Despite dedicating nearly two decades of his life to the military, one Phoenix man learned Wednesday that he may not receive the military benefits he’s earned, due to the COVID-19 vaccine and a Fox News interview. The fate of the man, an Air Force Master Sergeant named Nick Kupper, and thousands of other military members rests in the court system through ongoing cases like Doster v. Kendall.
Of well over 2.1 million American troops (over 1.3 million active duty and over 795,000 reserves), over 113,700 troops (5 percent) aren’t vaccinated. Nearly 269,000 troops (over 12 percent) are partially vaccinated, and 1.7 million troops (82 percent) are fully vaccinated. Of those who are partially vaccinated, only about 20,000 were granted temporary or permanent exemptions. However, it appears that those were exemptions in name only due to multiple reports that the exemption recipients were already scheduled to end their service.
Kupper appeared on Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s show, “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” last Thursday. He shared that several legislators were intervening in cases like his, but not enough to stop a forced mass military exodus that he warned would be detrimental for national security.
“After 19 years they’re going to throw everything away that I’ve worked for,” said Kupper. “This is not a problem to be solved for tomorrow, or the next day — this is a problem right now. You’re talking about over 10 percent of your military is looking to be canned right now. I mean, if I were China or if I were Russia, I’d be chomping at the bit right now.”
Kupper shared on Wednesday that he received his separation package for not taking the COVID-19 vaccine as well as a Department of Defense (DOD) letter of reprimand for appearing on Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s show. Kupper disclosed that the DOD accused him of aiding our enemies through his interview.
I just received my separation package for not taking an EUA vaccine. I also received a surprise letter of reprimand for appearing on @TuckerCarlson’s show.
However, the DOD determinations in Kupper’s case may not be set in stone. On Thursday, Ohio Southern District Court Judge Matthew McFarland issued an injunction preventing the Air Force from punishing those who sought a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine. That impacts around 10,000 service members nationwide.
McFarland was appointed in 2019 by former President Donald Trump under the bipartisan recommendation of Ohio Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).
Judge McFarland, in the lawsuit Doster v. Kendall, just provided an injunction preventing the Air Force from punishing anyone who sought a religious exemption! The AF has 14 days to argue it, but if they are unsuccessful it will become a permanent injunction.#winning#THANKGOD
On Wednesday, Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (R-AZ-08) introduced a bill to prohibit the Biden administration from denying schools federal funds for meal programs if they don’t adhere to the government’s gender ideology.
The legislation, “Protecting Kids, Protecting Lunches Act,” would prevent the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from imposing gender ideology adherence in order for schools to receive the funds that feed underprivileged students. The Biden administration mentioned open bathrooms and sports teams as part of their gender ideology.
Lesko asserted in a press release that schools shouldn’t have to decide between feeding their students and safe bathrooms.
“I am deeply concerned that the Department of Agriculture could weaponize funding for children in need to advance the gender ideology of the radical Left,” said Lesko. “We have already seen proof that biological boys in girls’ school bathrooms threaten girls’ safety. I am proud to introduce this legislation to ensure that the Department of Agriculture cannot withhold funding for school meals because these schools refuse to allow boys in girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, sports, or showers.”
Although Lesko didn’t cite any specific incidents, she may have been referring to the Daily Wirereport last year of a teenage girl’s sexual assault in a school bathroom by a skirt-wearing boy — which the school allegedly covered up. That report sent shockwaves worldwide, challenging the push to allow gender dysphoric individuals to use whatever bathrooms or locker rooms they desired.
(1/2) I introduced the Protecting Kids, Protecting Lunches Act to ensure the USDA does NOT make funding for school meal programs conditional on promoting the Far-Left’s gender ideology. https://t.co/Ib3vauirF3
— Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (@RepDLesko) July 14, 2022
As AZ Free News reported last month, the USDA announced in May that its anti-discrimination policy protections extended to sexual orientation and gender identity. The USDA warned that failure to comply with this updated policy would result in the loss of its Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) funding. The FNS ensures children in need have access to free or reduced lunches, which about half of Arizona’s children rely on.
In support of Lesko’s bill were the Family Research Council and the Independent Women’s Forum.
Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04) signed onto Lesko’s bill. They were joined by Congressmen Louie Gohmert (R-TX-01) and Ralph Norman (R-SC-05).
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Wednesday, Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) requested that the House Oversight Committee investigate the claims made in the controversial election fraud documentary, “2000 Mules.”
The premise of “2000 Mules” is that thousands of individuals, or “mules,” delivered harvested ballots to election drop boxes in key states during the 2020 election. The documentary relied on geotracking data and 4 million minutes of ballot drop box video feed to arrive at this claim.
“2000 Mules” featured Arizona significantly. Notable testimony came from a San Luis whistleblower, who alleged that there was a network of harvesters that worked under what she described at length as the “Mexican Mafia” of Yuma County.
Biggs declared in a press release and on Twitter that the House Oversight Committee chairwoman, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY-12), had a duty to investigate the documentary’s claims.
The congressman pointed out in his request letter that Maloney held hearings on significant election-related issues of late — notably the Arizona Senate’s audit of the 2020 election and Texas’ voting laws — as well as social issues like flea and tick collars, the Washington Commanders football team, electric vehicles for the Postal Service, environmental justice, and vaping. Biggs declared that the latter collective of issues addressed was far less important than the “2000 Mules” claims.
“As the chairwoman of the House’s oversight committee, Congresswoman Maloney has an obligation to hold an immediate hearing to further determine the veracity of these claims,” said Biggs. “The film exposes serious, potentially illegal activity related to the 2020 election. The committee should investigate these allegations to ensure the integrity of our elections.”
As the chairwoman of the House's oversight committee, @RepMaloney has an obligation to hold an immediate hearing to further determine the veracity of the claims made in the 2000 Mules film. https://t.co/mamUKvnS26
The filmmaker behind “2000 Mules,” conservative pundit Dinesh D’Souza, holds that the 2020 election was thoroughly fraudulent and stolen from former President Donald Trump.
The 2016 election was not stolen, yet leading Democrats questioned Trump’s legitimacy for four years. The 2020 election was stolen, yet somehow it’s a grave offense to question the outcome? You have to be born yesterday to fall for such nonsense! #January6thCommittee#2000Mules
In his request letter, Biggs highlighted the documentary’s estimation that Phoenix had over 200 individuals who were potential mules that visited over 20 drop boxes each. He also mentioned the estimated numbers of mules from other states, noting that the total came to more than 54,000 individuals delivering votes to five drop boxes across four states.
Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (R-AZ-08) signed onto the letter, as well as Representatives Andrew Clyde (R-GA-09), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA-14), Mary Miller (R-IL-15), Randy Weber (R-TX-14), Pete Sessions (R-TX-17), Lauren Boebert (R-CO-03), Byron Donalds (R-FL-19), and Diana Harshbarger (R-TN-01).
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Monday, a federal judge determined that a 2021 law recognizing the personhood of unborn children was unconstitutionally vague and in conflict with other state laws.
The law, referred to as the “Interpretation Policy,” declares that all state laws should be interpreted and construed to acknowledge that unborn children have the same rights, privileges, and immunities as all other Arizonans. The statute includes specific cause of action exemptions for individuals who perform in vitro fertilization procedures and women who indirectly harm their unborn children due to improper or insufficient self-care.
The law also defines “unborn child” as the “offspring of human beings from conception until birth.” Conception is synonymous with fertilization, although the federal judge in the case, Arizona District Court Judge Douglas Rayes, an Obama appointee, contended that certain medical journals recognized conception as the moment a fertilized egg implants in the uterus.
Rayes opined that Arizona’s Interpretation Policy was unclear in what it meant to “acknowledge” the equal rights of the unborn, pointing to the lack of definition anywhere in Arizona statutes and comparing the variety of definitions offered by Merriam-Webster and Black’s Law Dictionary. He agreed with the plaintiffs that authorities might employ a maximalist view of acknowledging the equal rights of the unborn.
On the subject of definitions, Rayes further contended that neither the Interpretation Policy or any other Arizona law amended the definition of “person” to include unborn children. Rayes added that the legal team of the lead defendant, Attorney General Mark Brnovich, couldn’t explain why that was in court proceedings.
“The Interpretation Policy either does absolutely nothing, or it does something. What that something might be is a mystery or, as Defendants put it, ‘anyone’s guess,’” wrote Rayes. “A law which requires such extraordinary effort to decipher fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it permits and proscribes.”
Brnovich hasn’t issued a statement on Rayes’ ruling. His latest press release announced a lawsuit excoriating the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) latest dishwasher and laundry machine regulations. On the day Rayes issued his ruling, Brnovich only tweeted a statement about an ongoing lawsuit to prohibit charitable donations from being an alternative to class payouts.
Further on in his ruling, Rayes argued that the Interpretation Policy’s personhood requirement conflicted with other current laws regulating abortion: abortion providers’ licensing and credentialing requirements in A.R.S. §§ 36-2155, 36-2153(E), 32-3531(B), 36-449.03(C)(3)(a)–(b); abortion clinic licensing requirements in A.R.S. §§ 36-449.02; 36.449.03; abortion informed consent requirements in A.R.S. §§ 36-2153, 36-2156; abortion statistical and demographic data reporting requirements in A.R.S. §§ 36-449.03(I), 36-2161–62; second trimester abortion method restriction in A.R.S. § 13-3603.01; ban on abortion for reasons of race or sex in A.R.S. § 13-3603.02(A)(1); consent requirements for minors in A.R.S. § 36-2152; and restrictions on telemedicine for abortion care in A.R.S. § 36-3604.
Additionally, Rayes expressed concern that other parts of Arizona’s criminal code could leave abortion providers vulnerable to prosecution since they didn’t have exemptions for lawful abortions, such as statutes on assault, child endangerment, and child abuse.
“Abortion providers do not have fair notice of whether, if they conform their conduct to these laws, they nonetheless may face criminal, civil, or professional liability under other statutes based solely on what licensing, law enforcement, or judicial officials think it means to ‘acknowledge’ the rights of the unborn,” wrote Rayes.
In his concluding remarks, Rayes clarified that his ruling didn’t focus on abortion but rather the law’s justice.
“[This motion] is about giving people fair notice of what the law means so that they know in advance how to comply,” wrote Rayes. “The Interpretation Policy is so vague that it ‘makes it impossible for plaintiffs to do their work with fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required, in violation of their procedural due process rights.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) filed the initial complaint on behalf of doctors Paul Isaacson and Eric Reuss, the National Council of Jewish Women Arizona (NCJW AZ), the Arizona National Organization for Women (AZ NOW), and the Arizona Medical Association (ArMA).
Isaacson is a Phoenix-based abortionist with Family Planning Associates (FPA) Medical Group, and previously a University of Arizona College of Medicine professor. After SCOTUS denied the existence of a constitutional right to abortion last month, Isaacson began crowdfunding $100,000. FPA Medical Group closed due to the current legal limbo concerning abortion in the state.
In an update last Saturday, Isaacson shared that the funds raised — at the time, just under $6,000 — enabled FPA Medical Group to keep its staff employed another week.
“We continued to dismantle the clinic today — very emotional moment taking my diplomas off the wall,” wrote Isaacson.
Our office has concluded the Arizona Legislature has made its intentions clear regarding abortion laws. pic.twitter.com/jvjKXaXKwd
Reuss is a Scottsdale-based OBGYN who served previously on the board of Planned Parenthood of Arizona (PPAZ). Phoenix Magazine named Reuss a “Top Doc” seven times from 2010 to 2018.
Both Isaacson and Reuss have engaged in pro-abortion legal battles alongside ACLU and CRR before. Most recently, the parties came together to defeat Arizona’s requirement that abortion providers inform their patients about reversal procedures prior to taking an abortion pill.
Reuss wrote an opinion piece for the Arizona Republic in 2015 claiming that abortion pill reversal wasn’t evidence-based, calling the requirement “legislative overreach” and “hearsay.”
“There is absolutely no evidence-based data that the process can be reversed,” wrote Reuss.
Certain studies and current treatments for reducing risks of recurring miscarriage and premature births conflict with Reuss’ claim. A study specific to abortion pill reversal found that 64 to 68 percent of pregnancies were saved within 72 hours of taking the first abortion pill.
The Interpretation Policy was one part of a larger bill introduced by State Senator Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix), SB1457. The bill also made it a class 6 felony to abort children due to a genetic abnormality, except in a medical emergency. This provision added to current protections prohibiting the abortion of a child based on its sex or race. Last September, the court issued a preliminary injunction for that restriction. At the end of last month, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) vacated that injunction.
BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court just vacated the injunction in Brnovich v. Isaacson. Arizona’s ban on discriminatory abortions is now in effect. pic.twitter.com/vAZD9iB1WS
Additionally, the bill prohibited public education institution facilities from performing or providing abortions except in a medical emergency. Instead, the bill required that abortion clinics either cremate or inter fetal remains, with the decision of the child’s final resting place given to the mother.
The bill also required that only qualified physicians provide abortion-inducing drugs and prohibited anyone from delivering or mailing those drugs.
Finally, the bill prohibited public or tax money from allocation to research projects using aborted fetal remains.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
During a special session on Tuesday, the Pinal County Board of Supervisors approved a plan to fix incorrect early ballots mailed to about 63,000 voters last week. The ballots were missing city and town contests from seven municipalities: Casa Grande, Eloy, Mammoth, Maricopa, and Superior, along with the Pinal County portions of Apache Junction and Queen Creek.
Pinal County agreed with the secretary of state’s office to send supplemental ballots, or “Municipal Only” ballots, to all voters in the seven municipalities. However, those voters must also use their original ballot for all federal, state, and legislative contests — the supplemental ballots will only account for the races absent from the original, erroneous ballots.
The county will also have in-person voting at Election Day polling sites for municipal contests in the seven impacted cities and towns. As for voters with ballots including races outside their jurisdiction, the county assured reporters that the election tabulation system would invalidate and not count them.
— Pinal County – Government 🌵 (@PinalCounty) July 13, 2022
As the Arizona Daily Independent noted, Elections Director David Frisk acknowledged that the county officials bore full responsibility, namely himself.
“Due to human errors made by myself and staff under my direct supervision, ballots were produced and mailed to voters within seven municipalities without the appropriate local races and measures,” said Frisk. “I missed the crucial step of ensuring that each ballot style produced had appropriate races on it […] It was my mistake.”
The plan comes after AZ Free News reported about one Pinal County resident — attorney general candidate Tiffany Shedd — who petitioned her election officials repeatedly about address errors on her and her family’s voter ID cards. Several weeks before the county mailed the 63,000 erroneous ballots, a deputy county attorney informed Shedd — after alleged hostility from the recorder’s office — that she could no longer contact election officials about her issue.
“Our driver’s licenses don’t match our voter ID cards and it was unacceptable to me that any elections official thought it was okay that we might be forced to cast a provisional ballot,” remarked Shedd at the time. “It is a huge problem to receive a ballot for an election that we are not qualified to vote in, and to be denied the opportunity to vote in your own city’s elections. Is it any wonder people are questioning whether our elections are free and fair?”
Shedd also reported that her son received a ballot including a city council race, despite living outside city limits. This was one issue that affected thousands of other Pinal County voters.
For weeks I have been raising the alarm about the wrong address on voter registrations and it’s effect on the primary. After being ignored we now have a huge mess! #Elections2022pic.twitter.com/SRo5ANzokp
The number of small business owners across America who expect business conditions to improve over the next six months dropped considerably in June, hitting the lowest level in the 48 years the National Federation of Independent Business has conducted the survey.
That was the dismal news released Tuesday by Chad Heinrich, NFIB’s state director for Arizona.
“With small-business-owner expectations dimming to a record low, it becomes even more important that we have state leaders focused on ways to improve business conditions for the small-business owner,” Heinrich said. “All Arizonans have benefited from state legislative and executive leaders who have adopted pro-small-business policies year-after-year.”
Heinrich’s statement drew attention to the NFIB’s Small Business Optimism Index for June which showed a drop for the sixth consecutive month. That means the expectations of small business owners for better conditions have worsened every month of 2022.
NFIB Chief Economist Bill Dunkelberg also addressed the pessimistic news revealed by the Small Business Optimism Index.
“On top of the immediate challenges facing small business owners including inflation and worker shortages, the outlook for economic policy is not encouraging either as policy talks have shifted to tax increases and more regulations,” Dunkelberg said.
Among the key findings in Tuesday’s report is that 50 percent of small business owners reported job openings that could not be filled, a historically “very high” rating. Of those hiring or trying to hire, 94 percent reported few or no qualified applicants for the positions they were trying to fill.
Even one bit of good news in Tuesday’s report wasn’t all that positive. According to NFIB’s Small Business Optimism Index, the net percent of owners raising their average selling prices decreased three points. However, the decrease comes after May’s record high reporting of price increases.
Heinrich advised that Arizonans cannot rest on the successes that have kept the state at or near the top of post-pandemic economic gains.
“We must continue to support leaders who understand that most new jobs are created by small business owners,” he said. “Small businesses drive the Arizona economy forward.”
The NFIB Research Center has collected Small Business Economic Trends data with quarterly surveys since the 4th quarter of 1973 and monthly surveys since 1986. Survey respondents are randomly drawn from NFIB’s membership.
