Despite the CDC adding the COVID-19 vaccine to the list of recommended vaccines for public school attendance, Arizona’s Republican lawmakers said that the state won’t be mandating it.
That’s because the state enacted several bills earlier this year precluding such mandates: HB2498, which prohibits any government entities in the state from mandating the COVID vaccine (exempting health care institutions), and HB2086, which further prohibits mandates for the COVID vaccine as well as the human papillomavirus in order to attend school.
The CDC announced last Thursday that it would add the COVID-19 vaccine to the list of childhood and adult immunization schedules next year.
The State Senate Majority issued a statement on Monday asserting that HB2086 protected parental rights against an “out of touch” federal government and its agencies. Senate President Karen Fann (R-Prescott) said that Republican leadership enabled these protections, implying that a state legislature flip would result in a nanny state.
“Injecting something into our bodies is a very personal choice and is one that families should have complete control over,” said Fann. “Senate Republicans believe parents ultimately have the right to make medical decisions for their child, and we will not take away that freedom.”
ADHS and Democratic legislators opposed both bills. During committee discussion of HB2086, State Representative Alma Hernandez (D-Tucson) claimed that fears of COVID-19 vaccine injuries were political. Hernandez said that it would be right to reject a prohibition of a vaccine mandate.
Straight-up COVID misinformation getting thrown around in the House Health and Human Services Committee debating HB2086. Parents already have the ability to opt out of vaccinations for school attendance. COVID vaccines are safe and effective. #AZLeg
Parents have the ability to seek out medical, religious, and personal exemptions for mandatory vaccines. During committee discussion of HB2086, State Representative Beverly Pingerelli (R-Peoria) shared that constituents described the exemption process as “extremely difficult” and “time consuming.” Former ADHS director Will Humble rejected that characterization in response, but admitted that he made the exemption process more difficult than it had been in the past.
Unlike the state legislature’s slim majority, Arizona’s agencies appear to be falling in line with federal agencies. Carla Berg, Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) deputy director, published a memo earlier this month encouraging parents to vaccinate children five and up.
ADHS often aligns itself with CDC and FDA messaging on public health issues. Earlier this summer, ADHS memos about monkeypox echoed similar, controversial memos issued by the federal government, such as a general avoidance on the specifics of the disease’s spread and its predominance among sexually active gay men.
If it’s been at least two months since your last shot, you can get the Omicron booster to help strengthen your protection against COVID-19.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs issued unproven claims on Tuesday that Arizona State University (ASU) was required to shutter its campus due to protests and threats of violence incited by her opponent, Kari Lake.
Hobbs accused Lake of inciting death threats and racial slurs against ASU staff, though it appears that the claims originated from one of her campaign staffers. However, no protest occurred and no threats were reported.
.@katiehobbs has spent her career demonizing her political opposition.
She does this while constantly painting herself as a victim.
Today, Katie told Arizona that she was afraid of the protest that would be waiting for her at @ASU.
According to the Yellow Sheet Report, Walter Cronkite School of Journalism Dean Battinto Batts said that they haven’t received any threats. Batts clarified that his directive for online classes were due to students and staff concerned about a “potential” for protestors and fellow journalists outside campus buildings.
“[W]e haven’t received any formal threats at the Cronkite School/Arizona PBS,” stated Batts.
Tonight, I will be appearing on Arizona PBS filmed at ASU. Kari Lake’s temper tantrum last week led to death threats and racial slurs toward their staff. Now, faculty and students are advised not to go on their own campus. I am outraged by her dangerous rhetoric. pic.twitter.com/MDhFfPcH4s
It appears that the claim of threats and protests originated with Hobbs’ campaign. Last Thursday, an unnamed Hobbs staffer told CNN reporter Kyung Lah that their campaign’s security team met with ASU for Tuesday’s Q&A. According to the staffer, an unnamed, female ASU operator reported intercepting death threats and racist slurs.
“A @katiehobbs staffer tells me Hobbs security met w/ ASU re: security for the town hall next week,” stated Lah. “A rash of death threats have come in since @KariLake’s presser last night and the ASU operator picking up those threatening calls has been called racist slurs (she is Black).”
A @katiehobbs staffer tells me Hobbs security met w/ ASU re: security for the town hall next week. A rash of death threats have come in since @KariLake’s presser last night and the ASU operator picking up those threatening calls has been called racist slurs (she is Black) 1/2
State Representative John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) told the “Conservative Circus” that the Cronkite School’s cowardice would cause their namesake, Walter Cronkite, to turn over in his grave. Kavanagh declared that the Cronkite School twice violated one of the cardinal rules of journalism: not becoming the story.
“I would not be surprised if his ghost rises up tonight with a can of spray paint and go to that school and spray paint out his name,” said Kavanagh. “First they became the story when they violated their agreement with Clean Elections and put their thumb on the elections scale in favor of Katie Hobbs, and now this absolutely ridiculous story that journalism students are threatened and afraid to go to demonstrations.”
AZ State Rep. John Kavanagh discusses the shutdown of Arizona State University due to fear of violence around the C https://t.co/nmeTMGtNQ9
After her specially awarded Q&A session with AZPBS, Hobbs went on a Twitter rant lasting nine posts describing her vision for Arizona: increased diversity hires in state government, no limits on abortion, tax cuts for 800,000 families, a teacher salary raise averaging $14,000, border security, and immediate action on the water crisis. Several of her tweets called out Lake, arguing that Lake’s insistence on having a debate was a distraction from her inability to defend her policies.
Kari Lake’s desperate attempts to create a spectacle are a distraction from dangerous positions she can't defend. Today makes clear she has no intention of actually telling voters her plans to govern.
Debate about debates is over. I have real plans to lead Arizona forward #AZGOV
These other claims made by Hobbs also don’t appear to pan out. Lake has consistently agreed to a debate against Hobbs, and engaged in numerous interviews with a wide range of media outlets.
LOL: Katie Hobbs just went on @CNN and said that I refuse to talk to reporters
Lake even invited Hobbs to debate her on Tuesday rather than do back-to-back Q&A sessions. She encouraged AZPBS to restructure their Q&A into a debate for Arizonans’ benefit.
Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman for Hawaii, endorsed Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and attended her campaign event on Tuesday. Gabbard denounced Lake’s Democratic opponent, Katie Hobbs, decrying the Democratic Party as a group of elitist and racist warmongers.
Also in attendance at the forum in Chandler were Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters and Republican attorney general candidate Abe Hamadeh. The Arizona Young Republicans hosted the event, where hundreds turned out.
The crowd to see @KariLake and @TulsiGabbard tonight is so large I had to do a pano and it still couldn’t catch everyone.
Gabbard argued during the event that Lake was the obvious choice to protect Arizonans’ freedoms.
“It is clear eyes to recognize the threats to your safety, to our borders, to our communities, to our families, to our kids, that are coming from today’s so-called ‘woke,’ radical Democrat Party,” said Gabbard.
.@TulsiGabbard: "They have forgotten who is most important. The American people. We are seeing it and feeling it every day, and this is why I'm here to support @Karilake for Governor." pic.twitter.com/5UEmE6j6dQ
Ahead of the event, Gabbard endorsed Lake with similar remarks, echoing her sentiment that the Lake would prioritize citizens over establishment interests.
“Kari Lake isn’t afraid to call out the warmongering elitist cabal of permanent Washington and the Military Industrial Complex, and their propagandists in the mainstream media,” wrote Gabbard.
For too long establishment leaders from both parties have sought to enrich themselves, play games, and build up their power while ignoring and even enabling the suffering of millions of hard-working Americans. Kari Lake is a leader who… (1/3) pic.twitter.com/TTpMiOsiSF
Gabbard told Fox News that Hobbs’ refusal to debate was emblematic of the Democratic Party’s issue: that they refuse to engage in a conversation. Gabbard said that her former party was undermining our country’s values and ideals.
“They’re against free speech, they’re against democracy, they’re against freedom of religion, they’re against the very principles of this country: the God-given rights enshrined in this Constitution,” said Gabbard. “Meanwhile they’re pushing us further and further to the brink of nuclear war that threatens us, the very existence of the American people and the world.”
Gabbard has stated repeatedly that she no longer aligns with the Democratic Party on key issues, hence her support for right-wing candidates — even those backed by former President Donald Trump like Lake. Gabbard claims that the Democratic Party is made up of elitists, warmongers, woke-obsessed cowards, and racists.
I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism, actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms, are… pic.twitter.com/oAuTnxZldf
Will Of The People is urging voters to vote “no” on Propositions 128, 129, and 132 which are on the 2022 General Election ballot. But who is behind those efforts came under scrutiny this week upon the filing of the group’s latest campaign finance report.
The website for Will Of The People notes 20 percent of contributions are “coming from out of state,” although a recent political mailer reflects an out-of-state contribution rate of 43 percent. However, that rate could be as high as 99.9 percent based on the $324,959.44 the group received July 17 through Sept. 30.
It is the corporate contributions listed on group’s 2022 post-primary election (Q3) Schedule C4b which has garnered review, including 11 payments from Washington, D.C.-based The Fairness Project totaling more than $254,633. The other cash contributions came from Berkeley-based Every Single Vote ($70,000) and another D.C.-based donor, Ballot Initiative Strategy Center ($326.11).
Another $33 total in cash came from four individual contributors in Arizona, according to the PAC’s treasurer, Dacey Montoya.
The Fairness Project is funded in turn by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which is “dedicated to improving the lives of workers and their families and creating a more just and humane society” and has won praise from U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg.
While Will Of The People is focused on Props 128, 129, and 132, SEIU is behind Healthcare Rising AZ, which supports efforts to amend Arizona statutes by adding restrictions to how medical debt can be collected. Healthcare Rising AZ recently received $15,000 in contributions from the Maricopa County Democratic Party and Arizona Democratic Party.
THE PROPOSITIONS:
Prop 128 would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow the state legislature to amend, divert funds from, or supersede an initiative or referendum measure enacted by the people of Arizona if the measure is found to contain illegal or unconstitutional language by the Arizona or United States Supreme Court.
Currently, state law prohibits legislators from correcting the illegal or unconstitutional language. A “yes” vote would amend the Constitution to allow such corrections, while the “no” vote advocated by Will Of The People would leave the restrictive prohibition in place.
Prop 129 would amend the Arizona Constitution to limit an initiative measure to a single subject and require that subject to be expressed in the title of the initiative measure. A “yes” vote supports the proposed amendment while a “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining existing law on initiative measures.
Prop 132 would amend the Arizona Constitution relating to initiative and referendum measures by requiring any initiative or referendum that seeks to approve a tax to receive at least 60 percent of the votes cast to become law. A “yes” vote is for amending the Constitution while a “no” voter leaves the existing law of 50 percent plus 1 in effect.
Democratic congressional candidate Kirsten Engel pledged support for reallocating police funding to social programs and replacing police with social workers.
The University of Arizona (UArizona) law professor made those remarks in a resurfaced 2020 Clean Elections interview, which her Republican opponent Juan Ciscomani shared.
“What we need to do is shift where the money is going. Not every 911 call requires a police officer to show up at your door,” said Engel.
IN HER OWN WORDS:
“Defund the police. Would you support a reduction in police budgets…”@EngelForArizona: “Yeah… the way you’ve asked that question, I agree with it.”
In Kirsten Engel’s America, our police are defunded and our neighborhoods are left unprotected. #AZ06 1/ pic.twitter.com/vB1QtqVMOc
In June 2020, Engel sided with Tucson Councilwoman Lane Santa Cruz after she accused Tucson police officers of murder and violence concerning the death of a man in custody.
The man in question, Carlos Ingram-Lopez, died from cardiac arrest due to excessive cocaine in his system. Contributors to Ingram-Lopez’s death bore striking similarities to that of George Floyd’s less than a month earlier: a drug overdose, enlarged heart, and physical restraint. The Tucson Police Officers Association (TPOA) disclosed that the officers Santa Cruz accused falsely of killing Ingram-Lopez resigned out of fear for their families’ safety.
Engel criticized TPOA for speaking out against Santa Cruz’s fabrication. She accused TPOA of bullying and intimidation.
Then-Police Chief Chris Magnus offered to resign over Ingram-Lopez’s death. The city rejected his resignation. Magnus would later be appointed as the head of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
At the height of the BLM riots, Engel donated to the Arizona Justice Bailout Fund, which pledged to use donations to bail out BLM protestors. That bailout fund was launched by the scandal-ridden Our Voice Our Vote Arizona in conjunction with Arizona Coalition for Change.
Engel’s 2020 advocacy marked a departure from her previous years in the state legislature, when she was endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP).
I am thankful that the Fraternal Order of Police have put their trust in me to help make where I can. pic.twitter.com/NP2alF0UYv
Engel’s social media postings about police slowed after the summer of 2020, when she signaled support for the sweeping police reforms and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests across the nation. Additionally, Engel’s campaign platform doesn’t address policing at all. However, Engel’s recent campaign actions indicate that her perspective on policing hasn’t veered too far from her 2020 stance.
In June, Engel signed a pledge by the Reparations Pledge PAC. That PAC and its founder, Redeem Robinson, advocate for defunding the police.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
An order last month by Gilbert Mayor Brigette Peterson for town police officers to remove three people from a council meeting has resulted in a notice of claim being served against town officials for First Amendment violations.
A notice of claim is required under Arizona law before a party can initiate a lawsuit against a public entity. On Thursday, such a notice was served on the Gilbert mayor and council members on behalf of Ryan Handelsman, Dr. Brandon Ryff, and Joanne Terry, who contend they were forced out of Sept. 20 town council meeting for engaging in constitutionally protected speech.
According to attorney Tim La Sota, his three clients attended the meeting during which dozens of protest signs were taken into the council chambers. Some of the signs were printed with the phrase “Stop Lying” while others read “Don’t Mesa My Gilbert.”
Peterson interrupted the meeting at one point and ordered a Gilbert police officer to remove a 6-inch by 24-inch “Stop Lying” sign Terry was holding in the back of the room. Terry set the sign down and the officer did not confiscate it.
A short time later, Handelsman addressed the mayor and council during the call to the public to challenge town officials to cite a statute or code being violated by those holding signs. Then Handelsman, Ryff, and Terry each decided to silently hold their signs.
“The Mayor halted the meeting and ordered the police to remove Dr. Ryff, Mr. Handelsman and Ms. Terry from the room. The police escorted them out of the meeting without incident,” according to the notice of claim, which notes the town code does not prohibit signs in the council chambers.
A First Amendment obstruction or retaliation violation could cost the town tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees plus potential damages to each of the three claimants. However, La Sota says his clients will settle for $1, but it will also cost something other than money.
In exchange for a complete release of their claims, the claimants will accept $1 as damages if Peterson and the town of Gilbert issue an official apology, La Sota wrote. In addition, Peterson would have to attend a First Amendment training class.
According to the notice of claim, Handelsman, Ryff, and Terry acknowledge that the government “need not tolerate actual disruptions of government business” and that courts have held that municipalities may enforce “certain free-speech restrictions.”
But those restrictions apply to time, place, and manner of public comment, La Sota noted, and even then courts have ruled such restrictions “must be reasonable, consistently enforced, and fall within constitutional parameters.”
Free speech restrictions by the government are also reviewed to ensure they “are both viewpoint neutral, equally and consistently enforced, as well as narrowly-tailored to meet the needs of the governing body to conduct its business, free of actual disruptions,” La Sota noted.
It is also not allowable to engage in retaliation against someone for asserting their First Amendment rights, which is what the notice of claim alleges Peterson did when she ordered Ryff removed. La Sota points to Ryff’s critical comments about the mayor during his call to the public comments at the prior council meeting.
“Then, at the very next meeting, 50 ‘Stop Lying’ signs show up with essentially the same message,” the notice of claim states, adding that Ryff contends Peterson believed Ryff was responsible for the signs.
“Dr. Ryff’s rights were violated by a vindictive Mayor who seized the opportunity to retaliate against him for years of political opposition and for having filed ethics complaints against her in the past,” the notice of claim states.
The notice of claim further alleges Handelsman, Ryff, and Terry were not being disruptive in how they displayed their signs at the Sept. 20 meeting. It also contends Peterson did not treat all sign-holders the same during that meeting, including an attendee with a visible “Don’t Mesa My Gilbert” sign who was not forced to leave the meeting.
“Certain persons silently holding signs in the back of the room may have been a distraction to the Mayor, but not every distraction is necessarily a disruption and not every disruption is an actual disruption which impedes the ability of the Council to do its business,” La Sota notes, citing a major First Amendment ruling from the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals (Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 2010).
Peterson later commented on her actions, arguing she could not read what was written on the signs. Yet that does not explain why his clients were ordered out of the council chambers while others with signs were allowed to remain, La Sota wrote in the notice of claim.
Town officials have 60 days to reject or accept the settlement demand included in the notice of claim.
