Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) unintentionally provided a parent with blank transgender patient intake forms for a Phoenix hormone and gender transition facility. The district provided the form in response to a public records request for communications concerning Michelle Schulke, a librarian at Desert Mountain High School involved with their Genders & Sexualities Alliance (GSA) Club. Schulke previously made headlines for being included on plans for sexuality and anti-racist programming for minors; one exercise asked minors to question their heterosexuality and if they’d had any “good gay/lesbian lovers.”
The top of the intake forms for the transition facility, Identity Hormones, reads as follows:
“Transgender History/Intake: This form should be done in addition to the regular intake form. It tells us more about you as a transgender person and how we can help you. Identity Hormones uses a Harm Reduction method to help transpeople. We want to keep you safe and healthy. We know that not everyone needs to or can follow the WPATH (formerly HBIGDA) Standards of Care. We will NEVER penalize you or deny you care based on what you tell us on this form. If you feel uncomfortable answering a question, leave it blank.”
The intake forms ask the individual to check all the boxes affiliated with how they identify: man, woman, transgender, nonbinary, FTM, MTF, genderqueer, intersex, and/or other. It then asks at what age the patient felt that their gender identity didn’t match their physical body.
The intake forms also ask about the sexual activities of the individual: if they’ve ever had sex, the gender identities of current and past sexual partners, the last time they had sex with another person, their sexual habits and safety, and if they want to discuss difficulties in their sex life.
SUSD General Counsel Lori Bird told the parent that the form was included in the records request by error, elaborating that the form was originally part of an attachment to an email sent by a parent to Schulke. When the parent asked if they could have the email in question, unredacted, to confirm that claim, Bird responded that no further documents would be provided. The Arizona Daily Independent first reported on this incident.
Several days after publication, the incident was noticed and posted about by the viral Twitter account highlighting leftist culture and ideology, Libs of TikTok. The account owner advised Governor Doug Ducey to investigate.
A parent submitted a public records request for communications involving a GSA teacher at an Arizona school. It included patient intake forms for hormone therapy. The school reportedly claimed it was an “error.”
According to Schulke’s profile on DMHS, the librarian wants to make the school a “diverse and welcoming space for all students.” Schulke is a graduate of the Arizona State University (ASU) Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College. Prior to serving as the high school’s librarian, Schulke was an English teacher with the district for over four years.
As AZ Free News reported, Schulke is also one of over 200 Arizona educators who signed a pledge to teach Critical Race Theory (CRT) and all other social justice-oriented curriculum regardless of parental law or consent.
Attorney General Mark Brnovich already announced on Monday that his office sued SUSD for violating open meetings law. The lawsuit sought to remove former board president Jann-Michael Greenburg from the board. In a press release, Brnovich accused SUSD of putting its interests above those of SUSD parents.
“SUSD manipulated public input and silenced the voices of parents in order to advance its own agenda,” said Brnovich. “This type of bad school behavior demands expulsion.”
Today, our office filed a lawsuit seeking to remove Jann-Michael Greenburg from the Scottsdale Unified School Board.
Parents should never be silenced regarding the education of their children. https://t.co/iIrJPn2kBm
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday that there is no federal constitutional right to have an abortion despite the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. And the reaction was swift across Arizona’s political sphere.
Many of the comments focused on what most saw as a faulty ruling issued by the SCOTUS nearly 50 years ago to carve out a right to an abortion under the U.S. Constitution. Among them was Gov. Doug Ducey, who used Twitter to express his thoughts on that aspect of the SCOTUS opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito.
Roe v Wade was a poorly-reasoned ruling that had no Constitutional basis. The Supreme Court has made the right decision by finally overturning it and giving governing power back to the people and the states. 1/
Another elected official who took to Twitter was State Rep. Jacqueline Parker (R-Mesa) who retweeted an official statement released by U.S. Representative Andy Biggs.
I said it on the floor last year & I’ll say it again: Roe v Wade was a horribly reasoned decision & abortion has never been a Constitution right! It’s about time!! https://t.co/Xq07NhnN68
— Jacqueline Parker (@electjacqparker) June 24, 2022
State Rep. Walt Blackman (R-Snowflake) gave thanks to the six Justices who provided “victory for the unborn and states rights.”
Today’s monumental Supreme Court decision is such a victory for the unborn and states rights. Thank you to the 6 brave Justices for standing up for life and ending the falsehood that barbarous abortions that have killed millions of children was ever constitutional.
— Walt Blackman for Congress (@BlackmanForAZ) June 24, 2022
Also reacting to the decision was U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema who expressed concern that government will stand between healthcare decisions she said are best made between a woman, her family, and her doctors.
A woman’s health care decisions should be between her, her family, and her doctor. Today's decision overturning Roe v. Wade endangers the health and wellbeing of women in Arizona and across America. 1/2
Similarly, current Arizona Secretary of State and presumptive Democratic nominee for Governor, Katie Hobbs used the ruling as fodder for her campaign.
Knowing that this day was coming doesn’t dull the pain. Without Roe’s protection for the right to choose, governors are now the final line of defense to protect access to safe and legal abortion. It’s never been more urgent to go vote for pro-choice champions at the state level. https://t.co/KVcb7tTnRh
However, Matt Salmon, a Republican candidate for Governor, took a moment to somberly reflect on what he called “a historic moment for the millions of Americans who believe in the sanctity of life.” Salmon,
Today is a historic moment for the millions of Americans who believe in the sanctity of life.
After decades of tireless advocacy, the U.S. Supreme Court has stood up in defense of the Constitution & acknowledged the important role of the states in protecting our most vulnerable. pic.twitter.com/UlZk3h4FuE
Meanwhile, the question now for Arizonans is what impact Friday’s ruling with have here. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich issued a statement advising that he expects the state’s newest abortion law to take effect in about 90 days. It bans the medical procedure 15 weeks after conception.
Wildfires are burning record numbers of acres each year, with the arid climate and vast areas of federal land making the western United States particularly at risk. But one issue not being talked about enough is whether red tape is getting in the way of fire prevention and mitigation professionals doing their jobs.
The Montana-based Property and Environmental Research Center is raising the alarm about wildfire prevention projects being delayed so long due to the National Environmental Policy Act that mitigation efforts for millions of acres of at-risk lands cannot be undertaken in a timely manner.
And some of those lands are going up in smoke in the meantime, according to a recently released policy brief by PERC senior research fellows Eric Edwards and Sara Sutherland.
According to the brief, more than 10 million acres burned nationwide in three of the past seven years, mostly in western states And in California, nine of the 20 largest wildfires in the state’s history have burned in the past two years.
More than half of the land in the 11 contiguous western states is federally owned and managed,” the brief notes. “While multiple federal agencies must deal with wildfires, the largest burden falls on the U.S. Forest Service. Of the 640 million acres of federal land in the United States, the Forest Service manages 193 million.”
Wildland fire management is the top budget item for the U.S. Forest Service, with suppression costs reaching $1.76 billion in 2020. As a result of the greater severity of fires and the high costs of putting them out, Edwards and Sutherland note that more and more legislators, agency officials, and forest science researchers are concluding that additional proactive fire mitigation activities are needed.
The brief notes that forest managers use two common preemptive fuel treatments to lessen the intensity of wildfires – prescribed burns and mechanical treatments. Yet despite the fact these approaches have proven effective over the years, U.S. Forest Service has been unable to undertake mitigation activities at a meaningful scale, Edwards and Sutherland found.
The culprit, either intended or unintended, is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which the U.S. Forest Service must navigate in order to implement fuel treatment projects.
The PERC brief explains that NEPA is a procedural law which requires federal agencies like the U.S. Forest Service to assess the environmental impacts of proposed actions. Projects determined to have no significant impacts receive categorical exclusion from more stringent review, while projects with uncertain impacts require the agency to conduct an environmental assessment.
And for projects deemed to cause “significant environmental impacts,” federal agencies must complete an environmental impact statement (EIS), which Edwards and Sutherland note is “the most stringent type of review under the law.” It can also take more than five years, and sometimes more than seven, from initiation of the assessment to implementation.
Only some of the U.S. Forest Service’s fuel-reduction activities will require an EIS, but such projects require data gathering about expected impacts to the quality of the human environment. The agency must also solicit public comments and respond to all substantive comments.
Completing an EIS is the most time-consuming and resource-intensive of the NEPA assessments, Edwards and Sutherland found is that even the other two types of assessments can significantly increase the time it takes to implement fuel treatments.
“Advocacy groups, firms, and the general public can file objections to NEPA decisions to the Forest Service and, once that avenue is exhausted, can also file lawsuits to overturn decisions or compel additional analysis,” the brief notes. “Although most projects are not litigated, the depth of analysis and time spent on the NEPA process is commonly based on the threat of litigation, as well as the level of public and political interest and defensibility in court.”
Edwards is an Assistant Professor in Agricultural and Resource Economics at North Carolina State University whose research examines environmental and natural resource management institutions across a variety of resources. Sutherland is a lecturer at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University and an environmental economist whose research focuses in part on the political economy of natural resource management, with a focus on fisheries and water management.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) struck down New York’s concealed carry restriction requiring individuals to prove that they required “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.”
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al., opinion author Justice Clarence Thomas declared that New York’s “proper-cause requirement” violated the Fourteenth Amendment by “preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self defense needs” from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.
The Supreme Court STRIKES DOWN a New York gun-control law that required people to show "proper cause" to get a license to carry a concealed handgun outside the home. The vote is 6-3. https://t.co/jA2Gl7lTiG
Arizona is one of the most gun-friendly states in the nation. However, nothing in this world is immune from change. This principle is most obvious with the makeup of the state legislature: the Republican majority has been shrinking over the past decade. A loss of the majority would likely result in an overhaul of current gun rights in the state.
At present, state law allows citizens 18 or older to openly carry a firearm without a permit, and individuals 21 or older may concealed carry a firearm without a license or permit (unless they’re active military or veterans aged 19 or older). The law also doesn’t require individuals to obtain a permit or registration for firearms, and it also doesn’t require a background check when purchasing a handgun from a private individual. Additionally, there aren’t any magazine size restrictions.
Though, it may not just be the loss of a majority that ushers in sweeping gun control measures. State legislators’ assessments of Thursday’s witching hour budget proceedings revealed that current Republican leadership may be willing to work with Democrats to reform gun laws.
State Representative Jacqueline Parker (R-Mesa) predicted that the budget’s bipartisan support was a harbinger of governing changes to come out of the legislature. Parker warned that current Republican legislators would back gun control measures, in what would be similar to their D.C. counterparts working currently with the White House to pass red flag legislation.
Time to retweet this one again. After what 90% of the state Republicans did today, DO NOT BE SURPRISED IF RED FLAG LAWS COME NEXT. One betrayal for money, power, & control will lead to more betrayals for money, power, & control. Apparently that’s politics… https://t.co/amvVmqvk5K
— Jacqueline Parker (@electjacqparker) June 23, 2022
This ruling is the latest in a series that conservatives chalked up as crucial victories for constitutional protections. Supporters of the gun rights ruling expressed fondness of Thomas’ explanation of how, historically, gun control laws were implemented to bar Black individuals from gun ownership.
Clarence Thomas turns the tables and calls gun control racist.
President Joe Biden condemned the ruling in a statement, claiming that the opinion of the court contradicted “both common sense and the Constitution.” Biden cited the recent mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas as reasons why increased gun control was necessary.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul insisted that SCOTUS should’ve determined its ruling by current affairs, not precedent or past constitutional arguments. Hochul pledged to act through their state legislature in the near future.
It is outrageous that at a moment of national reckoning on gun violence, the Supreme Court has recklessly struck down a New York law that limits those who can carry concealed weapons.
— Governor Kathy Hochul (@GovKathyHochul) June 23, 2022
Hochul also threatened to only allow muskets as a valid form of arms, despite the Constitution not specifying the type of arms that Americans may keep and bear.
KATHY HOCHUL: "I would like to point out to the Supreme Court justices, that the only weapons at that time were muskets. I'm prepared to go back to muskets." pic.twitter.com/xGoYKGE6g0
Shortly after his initial reaction to the SCOTUS ruling, Biden issued a follow-up statement addressing Congress’ progress on gun control legislation. If enacted, the federal government would enforce a swath of red flag laws. Critics of the increased gun control measure called it a “gun grab” and a direct affront to the Second Amendment.
Read USDOJ's statement on #Bruen and then ponder the fact that in the Senate gun bill the DOJ will fund the grants enabling the development and enforcement of "red flag" laws in state capitols. They are not interested in protecting your constitutional rights. pic.twitter.com/oKFOVZQt5x
With one week to go before the end of the fiscal year, the Arizona legislature managed to reconcile enough differences to pass a finalized version of the budget. However, Republican legislators opposed to the historic $18 billion budget have reported that the controlling party made the budget more palatable for members across the aisle rather than those of their own party.
Although Democratic legislators initially expressed great frustration about the budget, it appears that they may have feigned their opposition — the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for the budget.
— Jacqueline Parker (@electjacqparker) June 23, 2022
State Representative Jacqueline Parker (R-Mesa) was one of the legislators that voted against the budget. In a Thursday interview with “Conservative Circus,” Parker talked openly about the backdoor proceedings that went on over the last week, claiming that GOP leadership and Governor Doug Ducey gave Democrats what they wanted at the cost of Arizonans’ best interests.
All throughout Thursday’s voting, Parker offered updates on floor proceedings. She noted the shared levity between the Republicans and Democrats as the total expenditures added up with each bill passed.
Democrat budget bill #10 (now Republicans & Democrats are making jokes on the floor about the record $16 Billion they’re spending): pic.twitter.com/wuRWl2bNs6
— Jacqueline Parker (@electjacqparker) June 23, 2022
Parker also noted that the budget received near-unanimous support from Democrats — unique, since Democrats normally have opposed past Republican-majority budgets.
Contrary to assurances from House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Regina Cobb (R-Kingman) that the budget would enable the state to “weather the storm” of a future recession, Parker said that the budget provisions would bankrupt the state in a recession.
“Spending is colossal, there are no massive tax cuts, and it’s exceeding our actual fiscal revenues. We’re looking at, probably, future bankruptcy as a recession comes forward,” said Parker.
Parker said that several others brought these concerns to Republican leadership prior to floor votes, but that they were ignored. The representative reported that the leaders were more interested in pleasing Democrats than with working out a conservative budget.
“Leadership essentially just said, ‘It’s easier to just go buy Democrats,’” recounted Parker. “They bought them to the tune of six billion more dollars.”
Democrat budget bill #12 -apparently it’s $18 billion now. So AZ enjoy your pending bankruptcy since that now exceeds our revenue, even with the most generous accounting. pic.twitter.com/6JtMXbdmnT
— Jacqueline Parker (@electjacqparker) June 23, 2022
Although school choice advocates touted the universal expansion of the state’s Empowerment Account Scholarship (ESA) Program, Parker reported that Governor Doug Ducey subverted those efforts. Parker said that she and other unnamed legislators received a 2 am call warning that the ESA expansion came with a “poison pill” from the Ninth Floor.
“Ducey has made an agreement with the Democrats that if they don’t refer the ESA bill to the ballot or challenge it in court within the 90 day period, they’re going to extend the aggregate expenditure limit forever, indefinitely,” said Parker.
Parker warned that this secret deal would lead to education expenditures that would break past the 50 percent limit and possibly take over the entire budget.
LITERALLY nothing that’s a priority for Arizonans was included in that budget. Priorities for lobbyists-yes. Priorities for democrats-yes-they were bouncing off the walls with glee. All other Arizonans can look forward to looming bankruptcy &financial hardship in the near future. https://t.co/I6Tjvx9WwM
— Jacqueline Parker (@electjacqparker) June 23, 2022
One of the contentious aspects of the budget was the expansion of homeless shelters throughout Arizona suburbs. State Representative Joseph Chaplik (R-Scottsdale), another one of the lone Republicans who opposed the budget alongside Parker, lamented that the budget policies would turn the state into another California.
It is 3:45am and the democrat budget is passing. Hb2862 will bring a homeless shelter and many more homeless to every suburb in Arizona making us like SF, SEA, PDX, and L.A. Of course I was a No vote!
Another was the tax credits to entice the film industry to come to the state. The last similar tax credit program bled the state of millions of dollars leading up to the 2008 recession.
Now you know who’s responsible for the bills you can’t pay & the inflation you can’t stop… but hey, AZ may get a shout out in the next woke Hollywood movie filmed in the desert… Remember that when walking across said desert because you can’t afford gas! 🤣😩 https://t.co/7b2AXGzOm3
— Jacqueline Parker (@electjacqparker) June 23, 2022
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Wednesday, the Arizona Senate Appropriations Committee passed budget legislation to offer tax credits to movie studios, after a previous effort on the matter failed. Legislators resurrected this effort by introducing it through a strike-everything amendment on HB2156 — its similar predecessor, SB1708, passed through the Senate but failed to make it to the House floor earlier this year. Analysis of the predecessor bill estimated that it would incur losses to the state averaging $150 million.
The legislation would establish a program to promote workforce development and expansion of the movie industry. Further, movie companies would receive credits up to 15 percent if they spend up to $10 million in production costs, 17.5 percent if they spend over $10 million up to $35 million, and 20 percent if they spend over $35 million.
According to the Nashville Film Institute (NFI), the average cost of making a feature film ranges between $100 and $150 million, though it noted that some comedy and animated feature films like those from DreamWorks average between $70 and $90 million.
AZ Free News reviewed the production costs for mainstream feature films in theaters currently; all are well over $35 million. The blockbuster hit “Top Gun: Maverick” had a production budget of $170 million (as of this report, the film has grossed over $900 million worldwide in under a month). Pixar’s latest animated film, “Lightyear,” cost about $200 million to produce. The biopic, “Elvis,” had a significantly lower cost at $85 million.
The legislation would also limit tax credits exceeding $150 million in any calendar year from being preapproved.
Nick Simonetta, a lobbyist, testified to the committee that leadership in both chambers wanted to move this bill at this time. Simonetta said that this version of the bill, HB2156, was an improvement on a predecessor tax credit bill passed by the committee in February, calling the updated bill the “Cadillac” of accountability.
“You cannot claim a credit in this state for the benefit of the program without paying taxes on the expenditures that you’re making,” said Simonetta.
Simonetta testified that HB2156 was ultimately an infrastructure bill that would create a nonexistent industry in Arizona. He referenced two different movie filming complexes being built in the Scottsdale and Buckeye areas.
“The folks investing in these facilities to build movie sound stage complexes and all the things that go with them — the buildings, the office space, the commissary, the mill space, the back lots, everything — this will be investments of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, even just for the first phases of these complexes,” said Simonetta.
State Senator Sonny Borrelli (R-Lake Havasu City) joked that he was only voting for the bill with the contingency that State Senator David Livingston (R-Peoria) didn’t get a movie role.
State Senator Kelly Townsend (R-Mesa) flipped her vote this time around, having voted against the legislation’s predecessor previously. Townsend didn’t offer an in-depth explanation on her change of heart. She joked that Simonetta’s “little extra explanation” past the cut-off time for his testimony was enough to change her mind.
In the name of the #AZLEG budget & fiscal conservatism, tonight’s dinner will be provided by Dollar Tree. #StartYourOwnRumor
— Senator Kelly Townsend 🇺🇸 (@AZKellyT) June 23, 2022
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club criticized the tax credit bill, arguing that it would cost Arizonans hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars to subsidize Hollywood liberals.
— Arizona Free Enterprise Club (@azfec) June 22, 2022
Arizona Republican Party Political Director Jeremiah Cota commented that the tax credits only sweetened the deal for Democrats, and played into “woke” agendas contrary to Arizonan interests.
If you support the refundable movie tax credits so you can "get a deal done" in Arizona's budget.
It's also fair to say you support the groomers at @Disney because you know it's woke companies like Disney who stand to gain the most from such a sweetheart deal.#AZLeg
— Jeremiah Cota #InflationStrong✊️ (@jeremiahcota) June 22, 2022
The state’s previous tax credit program for movie companies that began in 2005 bled the state of millions of dollars. At the time, Canada introduced tax incentives that pulled movie companies away from Arizona and all other states. Incentives like Arizona’s tax credit program were launched in response to Canada as a means of enticing movie companies to return to the states.
Arizona’s tax credit program lapsed officially in 2010, though it was shut down by the 2008 recession.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
