This week, the House Government Committee narrowly passed two bills to further secure elections. HB2236 would prohibit automatic voter registration, and HB2241 would require anyone dropping off an early ballot to either show their ID or sign that they have permission to do so for the individual who completed the ballot; it’s a class six felony if they refuse. State Representative Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) introduced both bills, securing passage along party lines, 7-6.
Minority Leader Reginald Bolding (D-Laveen) insisted that the bills were “anti-voter.” Bolding is running for secretary of state; his major platform points include the fact that he’s running against former President Donald Trump’s pick for the position and that he’d be Arizona’s first black secretary of state, two qualities that bear striking similarities to President Joe Biden’s must-haves for his next Supreme Court pick.
Preventing as many eligible Arizonans from voting is the goal of #HB2241 and dozens of other anti-voter bills this session. All based on conspiracies and the #BigLie, and all because sponsors did not like the results of a free, fair, and excessively scrutinized 2020 election. https://t.co/xasMpiAI3o
House and Senate Republicans’ attempts to further secure elections over the past few years have caused controversy with left-leaning communities.
This week, over 200 “faith leaders” issued a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell asking him to relocate the next Super Bowl from Arizona over the state’s “disease of racism, and, particularly, its symptom of voter suppression.” They cited bills passed last year: SB1003, which requires voters to rectify their signature by 7 pm on election night; SB1485, which cleans up the early voters list; and SB1819, which formed a special committee on the election audit. That final bill, SB1819, was overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court due to violations of the state constitution’s single subject rule.
As another reason for moving the Super Bowl away from Arizona, the group cited Senator Krysten Sinema’s (D-AZ) opposition to the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. Sinema refused to support the legislation because doing so would have scrapped the filibuster. Unlike Sinema, Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) came out in support of ending the filibuster to pass the legislation to federalize elections.
More than 200 faith leaders called on @NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to consider moving the Super Bowl out of #Arizona next year over several voting bills they characterize as voter suppression. 10 pastors in Tucson signed on. Letter here: @KVOAhttps://t.co/bXaTU2Ag66pic.twitter.com/LmyRy97B3a
Although the individuals signed onto the letter identified themselves as faith leaders, it is unclear whether they claim to be faith leaders in relation to the Christian Bible considering the nature of their doctrines.
If the NFL remains consistent with their decision-making, it’s unlikely that this latest letter will have any influence on Arizona hosting the next Superbowl. Last May, Bolding made the exact same demands of Goodell in a letter of his own, even hearkening back to the state’s historic refusal to recognize Martin Luther King Jr. Day, which the NFL ignored.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
As the government continues to struggle retaining a totalitarian grasp on all things related to the pandemic, including Americans’ health care options, Arizonans should be aware that their skin color will determine their ability to access life-saving treatment. One Phoenix man shared with AZ Free News how his decision to identify himself as “white” because of his skin tone, rather than Hispanic, nearly cost him his life, in the hopes that his experience will spread awareness and serve as a cautionary tale to fellow Arizonans.
Michael Myers explained that he made the mistake of marking his race as “white” on medical intake paperwork rather than “Hispanic” — in part due to his complexion, mixed with the fact that he was raised to not think of himself as Hispanic.
“Had I put that I was Hispanic they probably would’ve gave [the monoclonal antibodies] to me,” said Myers. “I lost four days [of treatment] getting sicker and sicker. I put down ‘white’ even though I was sicker than a dog.”
Even though race doesn’t weigh heavily on Myers’ mind, it does for the government. AZ Free News inquired with the health system that treated Myers, HonorHealth, about their adherence to any federal or state guidelines that limit or prohibit COVID-19 treatments based on high-risk categories that factor race or ethnicity. They explained that they “follow CDC guidelines when it comes to COVID-19 treatments.” The CDC cites the FDA as the reference for guidelines on treatments for individuals with “high risk of disease progression.”
In supplemental information on their emergency use authorization (EUA) of monoclonal antibodies, the FDA acknowledged that race and ethnicity “may also place individual patients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19,” therefore rendering them valid determinations of eligibility for monoclonal antibody treatments. That’s a conclusion that the state of Minnesota drew explicitly in their “Ethical Framework for Allocation of Monoclonal Antibodies during the COVID-19 Pandemic” published last month.
Last summer, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) lauded Michigan and Maryland for incorporating equity in their decisions to administer monoclonal antibody treatments.
Also last month, the CDC published a report suggesting that “equitable” use of treatments factoring race was critical in combating the disproportionate numbers of certain races being adversely affected by COVID-19. The CDC also has a page which argues for equitable approaches to health care because COVID-19 impacts minorities disproportionately.
Equity looked like health care providers ignoring the entirety of Myers’ condition and focusing on one characteristic: his reported race.
Myers was diagnosed with COVID-19 exactly two weeks before Christmas Day. Based on Myers’ condition, his health care providers at HonorHealth gave him the option to either receive monoclonal antibodies at their FastPace emergency room nearby or wait for their Scottsdale infusion center’s next available appointment. Myers told AZ Free News that he was so sick that he opted for the emergency room.
After waiting over two and a half hours, Myers was admitted to a room. Just as the IV was placed in Myers’ arm, a pharmacist intervened. The pharmacist informed Myers that he “didn’t qualify” for the monoclonal antibody treatment because he wasn’t “high-risk” enough. Confused and upset, Myers left.
He said he was shocked when, on Monday morning, HonorHealth called him for his appointment to receive monoclonal antibodies. When Myers informed the nurse that he’d been disqualified by their FastPace center, the nurse was dismayed and insisted that he receive the treatment based on his deteriorating condition. By that point, Myers had begun to cough up blood. The infusion center’s earliest available appointment was on Wednesday; Myers said he barely made the drive from Glendale to Scottsdale safely because his coughing had worsened and he nearly didn’t have the strength to steer the wheel.
“Within 24 hours I felt I was getting better. It took me a week and a half to get back to some normal,” said Myers.
Weeks later, Myers told AZ Free News that he received a $1,500 bill from FastPace — even though they refused to treat him. Myers said his entire ordeal was entirely unnecessary, relaying frustrations at how he believed politics got in the way of his health care.
“It’s political b******t really. I got sicker when I could’ve recovered faster, and it cost me thousands of dollars in medical bills and me being off of work,” said Myers.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The House Government and Elections Committee passed two bills prohibiting government entities from requiring masks or COVID-19 vaccines. The first bill, HB2498, prohibits governments from mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for any Arizonan; The second bill, HB2453, would eliminate all governmental authority to require masks or face coverings on their premises, with an exception carved out for areas with workplace safety and infection control measures unrelated to COVID-19. For both bills, “government entities” are defined as those who receive and use tax revenues.
Both bills were introduced by Queen Creek Republicans: State Representatives Jake Hoffman and Neal Carter, respectively. HB2498 passed 7-5 along party lines, with State Representative Alma Hernandez (D-Tucson) abstaining her vote. HB2453 passed more narrowly, 7-6 along party lines.
State Representative Sarah Liguori (D-Phoenix) argued during Wednesday’s committee that the vaccine prevents individuals from spreading COVID-19; Hoffman, the vice chairman, rebutted that simply wasn’t the case. Liguori argued, based on a definition from ushistory.org, that governments provide everyday behavior parameters, well-being, and happiness for citizens. Hoffman responded that the definition wasn’t at all aligned with the U.S. Constitution.
“I honestly don’t give a rat’s ass what ushistory.org says,” said Hoffman. “We exist to protect the rights of our citizens. One of their own rights is to choose their own bodily decisions. It’s their right to choose whether or not a vaccine is injected into them.”
A male legislator chimed in to say Hoffman’s argument aligned with pro-abortion arguments; Hoffman rebutted that wasn’t true because a baby’s life was at stake.
Minority Leader Reginald Bolding (D-Laveen) insisted that the fact that vaccines don’t prevent individuals from catching or spreading COVID-19 was “unfounded.” He then characterized the bill as an overreach preventing individuals from obtaining the protections of a vaccine, though he didn’t clarify how this bill had any bearing on individuals choosing to get vaccinated voluntarily.
“If we have the ability to have a vaccine that would prevent individuals from becoming severely ill or losing their life, we should not be standing in the way of that. I believe this bill is an additional overreach,” said Bolding.
Hoffman reiterated that the American system of government doesn’t have a right to force its citizens to take a vaccine they don’t want to have.
“Our overture to the world on what sets this people apart from everywhere else: ‘We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” said Hoffman. “The choice of the governed. It is not in the American system that a government can tell them what to do, can force them to take a vaccine.”
As AZ Free News reported, Carter asserted that his bill, HB2453, would curb further exacerbations of the current hiring and employee shortages in addition to respecting the right of individuals to make their own health decisions.
During the committee meeting, Bolding called the bill “misplaced policy” by not allowing local governments to protect their citizens by requiring masks. State Representative John Fillmore (R-Apache Junction) responded that he feels bad that any individual would die from an infectious disease, but it saddened him greatly too that a whole society allowed the government to assume complete control over their lives.
“I was appalled that the churches did not rise in opposition when [the government] said that people could not go and pray to the gods of their choice and live out their lives, like they did during the Revolutionary War which sparked freedom in America the way that it did,” said Fillmore.
Liguori insisted that “the science” proved mask wearing prevented spread of COVID-19, and that masks weren’t a partisan issue.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Arizona businesses small and large are facing yet another challenge due to COVID-19.
FedEx announced a pause this week of its economy express freight services within the U.S. The reason? Too many staff members are unavailable for work as a result of the continuing spread of the Omicron-variant.
The shortages impact FedEx’s popular two-day and three-day freight services relied on by thousands of businesses every day. The effect is a further disruption in America’s manufacturing and retail supply chains which have derailed U.S. automakers and the aerospace industry for months.
Economy freight services are also vital for the delivery of medical equipment, commercial construction, and high-volume printing.
News of the FedEx decision comes just as the company is restarting international economy freight services shut down last month in response to staff shortages across its network.
Similar delivery impediments have hit UPS and the U.S. Postal Service, due in part to employee absences related to COVID-19 as well several extreme weather events across the country. As a result, delivery guarantees are currently suspended on some UPS domestic and worldwide services. In addition, some UPS customer facilities are closed.
“Severe weather conditions and the COVID-19 Omicron variant may impact operations and staffing in parts of the country,” according to a current UPS service alert. “Although we implement contingency plans to minimize service disruptions, delays to service may occur.”
Even regular residential and business mail delivery is being effected in some parts of the U.S.
“Postal Service Priority Mail® products and First-Class® packages may temporarily require more time to be delivered due to limited transportation availability as a result of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic,” according to the USPS website. “Priority Mail’s two-day and three-day service commitments will be extended to three days and four days, respectively.”
It’s not just teachers influencing children on issues like sexuality and gender identity. Kristin Downing, a Girl Scouts of Southern Arizona troop leader in Tucson for over eight years, advocates heavily for gender identity rights for children. Downing has repeatedly helped fundraise and advocate for LGBTQ+ activist organizations with dedicated efforts to influence children such as the Trevor Project, Southern Arizona Gender Alliance (SAGA), and the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). Prior to volunteering with the Girl Scouts, Downing served five years as a children’s ministry leader with the Church of the Apostles.
On Wednesday, Downing addressed the House Government and Elections Committee that they passed, HB2294, which would require state documents to list an individual’s sex as either male or female. Downing explained that her 15-year-old daughter announced that she was non-binary at 12 years old, and was celebrated and praised by their entire community, including coaches, medical care providers, friends, family, and Downing’s fellow Girl Scout troop leaders.
Downing asserted that her daughter feels unsupported when state paperwork requires her to list her biological gender. She claimed that the same wouldn’t be true of “more welcoming states” like California — a state that recently allowed a 26-year-old male convicted of molesting a 10-year-old girl to serve out his prison sentence in a girl’s juvenile detention facility because he claimed he was a transgender female. Downing said her daughter’s excitement over the prospect of getting her driver’s license was dampened by the fact that she would be required to list her biological gender, and not be able to identify legally as “nonbinary.”
A judge gave a 26yo who molested 10yo girl in 2014 2-years in Juvenile facility. Judge: his hands are tied because LA County DA Gascon will not try the then 17yo as adult. James Tubbs does NOT have to register as sex offender. Could be 8-12 years if tried as adult. @KFIAM640pic.twitter.com/HBVcFdHFo7
Downing suggested allowing nonbinary adults and children to mark an “X” instead of acknowledging their gender as either male or female.
“It’s very difficult every time we have to start a new semester, or go to a new activity, we have to have a whole conversation ahead of time about my child’s pronouns,” said Downing.
On social media, Downing has expressed that those against transgenderism in any way are inciting harm. In a Facebook post, Downing characterized opposition to transgenderism as “violence.” She insisted that “kids should be allowed to be kids” by allowing them to use the bathroom or join the sports team of their choice, regardless of their biological sex.
“They shouldn’t have their existence debated. Nobody should. I’m so exhausted from this discussion that is happening on a national stage — the kids are watching, they hear it all, and you are harming them,” wrote Downing. “Trans and non-binary kids deserve the same rights and the same ability to be their damn selves as everyone else. So I guess that’s today’s post about the trans week of visibility. A bit of a rant, because this is all f*****g b******t and I’m so tired of trying to tiptoe around it and make room for people’s discomfort and feelings — let’s call it what it is — it’s bigotry and transphobia. It’s an act of violence against the trans community and our children. There shouldn’t be allowances made for that.”
Girl Scouts allows transgender girls to join troops on a case-by-case basis, so long as the boy “is recognized by the family and school/community as a girl.” They also sell rainbow LGBTQ pride “fun” patches to encourage girls to show their inclusivity and support for the LGBTQ community.
In 2019, Girl Scouts recognized a member as one of their National Gold Award Girl Scouts for that year, their highest award, because she started a now-defunct online magazine for children within the LGBTQ community. The publication, Gliterary Magazine, mainly showcased fanfiction-style works about children discussing their LGBTQ experiences.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Wednesday, Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth issued a directive that commanders are to begin involuntary administrative separation proceedings against any regular Army soldier, reserve-component soldier serving on Title 10 active-duty, and cadet who has refused the COVID-19 vaccination order and does not have an approved or pending exemption request.
Wormuth’s Army Directive 2022-02 (Personnel Actions for Active Duty Soldiers Who Refuse the COVID-19 Vaccination Order and Accession Requirements for Unvaccinated Individuals) was announced by U.S. Army Public Affairs. It is based on claims that Army readiness is at risk due to soldiers who are not vaccinated.
The Army has not yet involuntarily separated any soldiers solely for refusing the order to be vaccinated, but the separation proceedings are to be conducted “as expeditiously as possible,” the announcement states.
“Army readiness depends on Soldiers who are prepared to train, deploy, fight and win our nation’s wars,” said Wormuth. “Unvaccinated Soldiers present risk to the force and jeopardize readiness.”
The announcement also reveals that as of Jan. 26, Army commanders have relieved a total of six regular Army leaders, including two battalion commanders. They have also issued 3,073 general officer written reprimands to soldiers for refusing the vaccination order.
One of the two exceptions addressed in Wormuth’s directive impacts soldiers who will complete their separation or retirement, or begin a transition leave, on or before July 1. They will be granted a temporary exemption so that they may complete their separations or retirements.
In addition, unvaccinated soldiers who have requested medical exemption or religious accommodations will also be temporarily exempt from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement while their requests are reviewed.
However, unvaccinated service members, even if exempted, must continue to comply with COVID-19 screening and testing requirements and applicable safety standards. And they will face additional “counseling” with the goal of changing their minds.
“Army leaders will continue to counsel all unvaccinated individuals on the health benefits of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine,” the announcement states.
There are also some financial hits described in the directive. Service members separated for being unvaccinated will not be eligible for involuntary separation pay. And they may be subject to recoupment of any unearned special or incentive pays.
