Former Gov. Doug Ducey enacted the birth control deregulation that took effect earlier this month, but Gov. Katie Hobbs is taking the credit.
In a press release, Hobbs framed the deregulation as timely on her part considering that “extremists across the country” have been threatening access to contraceptives.
“Reproductive freedom is critical to the individuals and families working hard to create a life for themselves in Arizona,” said Hobbs. “We are building an Arizona for everyone, which means ensuring people across the state have what they need to live a free and healthy life. I will never stop fighting to protect freedoms for Arizonans and standing up to the extremists who threaten access to the basic healthcare our families rely on.”
However, Ducey signed the deregulation into law through SB1082 in 2021. Former State Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, a Republican, introduced the legislation.
Considering the highly politically divided environment we live in and grappling with controversial topics like contraceptives, abortion and prescription authority it was no small feat getting this bill passed and signed into law and doing it with broad bipartisan support to boot.… https://t.co/3DkwlLY3Zr
— Michelle Ugenti Rita (@MichelleUgenti) July 1, 2023
It took several years for Arizona’s regulatory agencies to secure final approval for the deregulation, mainly due to delay on the part of the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy (ASBP). SB1082 directed the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy (ASBP) to work with the Arizona Department of Health Services (AZDHS) to adopt procedural rules for pharmacies to distribute the contraceptives.
During ASBP’s final discussion of rulemaking on the deregulation last month, ASBP Executive Director Kam Gandhi explained that they prioritized other issues.
“We’re just now getting to it, but obviously over the last two, three years, we’ve had other challenges and that was more pressing than hormonal contraceptives,” said Gandhi.
The Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) issued the final approval.
Under the deregulation, Arizonans over 18 years old no longer need to secure a prescription in order to buy hormonal birth control or contraceptives. Instead, those seeking the contraceptives will need to receive a blood pressure test and annual screening at the pharmacy. Pharmacists retain the right to refuse to dispense contraceptives if they believe the drug would pose a harm to the patient, or if contraceptives violate their religious or moral beliefs.
Pharmacists are also required to tell the patient when and how to use the contraceptive, the risks associated with the contraceptive, and when to seek medical assistance while taking the contraceptive.
As part of the deregulation, ASBP expanded pharmacists’ continuing education requirements to mandate three hours minimum on hormonal contraceptives prior to receiving a license renewal every two years.
The ASBP discussed implementing the legislation during a Task Force Rule Writing Work Group meeting last September that included Lisa Villarroel with AZDHS and Laura Mercer with the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
In drafting the procedural rules, ASBP relied on precedent established by the 21 other states that allow pharmacists to distribute birth control without a prescription. Those states are Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawai’i, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia (in their documentation, ASBP recognized the District of Columbia as a state, which made their total 22 states).
The ASBP task force again discussed the rulemaking for the deregulation in February, followed by public comment on the proposed procedural rules in May, and final approval last month.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Arizona’s Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction is pushing back after the state’s Democrat Attorney General issued a legal opinion on a Structured English Immersion law.
On Tuesday, Superintendent Tom Horne issued a press release to call a recent formal opinion from Attorney General Kris Mayes “ideologically driven.”
Superintendent Horne is committed to following the voter protected initiative that English Language Learners be taught in English. It is surprising that the Attorney General evades the key issue, placing ideology over the law. pic.twitter.com/5pXrWLUh2L
— Arizona Department of Education (@azedschools) July 18, 2023
The Attorney General’s opinion answered the question of “which state entity has statutory authority to eliminate a model of structured English immersion approved by the State Board of Education.” Mayes sent her findings to Democrat Representatives Jennifer Pawlik, Laura Terech, Nancy Gutierrez, and Judy Schwiebert.
The @arizonaago has issued a new Attorney General Opinion.
Re: Which state entity has statutory authority to eliminate a model of structured English immersion approved by the State Board of Education: https://t.co/AveNs8HG20
— Arizona Attorney General's Office (@arizonaago) July 17, 2023
Mayes wrote, “Arizona law is clear that the Board has the sole authority to eliminate or modify an approved SEI model. The Board also has the sole authority to determine whether a school district or charter school has failed to comply with Arizona law governing English language learners. Only those school districts and charter schools found by the Board to be noncompliant are barred from receiving monies from the English language learner fund.”
The Attorney General declined to answer the Representatives’ question of “whether the Dual Language Immersion SEI Model approved by the Board is consistent with Arizona law.”
Horne disagreed with the opinion, stating, “The Attorney General, for ideological reasons, wanted to rule in favor of the Democrat legislators who favor dual language. So, she refused to comment on whether a dual language program without waivers violates the voter protected initiative (Proposition 203). She simply said that the State Board of Education has the power to adapt models under legislation. Neither the legislature nor the board has the power to overrule a voter approved initiative. Legislative Council found that dual language without a waiver does violate the initiative.”
The scuttle between Horne, Mayes, and Democrat legislators began on June 19, when the Superintendent announced that “public schools that are not teaching English Language Learners in English as required by state law risk losing funds for this legal violation.” Horne said at the time, “Proposition 203, the voter protected initiative passed in 2000, specified that classes for English Language Learners must be taught in English: ‘all children in Arizona public schools shall be taught English by being taught in English and all children shall be placed in English language classrooms.’”
Horne also included a memorandum from the Arizona Legislative Council to make his case, which read, “If the 50-50 dual language immersion model allows students to be taught subject matter in a language other than English as part of structured English immersion, the model likely violates Proposition 203.”
Later, he countered opposition to his action, saying, “In 2000, more than 925,000 Arizonans – 63 percent of voters – approved Proposition 203, making English immersion the law…. Before I took office the first time in 2003, when they had bilingual education, Lisa Graham Keegan reported to the legislature an English proficiency rate of 4%. The English proficiency rates for structured English immersion, by contrast for the last four years when I was last Superintendent (2007-2010), were an average of 31% each for those years.”
Superintendent Horne is committed to following Arizona state law. Dual language education has led to a dismal 4%-6% proficiency rate in English. That is cheating students. When Superintendent Horne left office in 2009, that number was 31%. #EducationForAllpic.twitter.com/14BGddafUd
— Arizona Department of Education (@azedschools) July 13, 2023
He then shared English proficiency rates for four Arizona schools, that the Superintendent asserted have had dual language for several years. According to the Superintendent’s release, those four schools had English Proficiency Rates of under 10%.
Earlier this month, Superintendent Horne posted a statistic on English Immersion success, writing: “English immersion gives students three quarters of a year more education, they’re 50% more likely to earn a bachelor’s degree, and earn significantly more in the labor market.”
Superintendent Horne is committed to following state law and the data. English immersion gives students three quarters of a year more education, they're 50% more likely to earn a bachelors degree, and earn significantly more in the labor market. https://t.co/CFnFioojCt
— Arizona Department of Education (@azedschools) July 7, 2023
In his response to Attorney General Mayes’ opinion, Horne charted the path forward for his battle with the state’s top prosecutor. Horne said, “This will obviously be resolved in the courts. Until that happens, the State Board will not withhold funds. However, there are other remedies in the initiative for violation of its requirements. Any parent can sue a school or district that adopts dual language without waivers, and if the parent is successful, the school board, and the superintendent, and maybe the principal must leave office and cannot apply for their offices for five years. That will be a considerable incentive for school districts not to adopt dual language without waivers.”
The battle over the Structured English Immersion law is the second significant conflict between the Attorney General and Superintendent this year. In May, Attorney General Mayes said on television that “there are no controls” on the ESA program, “no accountability,” that “they” (presumably parents) are “spending hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money,” that this “needs to be looked at,” and that it’s (her) “responsibility to do that” as Arizona’s “top law enforcement officer.”
At that time, AZ Free News featured Horne’s reaction to Mayes’ comments: “Under my predecessor, who was unfriendly to universal Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs), the laws were not strictly enforced, and therefore funds were used for non-educational purposes, including restaurants and clothing stores. Because I am the defender of the ESA program, I want the laws to be strictly adhered to. I want to ensure that not one penny is used for a non-educational expense. Arizona is the first in the nation, and a model for the rest of the country. I am determined that all laws be strictly enforced, and all funds be used only for valid educational purposes. I’m disappointed that Attorney General Mayes has chosen, at every single opportunity, politics over the law.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The special advisor to the president for Arizona State University (ASU) said that universities can achieve their diversity goals despite the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling against affirmative action last month.
The special advisor, Jeffrey Selingo, said in an interview with KJZZ last week that the SCOTUS ruling meant that universities would have to get creative with achieving diversity in admissions.
“Now the question is how to achieve that [diversity], and during the admissions process previous to this decision, they could use race as a factor — so there was a little thumb on the scale, per say,” said Selingo. “But now they won’t be able to do that. So now they’re going to have to look at other parts of the process that they still have control over where, maybe, race doesn’t come into being, but where they could control the ultimate outcome.”
Selingo then clarified that this process would likely involve manipulating the applicant pool to yield better diversity picks. He gave one example as universities partnering with high schools in minority communities.
“If you focus on and target schools in certain areas and certain communities, you’re more likely to have students of color applying,” said Selingo.
Selingo added that the COVID-19 pandemic practice of waiving of standardized testing — namely the SAT and ACT — during the admissions process enhanced diversity quotas. He predicted that universities wouldn’t require these tests in the future for that reason. ASU, along with UArizona and NAU, were among those universities that ceased requiring the ACT and SAT for admission.
“Many of [the universities] saw much more diverse applicant pools as a result. So it’s very unlikely that schools will go back to requiring the tests as a result,” said Selingo.
The avoidance of test scores as a factor would also mean that aggrieved individuals would have a harder time proving discrimination.
“Without test scores now, it’s going to be more difficult for plaintiffs to prove discrimination. They’ve used test scores in the past cases because they could say, ‘You denied somebody with a 1550 [SAT score] and accepted someone with a 1200,” said Selingo. “I’m not saying colleges won’t comply with the law, but there’s a lot of ambiguity, let’s say, in the admissions process, and I don’t think this is going to make it any clearer.”
As special advisor for innovation, Selingo works directly with President Michael Crow on new product design and initiatives in online education, lifelong learning, and partnerships with private companies and universities.
Selingo’s confidence that universities can achieve diversity in admissions despite the SCOTUS ruling contradicted his prediction in his 2020 bestseller “Who Gets In & Why: A Year Inside College Admissions,” in which he expressed the belief that a SCOTUS decision striking down affirmative action would hinder holistic admissions and require greater transparency.
“Giving students the opportunity to learn from peers is a major benefit of a college education, one that will be even more important to students once they graduate and enter a diverse workforce. That’s why Fortune 500 CEOs largely back race-conscious admissions policies as an economic necessity,” wrote Selingo. “Any future court decision that strikes down affirmative action could also put limits on holistic admissions. That likely would force schools, for the first time in more than a century, to move to a more transparent set of academic measures in admitting students.”
At the time, Selingo did note that universities precluded from using race in admissions, citing the University of Washington specifically, rely on holistic “personal score” factors to ensure diversity, like socioeconomic status, hardships, income, and whether or not the applicant is the first in their family to attend college.
Selingo cited the research presented in “The Chosen” by Jerome Kabel, which revealed how colleges first developed holistic admissions as a means of countering academic merit and thereby limiting the admission of Jewish students.
Although Selingo is based out of Washington, D.C, he’s also a professor of practice and leads ASU’s Academy for Innovative Higher Education Leadership, a partnership with Georgetown University. Selingo is also a contributor to The Atlantic and co-host to the podcast “FutureU.”
In response to the SCOTUS ruling, the Arizona Board of Regents said in a statement from its chair, Lyndel Manson, that they didn’t believe Arizona universities’ admissions would be impacted.
“The admission standards set by the Arizona Board of Regents for Arizona’s public universities are based solely on academic performance,” said Manson. “The board is proud that each of Arizona’s public universities are Hispanic Serving Institutions and student enrollment continues to grow in diversity. We are reviewing the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court but do not anticipate any impact at our universities.”
ASU said that the decision wouldn’t impact the diversity of its student body or its commitment to having its student body reflect the population of the state.
“Because ASU admits all students who meet the university’s admission requirements and does not artificially cap enrollment for students from Arizona, ASU will continue to have one of the most diverse student bodies in the country,” said ASU.
In 2010, Arizona voters approved the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, or Prop 107, which prohibited discrimination and preferential treatment based on race, sex, and skin color.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Wednesday, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors selected Shawnna Bolick to fill the vacancy in the state legislature, which was left by former Senator Steve Kaiser.
Bolick quickly responded to the news, tweeting, “Thank you to the elected precinct committeemen of Legislative District 2 for placing me on a list of three names sent to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors last month to fill Senator Steve Kaiser’s vacancy. This morning, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors selected me to fill the remainder of Senator Kaiser’s term, and I will do so honorably. Thank you to everyone who contacted the precinct committeemen and the Board of Supervisors on my behalf. I very much look forward to getting to work for the people in Arizona as I demonstrated in my previous tenure in the House. I will always be one of the strongest advocates for freedom and liberty.”
Thank you to the elected precinct committeemen of Legislative District 2 for placing me on a list of three names sent to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors last month to fill Senator Steve Kaiser’s vacancy.
This morning, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors selected me…
— Shawnna LM Bolick (@ShawnnaLMBolick) July 19, 2023
The selection of Bolick brings the Phoenix lawmaker back to the Legislature, where she served for two terms in the state house (2019-2023). She did not run for re-election during the 2022 cycle, opting instead to campaign in the Republican primary for Secretary of State.
Senate President Warren Petersen welcomed the newest member of his majority caucus, saying, “We believe Ms. Bolick will be an incredible asset to her constituents, Maricopa County, and the state as a whole. Her experience in working with lawmakers of all backgrounds for the common good of our citizens will be a valuable resource to our Caucus as we continue our mission to keep Arizona a free state from the heavy hand of excessive government control. We thank Senator Kaiser for his passion and efforts in tackling some of the toughest issues our state is facing, and we are certain Ms. Bolick will be able to pick up right where he left off.”
Legislative District 2 is expected to be very competitive in November 2024, and at least one Democrat is already eyeing the Senate seat in the next General Election. Representative Judy Schwiebert wasted little time in staking a claim to a run for the Arizona Senate, tweeting on June 16 that she would be throwing her name into the Democrat primary for this district.
Today, I am announcing my candidacy for the AZ State Senate in Legislative District 2. Now is the time to make real progress for Arizona families, so everyone gets their chance to thrive. Join our team and chip in now —> https://t.co/eqlsLuWVeRpic.twitter.com/TKI1imW0I7
— Representative Judy Schwiebert, LD2 (@JudyForAZ) June 16, 2023
The Senate Republican Caucus noted that Bolick would likely be sworn into office on Friday at 2:30pm. Bolick will be joining a Legislature in the middle of summer and still in session with outstanding items to resolve, including agency nominations and a Prop 400 deal with the Governor’s Office.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The town of Gilbert is offering up to $800 to residents and up to $3,000 to non-residential customers who swap their lawns for desert landscaping that uses less water.
The financial incentive in the Grass Removal Rebate programs isn’t cash: it’s applied as credit on the recipient’s water bills, and may take up to two bill cycles to appear. A Gilbert spokesperson told AZ Free News that they have a total of $120,000 per year to issue on their rebate programs, and that the allocated funding within that budget may change from year to year based on the popularity of each program.
Those who don’t qualify include those who have removed or are currently removing their lawns, those living in non-single family residential properties, and those with grass areas watered by flood or well water.
The grass must also be healthy and growing at 50 percent density, as well as routinely and permanently irrigated by a landscape irrigation system.
Gilbert residents may now be eligible to receive up to $800 for replacing their lawns with low-water-use landscaping.
The rebate requires an inspection of the resident’s grass landscape. The amount received by residents for the lawn removal also depends on the lawn’s size. On the low end, properties with 200 to 399 square feet of grass are worth $100; on the high end, those with over 1,000 square feet of grass are worth $500.
The additional $300 from the town comes as a reward for planting new shade trees or low water-use plants. Residents with a rebate area with at least 50 percent low-water-use or drought-tolerate plant coverage may receive an additional $200. Residents may also receive up to a $100 rebate for planting two trees from the Arizona Department of Water Resources’ Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List.
As for non-residential customers, like HOAs and businesses, grass removal comes at $1 per square footage of grass, with a $3,000 cap.
Anyone who receives $600 or more in water bill credits must complete a W9 for the Gilbert Water Conservation, as per the Biden administration IRS reporting requirement enacted last year.
Those aren’t the only water conservation financial incentives that Gilbert has offered. The town introduced rebates up to $250 for residential, $400 for non-residential properties to install smart irrigation controllers.
Another municipality, Tucson, opted for involuntary compliance with water conservation. Last month, the city of Tucson prohibited new builds from installing lawns and reduced their water flow; in May, they increased water rates by reclassifying several winter months — billed at a lower rate — into summer months. The city of Phoenix cut water allowance, as well as raised its water usage fees.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A fight for the future of some federal grant dollars for Arizonans appears to be brewing.
Last week, John Thorpe with the Goldwater Institute sent a letter to Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee, expressing the organization’s “concern about Governor Hobbs’ purported cancellation of ESA-related grants that would enable children to attend all-day kindergarten” and urging Yee’s office “to go forward with the program as a legal obligation and for the sake of the parents.”
The Goldwater Institute’s letter references Hobbs’ action in May, which determined that “a $50 million grant made to the Treasurer in the final hours of the Ducey Administration is illegal and invalid.” Hobbs said at the time, “Illegally giving $50 million to private schools while failing to properly invest in public education is just one egregious example of the previous administration’s blatant disregard for public school students.”
After receiving the governor’s notice earlier this year, Treasurer Yee released a statement, writing: “It is clear Governor Hobbs does not care about what is best for Arizona kids or respect the rights of parents to determine the best environment to educate their child. Instead, she is using these children as pawns in a desperate and transparent attempt to win back support from union bosses and her ultra-progressive base. Educational choice is the civil rights issue of our time, and unfortunately, Governor Hobbs thinks she knows better than parents. I fundamentally disagree, and so do Arizona families.”
Governor Hobbs has just denied thousands of Arizona kids access to kindergarten through this politically driven and belligerent decision.
— Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee (@AZTreasurerYee) May 25, 2023
In that statement, Yee also said that her legal team was “currently reviewing the lawfulness of the governor’s move and determining next steps.”
The Goldwater Institute’s June 14th letter to Treasurer Yee states that “on January 1, 2023, the Governor’s Office entered an Interagency Service Agreement with the Treasurer’s Office to provide up to $50,000,000 in federal grant money from the American Rescue Plan (ARPA), via the ESA program, to children in kindergarten starting with the 2023 academic year…In exchange for your office’s commitment to administer and report on the grant program, the Governor made a contractual commitment to provide the funds and to ‘work with’ your office ‘to establish a cadence whereby [the Governor] will transfer funding to [the Treasurer] to then disburse to grant program recipients.’ The Agreement was, and is, a legally binding contract.”
Thorpe’s letter also asserts that “nothing in the Agreement or in state law permits unilateral termination by the Governor,” calling Hobbs’ prior justifications “groundless,” adding that “the Governor has no right to simply cancel an agreement based on unfounded speculation that the agreement violates the law.”
The first-year Arizona governor had touted that by taking this action, her office had “adverted a violation of federal law and the State Constitution.”
The attorney for the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation also communicated that “we find it troubling that Governor Hobbs is attempting this rollback of the ESA program after a long history of campaigning against, and promising to end, the Legislature’s recent expansion of the Arizona Empowerment Scholarship program.” He continued, “Having already failed in her bid to defund the ESA program through the budget process earlier this year, it appears Governor Hobbs is attempting to cancel the all-day kindergarten grants, not in order to comply with state or federal law (as described above, the program is entirely lawful), but as part of a transparent effort to harm and undermine the ESA program wherever possible.”
In a supplemental post, Thorpe added, “It’s simple: the governor does not have a right to lawlessly renege on promises made to Arizona families. Goldwater will never stop fighting to empower parents, expand choices in education, and to hold government officials accountable – in Arizona and throughout the country.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
