On Monday, the U.S. District Court for Arizona held a hearing to determine whether senior nursing students Emily Thoms and Kamaleilani Moreno will be granted an injunction for Maricopa County Community College District’s (MCCCD) vaccine mandate for participation in clinical rotations, necessary for the two to complete their programs.
As AZ Free News reported, Thoms and Moreno have just one week before MCCCD’s vaccination deadline and the start of clinical rotations. Thoms and Moreno are seeking an affirmative injunction against the vaccine mandate; the district court expedited the case due to the timing of the deadline and clinical rotations.
Thoms and Moreno filed their complaint after MCCCD denied their religious exemption requests. The district claimed that offering exemptions would jeopardize their partnership agreements with certain health care providers and place an undue hardship on the district. These claims were rejected by Thoms and Morenos’ lawyer repeatedly in court Monday, citing several health care providers that didn’t require COVID-19 vaccination.
Thoms and Moreno’s religious objections concerned how aborted fetal cell lines were used in the development and testing of the COVID-19 vaccine. Those are lab-grown cells based on the cells derived from aborted fetal remains obtained in the 1970s and 1980s.
Christians believe that God creates a new life at conception, and will cite concepts such as “one flesh” in Genesis 2, God’s formation of man in the womb in Psalm 139, and the recognition of Jesus as alive shortly after he was conceived in Luke 1.
During Monday’s hearing, MCCCD had five lawyers while Thoms and Moreno had only one, Colleen Auer. U.S. District Judge Steven Paul Logan presided over the case – he was appointed by previous President Barack Obama in 2014.
From the get-go, it appeared that Logan was skeptical of MCCCD’s position. Near the beginning of the hearing, Logan asked the defense to clarify if they were forcing students to get a vaccine that wouldn’t protect them or their patients from COVID-19. The judge’s question likely relates to the developing studies on breakthrough infections among the vaccinated – some recent studies show as little as 1 in 5,000 vaccinated individuals experience breakthrough cases, while others show as high as 1 in 100.
The crux of Thoms and Moreno’s argument was that MCCCD’s mandate effectively would require them to either act against their religious beliefs or sacrifice all of their investments and, effectively, careers.
MCCCD claimed that Thoms and Moreno wouldn’t be given failing grades for not complying. Rather, they would receive an “incomplete” grade and would need to resume the unfulfilled portion of their studies later. MCCCD didn’t add that Thoms and Moreno may never be able to complete their studies without the vaccination.
Auer bucked MCCCD’s statements. She claimed that MCCCD either gave Thoms and Moreno no information or misinformation. She emphasized that these nursing programs are difficult to be accepted into, with long wait lists.
“The realities are that it took them very long times to get into these programs,” stated Auer.“ It’s not possible or guaranteed as [MCCCD] claimed that they will ever be able to finish these clinicals in the [near future.]”
MCCCD’s attorneys argued that Thoms and Moreno didn’t qualify for an immediate affirmative injunction because they wouldn’t suffer irreparable injuries. They also claimed that an incomplete grade would only be a “delay by a matter of months,” which wouldn’t have a lasting negative impact on the students. “Plaintiffs will not suffer irreparable injury. They’re not being compelled to take the vaccine, they’re not being given failed grades,” said defense. “What we’re talking about is a slight delay in completing their course work.”
MCCCD’s lawyers also claimed that Thoms and Moreno’s religious freedom arguments were unrelated to MCCCD’s refusal to grant either an exemption. They said it was a neutral policy that applied to all nursing students, made on the basis of a rational basis review via a legitimate government-based purpose. If MCCCD did accommodate Thoms and Moreno, the lawyers argued that such an exemption would cause financial and administrative burdens, as well as cause potential contractual harm.
Auer rejected the characterization of MCCCD’s vaccine mandates as a neutral policy.
“The fact is, this is not a neutral policy. It selects certain folks to get the religious advantage based on the luck of their clinical assignment,” stated Auer. “They were put to the choice: if you want to continue your program and complete it as you contracted for, […] you must sacrifice your religious beliefs or you won’t get that, period. They’re pulling services for which these people paid, for which they’re entitled, with no certainty of what the district says.”
Additionally, MCCCD indicated that there was a public health interest to require vaccinations. Auer questioned which was the greater public health interest – a few vaccinated nurses but a workforce shortage, or plenty of nurses.
“The public is going to lose out on graduating nurses right here right now at a time where they need those nurses,” said Auer. “There’s a shortage of nurses here and across the country. It doesn’t matter if they’re vaccinated or if they’re not – they need them in the COVID-19 wards.”
Judge Logan stated that he would take the briefing under advisement. The order will be issued Thursday by 5 pm.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Invest in Arizona – a referendum to reverse the tax cuts passed recently by the Arizona legislature that would negate Prop 208 – reported several million in out-of-state funds in their latest campaign finance report. The National Education Association (NEA) donated over $2.4 million, $30,000 of which Invest in Arizona refunded.
The second-largest source of funds, nearly $2.4 million, came from Stand for Children Arizona, the local chapter of the national education advocacy group, Stand for Children. Stand for Children’s Arizona chapter hasn’t always donated to Invest in Arizona. Up until last July, their national organization headquartered in Portland, Oregon was responsible for those million-dollar donations.
Together, the NEA and Stand for Children Arizona comprised the vast majority of Invest in Arizona’s funds. Individual contributions amounted to just over $16,600, while total funds were reported to be over $4.7 million.
AZ Free News inquired with Stand for Children Arizona about these recent donation patterns: specifically, whether these donations were furnished from their national organization to their local chapter. This was their response:
“Thank you for reaching out! Stand for Children Arizona has a long history supporting families in AZ,” stated Stand for Children Arizona spokesperson Carlos Alfaro. “Our support of Invest in AZ is one piece of that, as indicated by the donation of our 501c4 organization Stand for Children, Inc.”
A majority of the over-$4 million that Invest in Arizona raised went toward operating expenses – signature gathering to submit their two referendums. The top recipients, in order, were: Fieldworks LLC with nearly $4 million alone, Save Our Schools Arizona with $115,000, Arizona Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander for Equity (AZ AANHPI For Equity) Coalition with $10,000, Fieldcorps LLC with $75,500, La Machine with $65,000, and Valley Interfaith Project with $29,000.
Invest in Arizona also spent $48,000 in polling from Lake Research, $5,000 for campaign consultancy from Strategies 360, and gave Valley Interfaith Project an additional $49,000 for text messaging outreach, field organizers and coordinators, outreach captains, and travel expenses.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) accepted Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s petition to defend previous President Donald Trump’s updates to a rule limiting green cards and citizenship to those who haven’t and won’t become dependent on welfare programs. Brnovich announced this update in a press release Friday.
“When other federal officials won’t defend the law, I will,” asserted Brnovich. “The Public Charge Rule is a commonsense policy based on a real inconvenient truth. Overrunning our welfare programs right now would be like pulling back the last safety net for Americans who need it most.”
Congress first enacted the “Public Charge Rule” in 1882: a concept that officials could deny immigrants entrance, visas, and even citizenship if officials deemed they were likely to become a “public charge.” The definition of “public charge” varied over the years. In 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defined “public charge” as illegal immigrants who received one year’s worth of welfare benefits in the aggregate within a three-year period. Under that definition, two benefits received in one month counted as two months.
According to the latest available data analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies, about 55 percent of noncitizens relied on welfare in 2018. Noncitizens in their study included both green card holders and illegal immigrants. While the law does prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving welfare benefits, noncitizens may receive benefits on behalf of any children they have born in the U.S.
In April, SCOTUS rejected a previous petition from 14 states attempting to revive Trump-era litigation that the Biden Administration halted. Texas led the charge on that petition. The states claimed that dropping the Trump rule would force them to provide millions of dollars of government benefits to illegal immigrants.
SCOTUS determined that states would have to work through lower courts before they’d take up the case, if at all.
Their recent acceptance means that Arizona and 12 other states – Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia – may be eligible to defend the rule even though the Biden Administration has decided against doing so.
SCOTUS will not be deciding on the legality of the rule, and oral arguments haven’t been scheduled.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Chandler Unified School District (CUSD) became the latest to join the trend of school boards and state associations leaving the National School Boards Association (NSBA). The CUSD Governing Board voted on Wednesday to cease their annual payment for “National Connection Fees” under the federation, which amounted to $8,620 for this upcoming year.
Only one board member, Lindsay Love, voted against leaving; board member Lara Bruner abstained from voting. The vote against paying the membership fees earned applause from the public in attendance.
NSBA’s national connection fees come with certain perks like advanced and discounted registration for their annual conference, additional leadership and legal resources, insider knowledge on federal policies and developments, national networks, and the latest news.
The advanced and discounted registration to NSBA’s annual conference is the biggest perk. Attendees have access to the premiere vendors and thought leaders in education. Their upcoming conference next April will be held in San Diego, California.
Board member Jason Olive said that he wasn’t aware of any board members attending the annual conference in recent years. Board President Barb Mozdzen confirmed that nobody to her knowledge had gone to the annual conference in four or five years.
Bruner claimed that being part of NSBA was required to maintain policy revisions from Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA). Mozdzen clarified that NSBA membership wasn’t required to get ASBA policies. Superintendent Franklin Narducci added that ASBA reviews state-legislated policies, but NSBA doesn’t.
“It’s my understanding you can be in one without the other, and that they aren’t mutually inclusive of each other,” said Narducci.
Love questioned why they were leaving the NSBA at all. Olive’s reply prompted laughter.
“Uh – so we don’t have to give them any money,” responded Olive.
At that point, Love cited her involvement with NSBA’s National Black Council (NBC). She insinuated that CUSD wouldn’t have representation in the NSBA if they rescinded their membership.
“So essentially [we] as Chandler have direct access to [NSBA] and we impact national policies just by being at the table,” argued Love.
Love’s remarks were met with stretches of silence from her fellow board members.
Bruner voiced her concern again that their withdrawal from NSBA would jeopardize their membership within ASBA. Mozdzen said that the membership fees weren’t due until January, indicating the council had time to revisit the topic until then.
The NSBA has received negative attention nationwide after sending a letter to President Joe Biden last month, asking him to invoke the PATRIOT Act to investigate parents and community members for potential “domestic terrorism.” Less than a week later, the Biden Administration obliged. Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo directing the FBI to investigate those concerns.
Shortly after the letter’s publication, open records requests revealed that the White House collaborated with the NSBA in their drafting of the letter. A day after the report on these records, the NSBA submitted an apology letter to its membership. Unlike their initial letter to Biden, however, the NSBA didn’t publicize this apology letter.
Flagstaff City Council indicated in a work session Wednesday that it will work on modifying its High Occupancy Housing (HOH) Plan. The plan caused pushback resulting in over $50 million in claims through the Arizona Private Property Rights Protection Act (Prop 207).
The council voted last week to waive the HOH policy application for those claimants. According to The Goldwater Institute – the think tank that assisted many claimants in submitting their demand letters – the city can anticipate even more claims.
A majority of the council’s discussion centered on the origins story, purposes, and strategies of the HOH Plan. At the end of a presentation from city staffers responsible for drafting and implementing the plan, the council was presented with the option of maintaining the plan, modifying certain aspects of it, or scrapping it entirely.
A majority of the council indicated that it would go back to the drawing board with a focus on the plan’s effects on environmental sustainability and housing.
Council members Adam Shimoni, Becky Daggett, Jim McCarthy, Regina Salas, and Austin Aslan indicated that repealing the HOH Plan wasn’t an option.
“We cannot allow the boogeyman of off-campus student housing to be the enemy of appropriate and healthy city development, especially so near the heart of the city,” asserted Aslan.
McCarthy added that the community needed more housing for families, and less apartments.
Only council member Miranda Sweet said she was in favor of repealing the plan entirely.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
