Two GOP lawmakers will defend the state’s ban on abortions due to fetal genetic abnormalities, since Attorney General Kris Mayes refuses.
House Speaker Ben Toma (R-LD27) and Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) were granted permission to defend the law by U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Rayes last Thursday. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Scottsdale-based Christian legal advocacy group, is representing Toma and Petersen in the case, Isaacson v. Mayes.
Rayes determined that Toma and Petersen were qualified to intervene because they had significant protectable interest in the case. The pair requested to intervene in February, following Mayes informing the court that she no longer wished to represent the state in this case. Mayes told multiple news outlets just days into her administration that she wouldn’t defend or uphold the state’s existing abortion laws.
“Arizona has made a policy decision to vest in its legislative leaders an interest in defending the constitutionality of the legislature’s enactments,” stated Rayes. “If [Toma and Petersen] are not permitted to intervene, the challenged laws will go undefended, which ‘risk[s] turning a deaf ear to the voices the State has deemed crucial to understanding the full range of its interests.’”
Throughout her campaign and in her first few months as attorney general, Mayes characterized the contested abortion ban as “unconstitutional” and in violation of Arizona’s privacy clause, promised to not prosecute abortionists in violation of law, and vowed to use her authority to prevent county attorneys from enforcing abortion restrictions and bans.
“Intervention is even more appropriate here, where the Attorney General’s interests are directly contrary to those of the proposed intervenor,” stated ADF’s petition.
As AZ Free News reported last week, Mayes revealed that her office has even been encouraging pharmacies to give out abortion pills.
A.R.S. § 12-1841 allows legislative leaders to intervene in cases challenging the constitutionality of state statutes. Last year, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) upheld the legality of state laws like Arizona’s.
Abortionists Paul Isaacson and Eric Ruess; the National Council of Jewish Women, Arizona section; Arizona National Organization for Women; and Arizona Medical Association sued the state over the abortion ban in August 2021. The ban, codified through SB1457, prevents a woman from terminating her pregnancy due to the presence of any fetal genetic abnormalities, like Down Syndrome.
SB1457 argued that the state had three compelling interests in outlawing selective abortions: protecting the disability community from discriminatory abortions; protecting citizens from coercive medical practices encouraging selective abortions based on genetic abnormalities; and protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession by preventing doctors from becoming witting participants in genetic-abnormality-selective abortion.
Last July, the court ruled that the law’s recognition of the personhood of unborn children was unconstitutionally vague and in conflict with other state laws.
The state legislature is working on passing additional abortion regulations and restrictions. SB1600 from State Sen. Janae Shamp (R-LD29) provides protections to infants born alive from a botched abortion. According to the Arizona Department of Health’s (AZDHS) latest data, at least nine babies were born alive following a botched abortion procedure in 2021. The Senate passed Shamp’s bill along party lines last month.
SB1146 from State Sen. Jake Hoffman (R-LD15) would require the State Board of Investment to identify companies that donate to or invest in organizations that promote, facilitate, or advocate for abortions for minors or for the inclusion of or referral of K-12 students to sexually explicit material. The Senate passed the bill earlier this month, also along party lines.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Parents can now call a hotline to report inappropriate lessons at their schools, under a new initiative launched by the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) on Tuesday.
Superintendent Tom Horne discussed the hotline during a Wednesday interview on “The Mike Broomhead Show.” The superintendent said that teachers suspected of abusing their position may face disciplinary conduct and proposed that violations impact a school’s letter grade per the state’s A-F Accountability System.
“Teachers should be teaching the academic standards to their students and not abusing a captive audience by pushing their own ideology,” said Horne. “If they know that their kids have been taught those things, we want them to let us know so we can investigate it and try to do something about it.”
In a press release, ADE clarified that inappropriate public school lessons included those that focus on race or ethnicity, rather than individuals and merit; promoting gender ideology; social-emotional learning (SEL); or inappropriate sexual content. The department linked to our report documenting the over 200 educators who signed onto a statement proclaiming that they would teach outlawed materials like Critical Race Theory (CRT) – even if banned.
Anti-school choice activists and critics of Horne encouraged parents to flood the hotline, dubbed the “Empower Hotline.” Save Our Schools Arizona issued a call to action to drown out real reports from parents seeking help.
“[Please] report how amazing it is that teachers are doing so much for our kids despite the lack of resources provided to them,” stated SOSAZ.
The AZ Department of Education released a new Empowering Parents hotline today. Please join us in calling 602-771-3500 to report how amazing it is that teachers are doing so much for our kids despite the lack of resources provided to them. pic.twitter.com/ozuX12TBgU
The Empower Hotline rollout included a link to a page on the ADE site explaining Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Social-Emotional Learning (SEL).
ADE claimed that CRT is being taught in many public schools, and rejected the claim that it’s a college-level curriculum. ADE published a list of key words and phrases associated with CRT: oppressors or oppressed, whiteness, white privilege, white supremacy, white complicity, white equilibrium, and white fragility.
“The claim that CRT or its principles and elements is not part of any school curriculum in Arizona is false. It is being taught to children,” stated the ADE.
ADE also characterized SEL as a gateway for CRT. The department also claimed that SEL took away precious instructional time by focusing on emotions and feelings.
“Student test scores have been declining since before the pandemic, and resources – especially the non-renewable resource of time – need to be spent to fully educate students in core subjects,” stated ADE. “Teachers are professionals. They know their students and are already trained to be alert for signs of emotional and behavioral problems. This doesn’t require a full-blown curriculum that detracts from teaching academics.”
Horne warned in a statement that CRT can be taught under different titles, such as “power diversity” or “deep equity.”
Arizona Education Association (AEA) President Marisol Garcia called the hotline a “recipe for disaster.”
“Inviting the harassment of educators, without due process at their local level, with the ability of these ‘accusations’ to be FOIA’d?” asked Garcia.
On the @azedschools website, front and center! Let’s be CRYSTAL CLEAR, this is a recipe for disaster. Inviting the harassment of educators, without due process at their local level, with the ability of these ‘accusations’ to be FOIA’d? As if nothing bad is going to happen here? pic.twitter.com/lvc9unSkYH
On Tuesday, the Arizona Senate passed a bill requiring voting locations to tabulate early ballots on site.
The bill, SB1105, passed 16-14 along party lines. The bill initially failed in the Senate, but received a second chance on reconsideration. However, the legislation wouldn’t apply to counties that tabulate Election Day ballots at a central location, and those that don’t otherwise tabulate Election Day ballots on-site at a polling location or voting center.
SB1105 from State Sen. Frank Carroll (R-LD28) modifies law to require rather than merely allow county officers in charge of elections to tabulate a voter’s early ballot on site on election day.
Officials who voiced opposition for the bill included Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cazares-Kelly, Mohave County Supervisor Jean Bishop, Mohave County Assessor Jeanne Kentch, and County Supervisors Association of Arizona Legislative Director Robin Hillyard.
During the Senate Elections Committee hearing on the bill in January, Senate Majority Leader Sonny Borrelli (R-LD30) called the legislation a “great, great bill” that “helps with accuracy.” Senate Assistant Minority Leader Juan Mendez (D-LD08) questioned what was more important: accuracy or speed. Borrelli responded that voting was a privilege worth waiting in line for, comparing voting lines to those lines people endure for things like movies and Disneyland.
“You can wait to stand in line, but you can’t wait for the election results to come out when they’re just going to come out?” asked Mendez.
“I’ve always advocated for accuracy, not speed,” said Borrelli.
Jen Marson, Arizona Association of Counties, said that her organization opposes the bill, calling it “unimplementable.” Marson relayed that only half of the counties in the state tabulate ballots on site. She questioned whether the bill would require all counties to tabulate on site.
The committee hearing preceded the amended version of the bill that passed the Senate on Tuesday, which included the exemption for counties that tabulate Election Day ballots at a central location.
Marson further warned that two separate polling places would have to be run within each location: one side for early ballot turn-ins, and one for on-site tabulation. She projected that not all locations would have enough space to run this size of operations. With that, Marson noted that counties would be required to have two separate boards, staff, and equipment to oversee these separate polling place operations.
In addition, Marson noted that it was difficult to find voting locations that are big enough and are ADA compliant. State Sen. John Kavanagh (R-LD03) pointed out that schools and churches are big enough and are ADA compliant, but Marson disclosed that counties are often told “no” by schools.
Marson questioned whether everyone would be required to stand in line rather than drop off an early ballot, and noted that there would need to be different tabulators for early ballots versus in-person, day-of ballots.
Democrats in the committee called the bill “problematic” and a “logistical mess.”
State Sen. Anna Hernandez (D-LD24) claimed that the bill would disenfranchise voters by requiring them to take the time to have their early ballot tabulated on site. Mendez concurred with Hernandez’s remarks, adding that it would make it harder for certain, undisclosed populations to vote.
State Sen. Ken Bennett (R-LD01) admitted that the bill was flawed but ultimately had good intentions. He voted for it in the hopes that the language would be cleaned up to address Marson’s warnings.
“If people are going to bring their early ballots to the polls, then show ID and let’s get those counted. But, half of the counties literally do not do tabulation at these voting centers. This bill is attempting to do something by striking the very language that gives the counties the flexibility, who don’t do on-site tabulation, to send it in and count it,” said Bennett.
These issues were addressed in an amendment on the bill, which provided the exemption for counties that tabulate Election Day ballots at a central location, and those counties that don’t otherwise tabulate Election Day ballots on site at a polling location or voting center.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A committee formed by University of Arizona (UArizona) faculty disbanded this month after they felt university officials were unsupportive of their efforts.
In a letter explaining their disbandment, the General Faculty Committee on University Safety For All informed Faculty Chair Leila Hudson and Faculty Vice Chair Mona Hymel that they feared negative repercussions if they continued their investigative efforts. Hudson had created the committee.
The committee issued a 30-page interim report in January claiming that UArizona suffers from “a glaring institutional failure” that compromises campus safety, and further accused the university of disregarding employee and student safety concerns. The committee’s primary focus on the report was the slaying of professor Thomas Meixner last October.
The accused killer, 46-year-old Murad Dervish, was denied a teaching assistant position for this spring semester by Meixner. Dervish initially sought out three other professors though he wasn’t able to locate them. The report documented Dervish’s lengthy criminal history prior to UArizona, as well as the timeline of his aggressive and predatory behavior leading to his expulsion and ban from campus.
“University officials knew about the prevalence of such violence risks but did not take necessary action to protect the victims,” stated the committee report.
The report also documented three other, unrelated cases to prove UArizona suffered from institutional failures compromising campus safety. These cases documented the alleged harassment and sexual misconduct of two male law students against two female law students; the doxxing and harassment of a female student reporter; and the police call on a student over fallout with a faculty member.
The committee further accused UArizona of suffering from a “chronic trust problem,” calling into question the competency and integrity of university administrators, the university’s capacity and willingness to address safety, and the imposition by administrators of a climate of retaliation and consequences.
The spokesman for UArizona issued a response to media outlets alleging that the committee’s work was based on “misleading characterizations and the selective use of facts and quotations.”
In order to cultivate its data, the committee engaged in one-hour listening sessions with four minority groups, and three faculty groups.
The Faculty Senate endorsed the report during a meeting last month.
The committee formed several weeks after the fatal shooting of Meixner last October.
UArizona hired consulting firm PAX Group to review and issue a report on their campus safety protocols. That report has not yet been publicized. The faculty committee was slated to issue a final report later this semester.
Members of the faculty committee were Chairwoman Jenny Lee, College of Education; Hoshin Gupta, College of Science; Jennifer Hatcher, College of Public Health; Luis Irizarry, graduate student liaison; Lisa Kiser, College of Nursing; Barak Orbach, College of Law; Christina Rocha, staff liaison; Shyam Sunder, Eller School of Management; and Lauryn White, student liaison.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The city of Tucson has finalized its plan to solve its “climate emergency” declared in 2020, estimated at the low end to cost hundreds of millions. The plan could cost the city around $326 million, but noted that these costs were estimates. The city projected in its cost-benefit analysis (CBA) that the net present value created by its planning would be around $7.9 billion.
Included in the value added were nonmonetary items translated to have monetary value, such as quality of life. The city admitted that these estimated costs weren’t probable, but a rough estimate.
“When planning for climate mitigation and adaptation policies and projects, it is essential to consider, not only the upfront cost of a project or policy, but what benefits will society as a whole see from implementing these projects or policies,” stated the city.
CBAs are controversial for their unreliability. Oxford University declared in a 2020 report and Cambridge University declared in a 2021 report that CBAs tend to be inaccurate and biased.
The city council approved the 155-page plan to tackle climate change — or, the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), titled “Tucson Resilient Together” — during Tuesday’s meeting. In a letter accompanying the CAAP, Tucson Mayor Regina Romero declared that the plan takes immediate, equity-centered action. The CAAP formed solutions based on four types of equity: procedural, meaning certain voices get elevated above others; distributional, meaning certain individuals or groups get more distribution of benefits or burdens than others; structural, meaning disparate treatment based on existence within perceived power structures or systems of privilege; and transgenerational, meaning greater burdens for current generations to ease burdens of future generations.
“Climate change is an existential threat, and our public health, economy, and way of life are on the line,” said Romero.
The plan outlines goals of carbon neutrality across city operations by 2030 and community-wide by 2045.
AZ Free News has outlined each action item within this plan, along with its potential cost range. The plan noted that the most expensive projects ranged over $1 million in cost, but didn’t disclose how high those costs could reach.
Establish a Climate Action Team (CAT) to implement CAAP — up to $100,000
Partnering with nongovernmental entities to make decisions about city purchases, programming, training, investments, etc. — up to $100,000
Offer climate change educational resources to the community — up to $100,000
Monitor and inventory GHG emissions — up to $100,000
Decarbonize city-owned and operated buildings and facilities — anywhere over $1 million
Electrify and decarbonize all existing and new residential and commercial buildings — anywhere from $100,000 to anywhere over $1 million
Move to renewables-based electricity in the city and community — $500,000 to $1 million
Install and promote distributed energy resources (DERs) like rooftop solar panels — $500,000 to anywhere over $1 million
Pursue renewable energy resources like geothermal heating and cooling, methane generated from decomposing waste, etc. — anywhere over $1 million
Develop more sidewalks, bike lanes and paths, seating, and shading infrastructure — anywhere over $1 million
Develop more public transit options and infrastructure — anywhere over $1 million
Create a “15-minute city,” essentially restructuring the community to enable only walking, biking, and public transit, while ridding the city of cars — $500,000 to $1 million
Establish more electric vehicle charging infrastructure and building codes — anywhere over $1 million
Make public agency fleets into zero-emission vehicles — anywhere over $1 million
Establish financial incentives and infrastructures for city employees to not use cars — up to $100,000
Hold citizens to a “Zero Waste Plan” to empty landfills — $500,000 to $1 million
Create a community-wide organic waste collection and treatment program — $500,000 to $1 million
Establish a sustainable procurement policy for city operations — up to $100,000
Divert waste from landfills — $100,000 to $500,000
Expand green infrastructure programs, regulations, and requirements – up to $100,000
Establish “resilience hubs” for climate-related emergencies — anywhere from no cost to over $1 million
Establish urban heat mitigation infrastructure — anywhere over $1 million
Establish more “green” spaces, like planting more trees — $100,000 to $1 million
Restructure community relations to arrange a new emergency response and resource-sharing system — up to $100,000
The CAAP was developed in five different study sessions over the past year, with input from over 5,000 community members. A draft version of the CAAP came out in January.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
