Upset parents and community members who showed up to voice their opposition to Catalina Foothills School District’s (CFSD) secretive gender identity policies during the governing board meeting on Tuesday were prevented from doing so.
CFSD parents and community members organized in protest following revelation of CFSD’s longstanding unwritten policy that doesn’t require parental notification if boys are entering girls’ restrooms and locker rooms. CFSD declared it wouldn’t reconsider this policy.
The parents and community members were also in protest of another secretive practice dating back several years, in which district staff would acknowledge students using a different gender identity without informing parents. In a September 2021 email, CFSD Principal Mark Rubin-Toles shared a confidential list of the pronouns and preferred names of his students at Orange Grove Middle School.
“If you are like me, you may have been challenged recently to keep some of our kids’ pronouns and preferred names straight — and to remember what can and can’t be shared with families,” stated Rubin-Toles. “It is our responsibility to protect student privacy in these matters.”
At Tuesday’s meeting, CFSD warned that it had reduced its public comment time, prioritized district parents and local community members, and deprioritized those who spoke on the same subject at previous meetings.
“Lack of discussion does not mean we haven’t heard you. I assure you, we have,” stated Board President Eileen Jackson.
CFSD has indicated in past emails and recent board comments that student privacy and the relationship between educators and their students takes precedence over parental rights. That caused an uproar among some within the Tucson community, but their voices weren’t heard on Tuesday. CFSD indicated during the meeting that those upset with their administration had spoken out enough on the subject.
CFSD had 11 pro-LGBTQ+ students defending their policies speaking first. The students emphasized that they had a right to privacy, and that the district should be able to keep student information secret from parents.
After the students, CFSD parents and community members had their turn to speak. However, the only ones allowed to speak were 17 individuals who were also supportive of CFSD’s policies.
Following an earlier meeting this month, CFSD asked KGUN 9 to correct their reporting to say that many of the upset speakers at that last meeting weren’t CFSD parents or community members.
In response, an organized group of CFSD citizens accused CFSD of lying. The group, CFSD Concerned Citizens, cited the district’s unwillingness to improve policy or allow public discussion on their concerns as the reason for their organization.
Last weeks media coverage and board’s response lied saying majority of speakers were activists from a church and non-district affiliated. This is not the case. Attendees included CFSD families, residents and community members who want transparency and items to be put on the (1/4) pic.twitter.com/zOav23A9uc
— Cfsd ConcernedCitizens (@Concerned4CFSD) April 10, 2023
CFSD Concerned Citizens partners include School Board Watchlist, Protect Arizona Schools Coalition, Heritage Foundation, Moms for Liberty, Alliance Defending Freedom, Center for Arizona Policy, Goldwater Institute, and AZ Women of Action.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The threat of fentanyl is becoming too great for any political party to ignore, but Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs jettisoned a bipartisan proposal to protect Arizona children from this deadly drug.
Earlier this month, Governor Hobbs vetoed SB 1027, sponsored by Senator Anthony Kern, which would have established “knowingly manufacturing carfentanil, fentanyl or fentanyl memetic substances under any circumstance that causes physical injury to a minor who is under 15 years of age as a class 2 felony offense punishable as a dangerous crime against children and makes changes to existing sentencing provisions for certain narcotic drug offenses.”
Hobbs didn’t elaborate much in her veto letter to the Arizona Legislature, writing, “Last week I signed a bill continuing Arizona’s ‘Good Samaritan Law.’ I fear that this bill, particularly Section 2, would undermine the purpose of that law. I encourage the legislature to send me a narrower bill that focuses on the manufacture of fentanyl.”
Senator Kern, the bill sponsor, issued a press release following the governor’s action on his legislation, “expressing concern and dismay,” stating: “We have been fighting the opioid epidemic not just in Arizona, but nationwide for decades. The least we can do is try to protect our children and future generations from exposure to a deadly drug often laced into opioids. This bill had the support of many Democrats, yet Governor Hobbs continues to show her priorities are out of line.”
Kern then addressed Hobbs’ reference to the ‘Good Samaritan Law,’ saying, “In her veto letter, she claims she didn’t sign the bill out of fear it would undermine the Good Samaritan Law which protects individuals who intervene to save someone experiencing an opioid overdose. Not only is it a misleading stretch to reach this conclusion, Hobbs is more concerned with protecting fentanyl manufacturers and providers than implementing real measures that protect our children and communities from these dangerous drugs. We as legislators have done our job. We created a bill with bipartisan support to tackle a very real and serious issue. Why is Hobbs not doing hers, and instead continuing to play political games?”
In January, the bill passed through Kern’s Senate Judiciary Committee, garnering six votes against one in opposition; Democrat Senators Marsh and Epstein voted with four Republicans on the committee. The full Senate then approved of the measure, 21-8 – with one member not voting. The bill was transmitted to the Arizona House and assigned to the Judiciary Committee, where it passed along party lines, 5-3. The full House then cleared the bill by a bipartisan vote of 35-24 (with one member not voting).
Democrat Representative Analise Ortiz, who voted against the bill in the House Judiciary Committee and on the floor, cheered on the governor’s veto, tweeting, “Thank you, Gov. Hobbs for vetoing SB 1027, a bill that would’ve caused far more harm than good. The evidence shows us that broad criminalization of addiction is not effective. We must get serious about addressing the fentanyl crisis by investing in drug treatment and prevention.”
Thank you, Gov. Hobbs for vetoing SB 1027, a bill that would've caused far more harm than good. The evidence shows us that broad criminalization of addiction is not effective. We must get serious about addressing the fentanyl crisis by investing in drug treatment and prevention. https://t.co/7FOQS63yCt
A Christian university’s case against a Phoenix school district over alleged religious discrimination got a hearing on Tuesday.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Arizona Christian University (ACU) against the Washington Elementary School District (WESD), spoke with AZ Free News after the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction in the Arizona District Court.
ADF lawyer Jake Reed said they felt confident in their legal arguments and that the judge that heard the case, Steven Logan, was well-versed on the arguments ahead of Tuesday’s hearings. Reed said they’re hoping for a ruling within the next few weeks, considering ACU needs to place their student teachers for the upcoming year by the end of this semester.
“This is a pretty simple case about religious discrimination,” said Reed. “A public body is telling a university they can’t place their teachers because of their religious faith.”
WESD terminated its contract with ACU in February. Its governing board members cited ACU’s Christianity as a principal factor for their decision. Leading on the effort was board member Tamillia Valenzuela, who said that ACU’s Biblical perspective that traditional sexual morality and the standard of marriage between one man and one woman directly opposed her and other LGBTQ+ community members. Valenzuela received support from fellow board members Kyle Clayton and Nikki Gomez-Whaley.
“[W]hen I went and looked into not only [ACU’s] core values but then the statement of faith that they ask their students to sign and live by, what gave me pause was it’s not just teaching but it’s teaching as they say with a Biblical lens, with a proselytizing is embedded into how they teach, and you know, I just don’t believe that belongs in schools,” said Clayton. “I would never want, you know, my son to talk about his two dads and be shamed by a teacher who believed a certain way and is at a school that demands that they, you know, teach through [a] Biblical lens.”
Gomez-Whaley said she would be open to those who claimed to be Christians who were accepting of LGBTQ+ lifestyles.
“[E]ven though [ACU] may not do anything illegal where they are preaching or using Bible verses, I do believe that we owe it to especially all of our students when we’re working in equity but especially our LGBTQ students and staff who are under fire who are not protected, and who we have already pledged to support,” said Gomez-Whaley. “We cannot continue to align ourselves with organizations that starkly contrast our values and say that we legitimately care about diversity, equity, and inclusion and that we legitimately care about all of our families.”
Reed shared that in the 11 years of WESD and ACU’s relationship, there were well over 100 students placed as either student teachers or in teacher shadowing positions. Of those students, 17 went on to be hired by WESD.
When asked whether WESD could attempt religious discrimination in future contracting decisions under the guise of other reasons, Reed said that those incidents, if they were to occur, would have to be scrutinized.
“The government can’t treat certain people worse than everyone else. Students shouldn’t be denied opportunities because of their religious beliefs,” said Reed. “The government can’t pick and choose what beliefs they allow.”
WESD proposed to settle by extending a separate agreement with ACU for one more year — but not the agreement at issue.
Ahead of the hearing the judge denied an amicus brief filed last week by The Goldwater Institute, a public policy research and litigation organization. Logan stated in his order that the WESD didn’t consent to the brief and that the Goldwater Institute didn’t present relevant matters that hadn’t already or couldn’t be brought to the court by either party.
“The parties’ briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is complete, thorough, and more than sufficient for this Court to make a ruling,” wrote Logan.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Three years and some change later, President Joe Biden signed Rep. Paul Gosar’s (R-AZ-09) bill to end the national COVID-19 emergency. Biden signed Gosar’s resolution, HJR 7, on Monday.
“The legislation drafted by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) passed the House 229-197 in February, with a handful of Democratic supporters, and then the Senate 68-23 last month with about half of the chamber’s Democrats voting in favor.”https://t.co/qKfifQSXxf
In addition to the national emergency that Gosar’s resolution terminated, there’s another declared emergency in play concerning COVID-19: the public health emergency declared in January 2020 by Health and Human Services (HHS), which impacts the ability of the federal government to use Title 42 for expedited illegal immigrant expulsion. The Biden administration said that it would end the public health emergency, which allows Title 42 to take place, on May 11.
There was also the emergency declared by former President Donald Trump via the Stafford Act. That declaration enabled Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance for 75 percent federal matching on disaster-related costs, like law enforcement and state emergency operation centers.
An end to the national emergency per Gosar’s resolution would have lifted the pause on student loan repayments — however, the Biden administration announced its student loan forgiveness program last August to work around the end of the emergency. That program is being considered currently before the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). Repayments are scheduled to resume either 60 days after the SCOTUS ruling or after June 30.
The end of the national emergency also means federal agencies will return to regular protocols, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s COVID-19 mortgage forbearance program ceasing by the end of May.
The lift of the emergency will also tighten up rules on Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs, impacting eligibility, as well as waivers for alternative provider settings, or for forgoing application fees or criminal background checks. It will also cease the provision of free COVID-19 rapid tests, and allow states to cease COVID-19 data tracking.
Gosar’s resolution passed the Senate last month with bipartisan support, including both Democratic Sens. Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema. Only two Arizona representatives opposed the resolution during House consideration in February: Reps. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ-07) and Greg Stanton (D-AZ-04).
My bill, H.J.Res.7, terminates the COVID-19 national emergency. It has passed the House & Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and has been presented to Biden.
I call on the President to immediately sign H.J.Res.7 & terminate the COVID-19 national emergency declaration. pic.twitter.com/mBlkA58vrz
Leading up to Biden signing the resolution, some Democratic leaders expressed frustration with a perceived lack of communication from the White House. Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI-08) reported that the Biden administration hasn’t communicated with House Democrats.
“The White House’s lack of communication with House Democrats has been frustrating,” said Kildee. “Going forward, we’re going to need greater clarity out of the administration. They’ve got to do better.”
Biden voiced opposition to the resolution leading up to and after the Senate’s passage of Gosar’s resolution. Despite his opposition, a White House spokesperson told media outlets that the president would sign the resolution.
“The President strongly opposes HJ Res 7, and the administration is planning to wind down the COVID national emergency and public health emergency on May 11,” said the spokesperson. “If this bill comes to his desk, however, he will sign it, and the administration will continue working with agencies to wind down the national emergency with as much notice as possible to Americans who could potentially be impacted.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
It’s a tale as old as January 2023: Arizona’s Democrat Governor and Republican-led Legislature aren’t agreeing on much in this session; and they certainly aren’t coming together on issues of election integrity.
Governor Katie Hobbs recently vetoed SB 1074, sponsored by Senator Sonny Borrelli, which would have prohibited “the use of electronic voting equipment as the primary method for tabulating votes in any city, town, county, state or federal election unless the outlined requirements are met.” The legislation would also prescribe “requirements relating to the source codes for electronic voting equipment.”
The governor didn’t provide much information in her veto letter to Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen, writing, “The election equipment required by the bill, as well as the problem it purports to solve, does not exist. This bill neither strengthens our democracy, nor ensures that Arizonans can better exercise their fundamental right to vote. I stand ready to receive bills that do.”
The bill sponsor, Borrelli, was outraged at the governor’s decision, issuing a press release to “call out Governor Hobbs for her continued blatant political games after she vetoed a bill that would have established oversight, security and transparency on electronic voting systems.”
Senator Borrelli stated: “In her veto letter, Governor Hobbs stated the election equipment required by the bill does not exist. This is in fact a lie. The equipment exists, but the components are made in the People’s Republic of China and other non-friendly countries. She’s pushing the idea that the United States of America could not onshore the manufacturing of tabulation equipment, which is absolutely absurd. There is nothing the American workforce cannot do given the right opportunities.”
He continued, saying, “Furthermore, Governor Hobbs falsely stated that this bill purports to solve a problem that does not exist. I beg to differ. Any electronic device can be manipulated to have a certain outcome. You need source codes to determine this, but they’re not being provided with the current system. You would think the former Secretary of State would know that in 2013, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security designated elections systems as critical infrastructure. This means these systems should be subjected to the same national security standards that the U.S. Department of Defense would apply to any critical infrastructure. Having a third-party vendor with total autonomy is not good for security, voter confidence, nor democracy. This bill would have taken the politics out of the voting process and created a neutral party that works for the Legislature. Fair and honest elections are a bi-partisan concern, albeit only when Democrats are the ones to benefit. Hobbs’ obstructive and cavalier attitude has been part of the destruction of transparency and oversight within our elections.”
SB 1074 originated in the Senate and was considered by the Elections Committee in February, where it passed by a vote of 5-3. The full Senate then approved of the measure in March, 16-13, with one member (Senator Gonzales) not voting. Borrelli’s proposal was then transmitted to the House and heard in the Municipal Oversight & Elections Committee, where it received six Republican votes compared to four Democrat votes (with Representative Jacqueline Parker absent for that vote). The full House then gave the bill the green light with a 31-27 tally, with two Democrat members not voting, making it possible for the legislation to be sent to the Governor’s Office.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A bill to protect children on the internet is nearing the finish line in the Arizona Legislature, though some partisan opposition puts its fate in jeopardy with Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs should it reach her desk.
SB 1503, sponsored by Senator Wendy Rogers, “directs a commercial entity to verify that any person attempting to access an internet website containing a substantial portion of material harmful to minors is at least 18 years old.” The bill “authorizes the age verification to be made through a commercially available database that is regularly used by businesses or governmental entities for the purposes of age and identity verification; or any other commercially reasonable method of age and identity verification.” It “subjects a commercial entity that violates the verification requirement to civil liability for damages, including attorney fees and costs, resulting from the minor’s access to the material.”
Rogers was joined on her bill by co-sponsors (and fellow Senators) Ken Bennett, Sonny Borrelli, Frank Carroll, David Farnsworth, Jake Hoffman, Steve Kaiser, John Kavanagh, Janae Shamp, T.J. Shope, and Justine Wadsack.
The bill first cleared the Arizona Senate Transportation and Technology Committee in February with a bipartisan vote of 5-2. Democrat Senator Christine Marsh joined four other Republicans to advance the legislation out of committee. After a Rogers’ amendment was adopted on the floor, the full chamber approved the bill with a bipartisan 19-11 vote, though Marsh did not vote in favor.
Senator Rogers cheered the passage of her proposal after the Senate vote, tweeting, “Need to be age 18 to view ‘content harmful to minors’ (pornography) on the internet. My SB 1503 passed the Arizona Senate. #ProtectChildInnocence”
SB 1503 was then transmitted to the Arizona House of Representatives where it was assigned to the Regulatory Committee. In March, the Committee took up and considered this bill, passing it with a party-line 4-3 vote. It awaits the green light from the House before it travels to the Governor’s Office for her final decision.
During the House Regulatory Committee hearing, Representative Nancy Gutierrez explained that she thought this legislation was “an infringement on our First Amendment rights,” and she found it “ridiculous” that anyone would suggest that a company would be at fault for a child looking at inappropriate websites. Gutierrez was baffled that anyone would also suggest that “there is a mechanism that would even be able to verify age.”
Her Democrat colleague, Representative Alma Hernandez, agreed with these sentiments. Before Hernandez voted against SB 1503, she first stated that she didn’t want children looking at pornography on the internet, but that this was “almost impossible to actually enforce.” She argued that the United States is “not North Korea, China, or Iran, where those countries have internet censorship,” and she challenged her Republican colleagues to return to their freedom-loving roots when coming up for solutions of problems that are perpetrated on the internet. Hernandez stated that she believes “it should be up to the parents to decide if they want to put screening mechanisms on their children’s phones.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
