Governor Doug Ducey may soon sign into law a ban on transgender surgeries for minors; the Arizona House passed a Senate bill to bar surgeries for minors to attempt a gender transition on Thursday. The bill, SB1138, passed along party lines.
AZ House just passed #SB1138 protecting children from experimental and irreversible gender related surgeries! the @votewarren sponsored bill heads to Gov’s desk pic.twitter.com/rLm5BYfGuj
Major opponents of the bill among the LGBTQ community include activists from Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a national organization focused on pushing LGBTQ ideologies and activism onto children. One such activist also identified herself as a GLSEN lobbyist and community editor for several years, during which time she testified one of her daughters went through puberty and became withdrawn, depressed, and socially isolated. Young said that she encouraged her daughter to transition genders after no amount of therapy, support groups, or psychiatric medications alleviated her poor mental health. Even so, Young says her daughter doesn’t fully identify as male, but rather “male-leaning” on what they both consider the “spectrum” of gender.
Another activist — ACLU staff attorney Chase Strangio, a transgender man known for her work defending transgender individuals, such as convicted spy Chelsea Manning — promised to mobilize efforts to convince Ducey to veto the legislation.
The legislation almost didn’t make it through initial consideration stages in the Senate. State Senator Tyler Pace (R-Mesa) wouldn’t back the bill at first during the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, arguing that parents should have the right to make medical decisions for their children. Pace later changed his mind, citing current international standards of care from health care experts on transgenderism. At present, the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) doesn’t support gender transitioning surgeries for minors.
“There’s a certain threshold of irreversibility that can happen during a gender transition. We acknowledge as a state, and so does other very friendly transgender countries like Finland, like I brought up earlier, as well as the international organizations that say: when you get to this degree of irreversibility, it should not be made as a minor,” said Pace after changing his mind.
Just as with the House, the bill passed along party lines in the Senate.
No gender reassignment surgery under the age of 18 passed the Arizona Senate. On to the house. pic.twitter.com/g7TGnDYjYR
Following approval by the Arizona House on Thursday, the legislature as a whole passed SB1165, a bill preventing transgender athletes from competing against those of the opposite gender. If the governor signs the legislation into law, it will impact transgender girls and women; males have biological differences to females that give them advantages in sports, and there are many more boys and men competing in girls and women’s sports. However, the legislation doesn’t address women who take testosterone as part of their hormone therapies, which may give them an advantage over their non-doping peers — a concern posed in the case of transgender wrestler Mack Beggs.
State Representative John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) pushed back against arguments against the bill, namely those that claimed individuals would be banned from competing in any sports entirely, or that sports aren’t really about competition but inclusion. Kavanagh cited the recent incident in which the NCAA awarded William Thomas, who goes by the name Lia Thomas and claims to be a woman, the gold medal in one race within their national D1 collegiate swim competition. The state representative argued that the years of hard work, sacrifice, and dedication committed by the women were for naught in the face of Thomas’ robbery.
“This bill allows everybody to participate in sports. It simply says that you have to go on the team that aligns with your biological gender because quite frankly, puberty conveys significant physical advantages on males. And I think it’s very unfair to make biological female athletes compete at that disadvantage. And it recently came to light in the NCAA swimming area. I think that those biological females have been cheated and robbed of a lifetime of effort,” said Kavanagh. “Clearly, there are many good things that come out of school sports besides competition. It’s fun, there’s physical fitness, there’s health. But competition is one of the major things about school sports, and anybody that doubts that might ask themselves, ‘Why are they keeping score?’ if that’s not the case.”
Democrats insisted that males competing in female sports isn’t and won’t be an issue.
State Representative Melody Hernandez (D-Tempe) claimed that transgender women aren’t dominating women’s sports.
“We talked about whether or not this is actually a problem. Trans youth are not coming in and just dominating women’s sports and switching genders because they want to go dominate sports,” said Hernandez.
State Representative Sarah Liguori (D-Phoenix) claimed that Republicans were merely scared of change and due to their ignorance. Liguori cited Harvey Milk, the historic gay rights activist accused of pedophilia and rape.
“We do not need to be afraid. We do not need to be afraid of transgender people, we do not need to be afraid of children,” said Liguori.
“Your vote today shows what side of history you are willing to be on…your willingness to lead with courage or foster the flames of fear and ignorance.” Rep. @SarahKLiguori votes no on anti-transgender #SB1165. Every Republican chose the wrong side of history. #AZLegpic.twitter.com/WZ9tjgh1fH
Certain Democrats even challenged the idea that males have any physical advantages over females. State Representative Mitzi Epstein (D-Chandler) argued that the males who dominate are merely exceptions to a rule, and that they succeed because of their hard work and discipline — not their biological advantages.
“When we hear of one trans athlete making great success, it is due to the hard work and discipline she applied to her sport,” wrote Epstein. “One example does not mean all trans people are better at sports than cis people.”
"Zombies might attack the members' lounge! That's an unfounded fear. We should not make laws based on unfounded fears, fears of zombies or fear of unfair competition with trans girls. Trans girls would be banned from girls sports teams in school- with SB1165. I voted No. …🧵 pic.twitter.com/JCI4spa0nR
The House Transportation Committee approved SB1356, legislation to give Maricopa County residents a vote for or against a transportation tax and excise tax plan. The committee passed with bipartisan support, with the exception of three: State Representatives Neal Carter (R-Queen Creek), Kevin Payne (R-Peoria), and Leo Biasucci (R-Lake Havasu City).Two didn’t vote either way: State Representatives Brenda Barton (R-Payson) and David Cook (R-Globe).
Arizona Free Enterprise Club Vice President Aimee Yentes expressed opposition to the bill, noting that 40 percent of the money was allocated for public transit. Yentes explained that the 1985 transportation tax plan was successful because it built freeways, but that over the decades the plan shifted from essential infrastructure like roads and freeways to “transit,” despite a steep, increasing decline in its use. That number sits at half a percent currently.
“As we’ve seen post-COVID, that ridership number has fallen off a cliff. There are actually more people who don’t own a vehicle that take a car to work than actually use public transit. That’s kind of astonishing,” said Yentes.
Yentes also noted that the bill sets aside funding for something already covered by statute: “regional programs.” She said the definition of that term was problematic because it doesn’t distinguish street intersection improvements but, rather, “arterial roads and regional programs.”
“It really is a catch-all that can be used to siphon off local city slush funds for whatever: complete streets, air quality,” said Yentes.
The bill sponsor, State Senator Tyler Pace (R-Mesa) said that the bill’s rejection, either by the legislature or by Maricopa County voters, would necessitate the Arizona legislature to find the funds for transportation projects themselves. Pace insisted that the committee members shouldn’t nitpick at the provisions of the bill because the greater good concerned Arizona’s legacy of quiet, fast roads superior to those of other states.
State Representative Richard Andrade (D-Glendale) compared SB1356 to previous efforts to expand and extend the state’s two major highways: Loop 101 and the I-17. Andrade argued that creating more public transit like light rails would increase their use.
Those in opposition explained that they weren’t confident this bill would actually meet transportation needs. Carter said that he supported infrastructure, but said that the legislation had room for improvement. Carter said his reservations included provisions for expenditures related to air quality, and the expansion beyond a 20-year authorization.
Payne expressed displeasure that legislators impacted by the bill weren’t included in stakeholder meetings. He explained that his constituents were requesting another bus route down Bell Road, for example, and that he couldn’t vote for the bill in good conscience because of that.
Echoing Carter and Payne’s statements in his “no” vote was Biasucci. Biasucci argued that the legislature should utilize its $4 billion in surplus instead of passing the costs on to taxpayers.
“I think this is, really, how it needs to be done: the money should come from the general fund to be spent on major projects, I’m talking billions of dollars’ worth, in my opinion. For me, when we’re sitting on this huge surplus, it’s hard for me to say, ‘Yes, I agree with a tax increase or an extension,’” said Biasucci.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Jason Bowling will become Chief Executive Officer of Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative (SSVEC) on May 31, the date longtime CEO Creden Huber retires, it was announced Wednesday.
According to SSVEC President Curtis Nolan, Bowling’s selection came after a nationwide search initiated last October when Huber announced his intent to retire this year. The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association assisted SSVEC in recruiting industry professionals and other management leaders interested in helming the 40,000-member, not-for-profit company which serves much of southeastern Arizona.
“I’m pleased with the diligence of our board members in identifying Jason Bowling as the best candidate to take over a position that has benefited from 27 years of great leadership under Creden Huber,” Nolan said of Bowling’s selection. “I’m also confident that this transition will be smooth, and that the Cooperative will continue to serve the best interests of our members.”
SSVEC is the largest of the six electricity distribution cooperatives across Arizona.
Bowling, a 16-year employee, has served the last five years as the company’s Chief Administrative Officer. His position with the company prior to that was as Human Resources Manager.
Bowling, a University of Arizona alumnus, hold an MBA from Southern New Hampshire University. He said he is humbled and excited for the opportunity to serve SSVEC’s members as CEO at a time when the industry is facing unique challenges.
“We have phenomenal employees at SSVEC,” Bowling said. “They are experienced, dedicated, and hard-working professionals. This gives me great confidence.”
In addition to his work for SSVEC, Bowling serves as a board member for the Sierra Vista Area Chamber of Commerce and also Arizona@Work.
Created in 1938 to serve 266 members in rural northeast Cochise County, SSVEC’s 5,700 square mile service territory now covers most of Cochise County as well as parts of Graham, Pima, and Santa Cruz counties, including the communities of Benson, Bowie, Elfrida, Huachuca City, Patagonia, Pearce-Sunsites, St. David, San Simon, Sierra Vista, and Willcox.
Huber has served as SSVEC’s CEO since 1995. He added his endorsement of Bowling’s selection.
“I’m confident that the organization will continue to meet and exceed the expectations of our members and the industry under Jason Bowling’s leadership,” Huber said.
SSVEC covers its expansive service area with more than 4,100 miles of energized line supported by 32 substations. The company recently achieved 51 percent equity for its members, installed a state-of-the-art metering infrastructure, and improved its financial standing with an “A” rating from an established Wall Street ratings firm.
The Arizona Senate has passed legislation which would prohibit a hospital or health care provider from imposing any treatment for COVID-19 or a variant but the bill has stalled in the House where Speaker Rusty Bowers has not scheduled it for its First Reading.
According to sponsor Sen. Nancy Barto, the legislative intent of Senate Bill 1393 is to confirm that public policy makes it “a fundamental right” to refuse any COVID-19 treatment or vaccination. Yet despite clearing the Senate on March 15, House Speaker Rusty Bowers has yet to allow the bill to have its First Reading in that chamber.
SB1393 would allow health care providers to ask a patient to specify in writing the circumstances under which the patient would accept a COVID-19 treatment if the patient cannot later express his or her consent. For purposes of the proposed legislation, a health care provider is defined as a licensed physician, a licensed nurse practitioner, or a licensed physician assistant.
The bill also requires a hospital or health care provider to ensure a patient who refuses a COVID-19 treatment is counseled and given information on other treatment options. No treatment could be mandated without a patient’s informed consent.
In addition, a patient orimmediate family of the patient would have to be advised of the patient’s right to leave a hospital; immediate family is described as a patient’s spouse, parent, child, sibling grandparent, or legal guardian.
Barto’s co-sponsors on SB1393 were Senators Sine Kerr, David Livingston, and Warren Petersen. The bill was supposed to be heard by the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning, but without a First Reading that could not occur.
The Arizona Medical Association and most of the state’s hospitals oppose the bill.
State Representative Jake Hoffman’s (R-Queen Creek) controversial proof of citizenship for voting bill passed the Senate on Wednesday along party lines. HB2492 now heads to the governor for final approval. The legislation requires that individuals provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote in the state, and further requires election officials to confirm with all available government databases that the applicant is an American citizen.
The bill advanced steadily through both the House and the Senate, moving out of Senate committee less than two weeks ago, shortly after it was passed by the entire House a few weeks before that. The legislation didn’t advance without pushback, however. Community activists attempted to stall the bill during its consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee, forcing a recess with their antics such as shouting down the legislators and shouting, “Shame!” repeatedly after the bill passed.
In a statement to AZ Free News, Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi was hopeful that Governor Doug Ducey would sign the bill. Mussi applauded the legislature for passing a bill that aligned with the state and federal constitution, forecasting that the bill would prevent bad actors from interfering with elections.
Senate Democrats had a different perspective of the bill: they claimed that the legislation would force numerous Arizonans to register to vote again. They also claimed that the bill violated federal election law.
On the floor today is #HB2492, which would force millions of Arizonans to re-register to vote and blatantly violates federal law. The legislature’s own attorneys said as much. pic.twitter.com/YAybkBI8Fz
— Arizona Senate Democrats (@AZSenateDems) March 23, 2022
In regard to the constitutionality claim, Arizona Free Enterprise Club Deputy Director Greg Blackie explained during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the 2013 Supreme Court ruling determined that the National Voter Registration Act didn’t stop states from denying an applicant’s registration based on information that proved the applicant’s ineligibility. Under this bill, that would mean proof that an applicant isn’t a citizen.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
