disregard Abortion Law

By Corinne Murdock |

Julie Gunnigle, the sole Democratic candidate in the Maricopa County Attorney’s race, pledged to disregard the upcoming new law banning abortions after 15 weeks gestation. Gunnigle said that enforcing that law would be a “waste of resources” and “not in the interest of justice.” She called the ban “unconstitutional policing,” claiming that the law would lead to investigations into miscarriages and stillbirths. The legislation, presented to Governor Doug Ducey on Monday, bans the prosecution of women who receive an abortion under 15 weeks.

“Your county attorney should always be working in the interests of justice and prioritizing those cases that do justice for our county and our residents. That means not prosecuting people for their health care decisions, including abortion,” said Gunnigle. 

Her stances have earned her the support of Arizona’s activist arm of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider and profiteer. 

Gunnigle, legal director for the Poor People’s Campaign, checks all the boxes of the Democratic Party’s progressive criminal justice reform wishlist. Gunnigle pledged to ensure marijuana charges expungement and implement an affirmative action approach to sentencing. She has also expressed opposition to election integrity measures, bans on sex change surgeries for minors, bans on biological males in women’s sports, private prisons, and current incarceration rates. 

Gunnigle claimed that former county attorney Allister Adel wasn’t the problem, but a symptom of a greater issue of a broken criminal justice system. Her platform and remarks reflect the same principles as the pioneer for criminal justice reform: Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, the same prosecutor responsible for enabling Darryl Brooks to kill in the Waukesha Christmas Parade attack four months ago. 

Like Gunnigle, one of Chisholm’s main focuses was to eliminate racial disparities in sentencing and incarceration. Chisholm, in turn, received validation and assistance from the progressive criminal justice reform organization, the Vera Institute of Justice.

Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.

Mandatory Proof of Citizenship to Vote Becomes Law

Mandatory Proof of Citizenship to Vote Becomes Law

By Corinne Murdock |

On Wednesday, Governor Doug Ducey signed HB2492, which requires individuals to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote. The law most heavily impacts federal-only voters: federal law doesn’t require proof of citizenship when voting in federal elections. In the 2020 election, there were over 11,600 Arizonans who didn’t provide proof of citizenship, and state legislators reported that the current numbers were even higher: around 36,000, according to State Senator Warren Petersen (R-Gilbert). In 2018, there were 1,700 registered voters without proof of citizenship.

In a statement to AZ Free News, former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould commended Ducey for signing the legislation. He predicted that the law would improve voter turnout: the opposite of what the bill’s opponents claimed it would do. 

“I want to thank Governor Ducey for signing HB2492. This new law, which requires proof of citizenship for state and federal elections, provides a critical protection for election integrity in Arizona,” said Gould. “This important piece of legislation, like all common-sense elections laws, will boost voter confidence and increase voter participation in Arizona.”

The Democratic Party’s Russiagate hoax lawyer, Marc Elias, pledged to sue Arizona over the law. Elias specializes in election litigation; he’s intervened in nearly 330 elections-related cases following the 2020 election, 150 of which he’s won. This week, the Washington Examiner reported that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) fined the DNC $105,000 and Hillary Clinton $8,000 for failing to accurately report how they funded the sole instigator of the Russiagate hoax, the Steele dossier. Clinton and the DNC together paid over $1 million to Elias’ law firm, Perkins Coie, for the opposition research firm that compiled the dossier, Fusion GPS. The DNC and Clinton claimed their combined funds were for legal services, not opposition research. 

Based on Elias’ latest remarks, it looks like he will make good on the promise to sue.

In a letter to Secretary of State Katie Hobbs on Wednesday, Ducey offered a history of Arizonans’ support for proof of citizenship in order to vote. He recounted Proposition 200, a proof of citizenship requirement passed by voters in 2004 but later struck down by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). Ducey also dispelled rumors that those who registered to vote without proof of citizenship prior to this bill’s enactment would have to re-register to vote. 

“Election integrity means counting every lawful vote and prohibiting any attempt to illegally cast a vote,” wrote Ducey. “[This bill] is a balanced approach that honors Arizona’s history of making voting accessible without sacrificing security in our elections.”

In response, Hobbs claimed the legislation was “illegal.” She noted that the law would cause “costly litigation,” potentially alluding to Elias’ threats. Hobbs criticized Ducey’s latest efforts as a failure, a day after her signature-gathering system crashed while Maricopa County Attorney candidates attempted to submit signatures before their deadline in just a few days’ time. Those candidates need over 4,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.