Pro-Life Group Petitions Arizona Supreme Court To Reinstate Abortion Ban

Pro-Life Group Petitions Arizona Supreme Court To Reinstate Abortion Ban

By Corinne Murdock |

The pro-life group Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) has asked the Arizona Supreme Court to reverse a lower court ruling nullifying the state’s total abortion ban. 

The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled in December that, because the state legislature hadn’t attempted to eliminate elective abortions following and in spite of the Roe v. Wade ruling, the state legislature wouldn’t currently support the long-dormant ban. 

CAP submitted their amicus brief in the case Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes on Monday. In the brief, CAP pointed out that the decades-old injunction preventing the enforcement of the state’s abortion ban was contingent on the authority of Roe as law of the land. CAP also noted that most states with abortion bans following the Roe ruling repealed their bans, yet Arizona didn’t over the last 50 years. 

“Recall that the legislature had two choices under Roe: allow the abortion free-for-all that Roe created or seek to limit abortion,” wrote CAP. “Eliminating elective abortion was not an option; Arizona’s law doing precisely that was already enjoined.”

CAP argued that the legislature had expressed legislative intent to protect unborn children at all stages of gestation on multiple occasions. The organization noted that Arizona had also attempted in 2012, unsuccessfully, to prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks gestation. CAP also noted that the state legislature enacted a statute in 2021 to direct all provisions of Arizona law to “be interpreted to acknowledge the equal rights of the unborn.”

CAP pointed to the language of the bill enacted last year allowing abortions to occur up to 15 weeks’ gestation, SB1164.

“[W]ith the potential overturning of Roe on the horizon, the legislature sought to avoid any doubt that it desired § 13-3603 [the abortion ban] to become fully enforceable again,” stated CAP. “Thus, S.B. 1164 went beyond simply saying that it was not repealing any ‘applicable state law regulating or restricting abortion.’ 2022 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 105, § 2 (2d Reg. Sess.). Its statement of non-repeal also referenced one law specifically—§ 13-3603.”

CAP estimated that about 13,000 unborn children were killed through abortion due to the lower court’s ruling, which upheld SB1164.

“Put simply, both the legislature and various abortion supporters believed that if Roe were overturned, § 13-3603 would prohibit physicians from performing elective abortions from conception. If the legislature did not desire that outcome, it would have acted to prevent it,” said CAP. “It did not. To the contrary, the legislature declared its intent to preserve § 13-3603 even after being told that it would prohibit all elective abortions if Roe were overturned. That intent must be given effect.”

In a press release, CAP argued further that the overturning of Roe should’ve restored the state’s dormant abortion ban. CAP said the lower court ruling “wrongly assumed” that post-Roe state lawmakers that passed limitations on abortion in accordance with the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) precedent didn’t intend to protect the pre-Roe ban.

“State lawmakers passed dozens of laws protecting life while Roe forbade them from going further; they kept the pre-Roe law on the books, even as they made other adjustments to the law; they passed a requirement that Arizona laws be interpreted to value all human life, at every stage of development; and they wrote into the latest abortion law a recommitment to protect life by specifically stating that they were not repealing the pre-Roe law by passing a 15-week limitation just months before Roe was overturned,” stated CAP. 

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

Uber Begins Transition To Driverless Cars Through Waymo Partnership In Phoenix

Uber Begins Transition To Driverless Cars Through Waymo Partnership In Phoenix

By Corinne Murdock |

Uber has teamed up with artificial intelligence (AI) ridership service Waymo, indicating a transition away from the use of drivers whose income relies on the ride-hailing service.

On Tuesday, the commuter and delivery service giant announced that this transformational partnership would begin in Phoenix. Both Waymo and Uber were founded in 2009. 

Uber partnered with Waymo last summer for the commercial vehicles making up their freight transport fleet. Waymo’s vehicles are electric.

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi predicted that driverless cars would be the new normal for travel.

“Uber provides access to a global and reliable marketplace across mobility, delivery, and freight,” said Khosrowshahi. “Fully autonomous driving is quickly becoming part of everyday life, and we’re excited to bring Waymo’s incredible technology to the Uber platform.”

Waymo co-CEO Tekedra Mawakana said the partnership would improve travel safety for ride-hailing customers.

We’re excited to offer another way for people to experience the enjoyable and life-saving benefits of full autonomy,” said Mawakana. “Uber has long been a leader in human-operated ridesharing, and the pairing of our pioneering technology and all-electric fleet with their customer network provides Waymo with an opportunity to reach even more people.”

While driverless cars have negated the possibility of human error, they have presented unique issues in terms of road safety. In a viral video last year, a Waymo vehicle stalled in a Chandler intersection, blocked three lanes of traffic, and attempted to escape company handlers. The AI technology driving the car became confused by construction cones closing off access to a turn lane it needed to use. At one point, the car began to back up into oncoming traffic.

The passenger behind the viral video also attested that he’d been stranded on multiple occasions by similar driverless cars.

Unaddressed in either companies’ press releases on their partnership was the profit boost that Uber stands to gain from eliminating its drivers from the equation. The elimination of drivers would recoup the 75 percent of the fare fee afforded to drivers. 

Uber gross bookings totaled $115 billion last year.

Uber and other similar companies, like Lyft, posed a unique challenge to the traditional ride-hailing and delivery services — namely, taxis. Uber upended the taxi industry, allowing individuals to offer their driving services on a flexible basis, with drivers generally supplementing their income rather than working endless hours to barely make ends meet, and giving riders more options for ride type at a cheaper cost. 

Less than a decade after its industry shakeup, it looks like Uber will shake things up again with its embrace of AI over human drivers.

Waymo rolled out its driverless vehicles in downtown Phoenix last August.

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

State Rep. Stahl Hamilton Skips Hearing On Her Bible Swiping, Hiding

State Rep. Stahl Hamilton Skips Hearing On Her Bible Swiping, Hiding

By Corinne Murdock |

State Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton skipped out on the ethics committee hearing concerning her swiping and hiding state capitol Bibles. Stahl Hamilton stands accused of unethical conduct and undignified behavior. 

The House Ethics Committee considered the allegations against Stahl Hamilton in a hearing on Thursday. Chairman Joseph Chaplik (R-LD03) revealed in a statement following the hearing that Stahl Hamilton neglected to provide notice to the committee that she wouldn’t be participating in her own ethics hearing. 

“Today’s hearing was not a trial, but the Committee made every effort to provide Representative Stahl Hamilton the due process to which she is entitled as a member of the House,” stated Chaplik. “Unfortunately, because of her absence, and the limited information that could be provided by the counsel she sent to represent her, committee members and the public were left with a lot of unanswered questions.”

Amid the fallout concerning her actions, Stahl Hamilton deleted her Twitter account. Reports surfaced in April of Stahl Hamilton caught on security footage taking Bibles from the members lounge and hiding them.

Former state lawmakers Diego Rodriguez and Domingo DeGrazia served as attorneys for Stahl Hamilton during Thursday’s hearing. Rodriguez insisted that, for full context’s sake, the committee be shown the many hours of footage surrounding the incident. The committee rejected that request.

Rodriguez defended Stahl Hamilton’s actions as a valid advocacy for the separation of church and state, as well as a “prank” on fellow members. However, when pressed, neither Rodriguez or DeGrazia could elaborate how the presence of Bibles at the state capitol constituted a violation of the separation of church and state. 

“Her intent was the peaceful protest of what she perceived to be for the separation of church and state,” stated Rodriguez. “What today boils down to is that certain folks are just not comfortable with the way certain things happened. And subsequent to that, they’re not comfortable with the way certain things were explained. And unfortunately that’s just part of life.”

State Rep. Travis Grantham (R-LD13), vice chair of the committee and speaker pro tempore, read aloud Stahl Hamilton’s written response to the ethics committee investigation. In her letter, Stahl Hamilton acknowledged that she should have engaged in a discussion about the separation of church and state rather than engaging in the behavior she had. 

“I find it a little disingenuous to reference church and state. You’re talking about the separation of church and state, which says no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religious document or religion against one’s will, in that religious liberty encompasses all religions. How is a Bible sitting on a table somehow a violation of church and state?” asked Grantham. “Did Mrs. Stahl Hamilton feel like she was being coerced to follow a certain religion?”

Neither Rodriguez or DeGrazia had an answer for Grantham. The vice chair also asked whether the state motto, “God enriches,” would be considered a violation of the separation of church and state. Rodriguez and DeGrazia smiled but didn’t answer directly.

“It’s not seemingly normal behavior, and there doesn’t seem to be a real good answer with regards to what was written here,” said Grantham.

The 2005 case Van Orden v. Perry dispelled the argument that Christian text on government property violates the separation between church and state. In the case, a citizen claimed that the Texas State Capitol grounds couldn’t contain a monument bearing the Bible’s Ten Commandments. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 5-4 decision.

State Rep. Gail Griffin (R-LD19) said she didn’t view Stahl Hamilton’s actions as a joke. 

“I don’t understand why she’s so angry about a Holy Book that many of us feel very close [to] and rule our lives by,” said Griffin. 

State Rep. Justin Heap (R-LD10) was one of the members who filed the complaint. Heap testified on Thursday, saying he became aware of Stahl Hamilton’s Bible swiping after it was reported on at the national level. 

“What was particularly disturbing to me was not simply that these Bibles were removed, but the photos of where these Bibles were placed: both in a refrigerator and under the cushions of chairs of where I and other members and lobbyists sit,” said Heap. “Now I have to deal with the question of, if at some point while these Bibles were missing, was I sitting on my own sacred text? I don’t appreciate that to have happened. I feel that’s inappropriate for any member to do that to other members, it’s a desecration to their scripture and a disrespect to their beliefs.”

Rodriguez asserted that Heap didn’t personally observe the Bibles in any of the places where they were discovered.

State Rep. Jennifer Longdon (D-LD05) questioned whether Stahl Hamilton should be exonerated since she apologized following discovery of her actions. Heap responded that Stahl Hamilton’s apology didn’t absolve her of wrongdoing. 

“The apology came only after her actions had been known; she was informed that this had been caught on video and that this became an issue of national concern. That does put a shadow over the sincerity of her apology,” said Heap. “That question is irrelevant to the question of whether her behavior was appropriate.”

Grantham pointed out that Stahl Hamilton’s apology wasn’t for the act of swiping and hiding the Bibles, but rather for the fact that some members felt offended by her actions.

“To my recollection, and correct me if I’m wrong: she didn’t apologize for the action. She apologized for the offense of anyone who thought that that action was inappropriate,” said Grantham. “I never remembered an actual apology for the action.” 

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

Tucson City Council To Increase Water Rates To Incentivize Water Conservation

Tucson City Council To Increase Water Rates To Incentivize Water Conservation

By Corinne Murdock |

The Tucson City Council began the process for increasing residents’ water rates in order to incentivize greater water conservation. The council motioned in a study session on Tuesday to increase rates by reclassifying winter months, which have lower rates, into summer months. 

A customer’s water usage over the winter months determines the Average Winter Consumption (AWC), which is charged at a year-round base rate; in the summer months, water usage between 101 to 145 percent of AWC is billed at a higher rate, and over 145 percent at an even higher rate.

The rate increase comes at the behest of the water efficiency and conservation program goals outlined in the city’s Natural Environment Plan. On Tuesday, the city approved Options 1A and 1B to restructure water rates. Those options direct city staff to proceed with the rate adoption process, commence a notice of public intent with a 60-day public outreach and communication hearing prior to a public hearing and rate adoption.

Councilman Kevin Dahl said the water crisis defined by PFAs in the water supply and the Colorado Water River drought necessitated the restructuring of rates. Dahl also claimed that the rate restructure would create equitable change, noting that wealthier entities like homeowners associations and golf courses pay lower water rates while larger families and garden owners pay more. 

Rather than allow the traditional policy process, which would take four or five months per proposed change, Dahl moved to expedite both options together rather than separately. The council adopted his motion. 

“We need to have a quick start on this,” said Dahl.

The 1A option changes winter months from the current definition of six months to three months. The 1B option then adds on another tier, greater than 145 percent, to the block structure. City staff explained that 1A allows the commercial and industrial class to get used to the three-month winter quarter average for several years, then follow up to determine conservation effectiveness. 

Councilman Paul Cunningham said that he appreciated the notice of public intent and hearing, sharing that it alleviated his concerns that residents would experience “sticker shock” over the hike in water rates.

“This is the direction we’re going. We might as well be transparent about it,” said Cunningham.

Cunningham voiced concern over the possibility of specialized rates for different businesses. He also brought up a desire to establish conservation-compliant water parks in the city, noting that they lose residents in the summer to the water parks housed in surrounding cities and states. 

“Water, like it or not, is becoming a commodity and is becoming a quantifiable and limited resource,” said Cunningham. 

Mayor Regina Romero called the city’s water situation “bleak.” Vice Mayor Steve Kozachik concurred. 

“Our goal is to send a strong conservation signal,” said Kozachik. 

Tucson hasn’t been the only city to hike its water rates for conservation’s sake. The city of Phoenix proposed increasing water rates over the next year by a minimum of 25 percent.

Watch the city council discussion of the water rates here:

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