A federal court ruled that abortionists can challenge the state’s ban on discriminatory abortions.
The Ninth Circuit Court ruled on Monday in Isaacson v. Mayes that abortionists may petition for an injunction against state law prohibiting abortions based on fetal genetic abnormality, dubbed the “Reason Regulations.” Judges Ronald Gould, Andrew Hurwitz, and Roopali Desai agreed in their ruling with the abortionists’ claim that they endured economic harm. The abortionists blamed the abortion ban’s vagueness for moving them to conduct less abortions out of caution.
Specifically, the abortionists claimed that the discriminatory abortion ban violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: the threat of prison jeopardized their liberty interest, and the threats of license revocation, monetary damages, and revenue loss jeopardized their property interest. The circuit court dismissed the state’s claim of interest in regulating medical practice.
“That their services include abortion does not alter the fact that Plaintiffs make money providing these services and have lost money because the Reason Regulations restrict what services they can provide,” stated the ruling.
During the trial, the abortionists revealed that patients with likely or confirmed fetal abnormalities made up a significant part of their business.
The “Reason Regulations” made it a felony to either knowingly solicit or accept money to finance an abortion, or to perform an abortion, based on a fetal genetic abnormality.
The abortionists claimed that their overcompliance with the statute was due to the vagueness of the term “genetic abnormality,” and the statute’s lack of details on determining how much that factor had to play into a patient’s decision to get an abortion as well as the level of knowledge an abortionist would have to have in order to be guilty of violating the ban.
Monday’s ruling reversed an Arizona District Court order issued in February allowing the ban to go into effect. The district court rejected the abortionists’ request for a preliminary injunction, since the Supreme Court had just ruled that no constitutional right to abortion existed in its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health ruling last year overturning Roe v. Wade.
The federal court remanded the case back to the district court for it to decide, once more, whether the state ban on discriminatory abortion may go into effect.
A similar ongoing case may nullify the results of Isaacson v. Mayes. In Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes, the Arizona Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in December to determine whether the state’s preemptive, pre-statehood, total abortion ban remains enforceable due to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The state’s total abortion ban was suspended following the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that created a constitutional right to abortion. Last year — prior to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health — the state passed its 15-week abortion ban.
Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes would decide which of the two laws has authority in the state.
The state never repealed its total abortion ban. The 15-week ban didn’t preclude the enforcement of any other preceding abortion laws.
Last week, Planned Parenthood Arizona (PPAZ) filed a motion to recuse Arizona Supreme Court Judge William Montgomery for his personal beliefs opposing PPAZ.
"[We] believe that all litigants in Arizona are entitled to have their cases heard by judges who are not biased against them, and that includes [us]…" Read more: https://t.co/e0nu7RxSst
— Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. (@PPArizona) October 26, 2023
Earlier this month, Gov. Katie Hobbs filed an amicus brief to oppose the total abortion ban.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The city of Flagstaff may face a lawsuit over its forthcoming decision to ban a firearms advertisement.
In a press release issued earlier this week, the Goldwater Institute said that the city’s ban, if approved, would constitute an illegal violation of free speech.
“When a city operates a public facility, it cannot use that authority to censor messages or viewpoints it disagrees with,” said the Goldwater Institute. “But that’s just what the city of Flagstaff is doing: abusing its power to push an anti-gun agenda.”
The Phoenix-based public policy organization reached out to the city to request they reject the ban on behalf of a business owner who, it appears, prompted the ban: Rob Wilson, owner of the indoor gun range Timberline Firearms and Training.
“By denying Mr. Wilson’s request to advertise based on an unreasonable and pretextual application of the advertising policy, the City has violated Mr. Wilson’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech and due process of law,” stated the letter. “Moreover, the new policy currently under consideration is unconstitutional, both as applied to Mr. Wilson (as it expressly targets his expression) and on its face (as it bans broad, poorly-defined categories of speech and discriminates based on content and viewpoint).”
Wilson had run his gun range business ads without issue at the Flagstaff Pulliam Airport since 2019. It wasn’t until April that the city denied his ad. City officials claimed that Wilson’s advertisement conflicted with their advertising guidelines by representing “violence or antisocial behavior.” Wilson’s contested ad video is below.
The city refused Wilson’s attempt at an appeal. Afterwards, the city developed a new policy specifically prohibiting the inclusion of firearms in advertisements.
Heidi Hansen, director of Economic Vitality, was responsible for the policy changes. Hansen explained during a council meeting last month that the rejection of the Timber Firearms and Training ad was due to the video depicting a firearms instructor “firing rapidly” at a “silhouette of a person.” The figure in question was likely the B-27 silhouette paper target, a common tool for shooting ranges, especially for law enforcement training.
“It was firing quite rapidly at a silhouette of a person and we felt like that might make someone uncomfortable,” said Hansen.
Wilson, a Navy veteran, said that his city leadership went against the Constitution he fought to defend for decades.
“Denying my right to advertise is simply wrong,” said Wilson. “After serving 22 years on active duty to defend the Constitution, I’m not about to sacrifice my rights.”
Lawmakers warned the city last month, ahead of a city council discussion of the ban, that it would be both unconstitutional and unlawful.
During discussion of the policy, city officials said they felt that the advertisement video was unwelcoming and discomforting. Councilmember Miranda Sweet said that Timber Firearms and Training might have to compromise on the issue.
“I was very uncomfortable when I watched [the ad video],” said Sweet. “We’re trying to welcome people into the community when they come into the airport, and the video didn’t portray that.”
Although the Goldwater Institute stated in its letter that the Flagstaff City Council may consider the firearms advertisement ban during its Nov. 7 regular meeting, a city spokesperson informedAP News that an “updated version” of the policy would be included in the Nov. 14 council meeting.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The secretary of state’s office lacks the processes in place to remove about 78,000 potential noncitizens and nonresidents from its voter rolls.
In its last two quarterly reports issued to the state legislature in May and August, respectively, the department reported that it had received reports of but not acted on over 78,200 potentially invalid voters. The secretary of state’s office didn’t respond to our inquiry as to whether they have since put in place any processes to remove those potentially invalid voters from the voter rolls.
Through the beginning of August, the secretary of state received reports of over 53,200 persons reported to have been issued a driver’s license or equivalent of an Arizona nonoperating ID license in another state; over 1,300 persons who admitted to not being a citizen on a jury questionnaire; and over 23,600 persons who admitted to not being a resident of a county on a jury questionnaire. In those cases, the secretary of state’s office disclosed that a process for sending notices, placing voter registrations on inactive status, or canceling voter registrations was “in development.”
These reports were included as exhibits in a Monday filing by Attorney General Kris Mayes in the case Mi Familia Vota v. Adrian Fontes, a case seeking to nullify state election integrity laws requiring stricter standards for voter proof of citizenship and voter roll cleanups.
These reports were previously believed to have not been submitted to the legislature, per previous reporters’ accounts of an inability to obtain the records. According to the exhibits, the two reports were submitted to Sen. President Warren Petersen (R-AZ-14) and House Speaker Ben Toma (R-AZ-27).
Last month, the Democratic Party-backed activist groups secured a partial win in a ruling from Arizona District Court Judge Susan Bolton. The judge determined that the proof of citizenship requirement set forth by the two laws in question, HB 2492 and HB 2243, posed too great a burden on voters.
Several questions remain before the Arizona District Court in the case.
One concerns whether HB 2492’s requirement that voters provide their place of birth, referred to as the birthplace requirement, violates 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B), referred to as the materiality provision.
“No person acting under color of law shall – deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election,” states the federal statute.
Last week, the Biden administration issued a brief declaring that birthplace wasn’t material to determining voter eligibility. Kristen Clarke, Civil Rights Division assistant attorney general, and Gary Restaino, Arizona District attorney, argued that certain individuals born in the U.S. can be noncitizens such as those with diplomat parents, those who later renounce their citizenship, and those born outside the country to U.S. citizen parents.
Another question concerns whether the voter list maintenance programs set forth by HB 2492 and HB 2243 violate 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(A), referred to as the discrimination provision, or violate the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
“No person acting under color of law shall – in determining whether any individual is qualified under State law or laws to vote in any election, apply any standard, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar political subdivision who have been found by State officials to be qualified to vote,” states the federal statute.
Another concerns whether the NVRA requirement that states accept and use the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) federal voter registration form preempts HB 2243’s voter list maintenance program.
The case is scheduled to go to trial on Nov. 6.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Concerning Israel and Palestine, President Joe Biden called for a two-state solution on Wednesday: an independent state for Palestine alongside Israel. With the focus of U.S. efforts apparently pivoting greatly toward that conflict, the U.S. issued an additional $150 million of arms and equipment to Ukraine on Thursday.
Earlier this month, Biggs said on The Todd Starnes Show that Biden ought to be impeached for giving $100 million in relief aid to Gaza, which is under Hamas control, even though Hamas was still holding Americans hostage.
“We’re going to have to borrow that money [and] give it to, basically, a conduit, a pipeline to Hamas,” said Biggs. “He’s adding to our national debt, our structural deficit, and giving it, basically, to Hamas.”
At the start of the year, Biggs said that American interference in Ukraine increased the potential of a world war.
Sending 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine brings us closer to a major world war and puts American soldiers in harm's way.
You can bet we'll be sending American troops to Ukraine to operate these tanks.
Biggs’ speculation aligns with the size and readiness of the federal government. This year’s National Defense Authorization Act marked the most expensive one passed since World War II, as Biggs noted.
This year's NDAA is the most expensive since World War II.
The Department of Defense is recklessly spending taxpayer dollars on assets it can't track.
Biggs isn’t the only one who has raised concerns about the potential for another World War as of late.
Elon Musk speculated on Monday that the two military conflicts had the potential for initiating a third world war. Musk said that the Biden administration needed to begin deescalation efforts in both conflicts.
“World War III is a civilizational risk that we may not recover from,” said Musk.
A Mesa High School teacher was placed on leave following an allegation that he dressed up as the devil and chanted “Hail Satan” over his students on Wednesday.
Math teacher Jesse Ruiz, donned in a red shirt and devil horns, allegedly held a pitchfork over his students’ heads and said “Hail Satan.” One student who reportedly took offense to the behavior asked for Ruiz to stop, but Ruiz reportedly refused.
That student’s father, Chris Hamlet — a former Mesa School Board candidate — posted a picture of the incident on X (formerly Twitter).
In a complaint filed with MPS, Hamlet said that Ruiz held the pitchfork over his son’s head and repeated “Hail Satan” even after his son pushed away the pitchfork and asked for the behavior to stop. Hamlet further claimed that Ruiz also “pointed the pitchfork” in his son’s face.
Hamlet also reported that his son also previously endured “an inappropriate conversation” with Ruiz in which the teacher accused his son of homophobia.
“My CHRISTIAN son told [Ruiz] several times not to do that to him and even attempted to push the pitchfork away from his head, but this teacher continued on and did it anyways,” said Hamlet. “This teacher also had an inappropriate conversation with my son and another student a few weeks back and called my son homophobic, because this teacher, is in fact, a homosexual.”
HAIL SATAN IN MESA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? Mesa Public Schools is hypersexualizing, indoctrinating, and grooming our children at every turn!!
Just a few short hours ago, one of the 10th grade geometry teachers at Mesa High School wore horns and a pitchfork to school… pic.twitter.com/ICYedNLprD
AZ Free News reached out to Mesa Public Schools (MPS) about the matter. A spokesperson informed us that MPS Human Resources began an investigation on Thursday morning after receiving notification of the incident on Wednesday evening. They also informed us that Ruiz was placed on paid administrative leave pending the result of their investigation.
We also reached out to Ruiz for comment on the matter. He didn’t respond by press time.
Ruiz was honored last year as a Pay Tribute to a Teacher winner for KTAR News, earning a $2,500 prize for his creativity in facilitating student learning at his former MPS school, Skyline High School.
“[S]preading the word of physics and math, you know, I know it’s not everyone’s favorite subject, but I love it so much,” said Ruiz. “I think my bubbly personality kind of helps with that.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
