Free speech is dying in schools. Ian Prior with America First posted on X that the Loudoun County School Board Chair recently shut down public comment to “combat misinformation.” The Chair claimed that misinformation is rising, and the board must be vigilant in actively combating it. Since COVID, parents have taken to the microphone at Loudon County Public Schools (LCPS) board meetings nationwide to make public comments. Some respectfully, and some in outrage, have sought to hold the governing board accountable for unthinkable, immoral school incidents and an apparent reckless disregard for core academics.
Take, for example, another LCPS board meeting. A female student’s father became agitated about her daughter’s alleged recent assault in the girls’ bathroom by a boy wearing a skirt. When the LCPS Superintendent Scott Ziegler spoke up in response, he asserted that “the predator transgender student or person simply does not exist” and that “we don’t have any record of assaults occurring in our restrooms.” According to Fox News, a judge found the boy guilty, and the father filed a lawsuit against the school.
Suppression of free speech seems to be “in the air,” and it’s frightening to discover that some conservatives, once the bastion of free speech defenders, are taking on an authoritarian posture. School board members have been known to tell community members not to make public comments at their board meetings. Everyone has the right to sign up to make public comments under open meetings law while respecting board protocols and decorum when making comments.
Recently, in North Carolina, after making public comments at a board meeting, Pastor John Amanchukwu was put in handcuffs and escorted out. Amanchukwu travels the country speaking at school board meetings to defend public school kids from dangerous woke culture in the classroom. Maybe in a different style, he did what hundreds or thousands of us nationwide did when making public comments at school board meetings. He asserted that the Board allowing pornographic content and discussions on gender identity in schools was a violation of parental rights.
Free speech may not always be welcomed by the hearer, but we are entitled to our opinions. The freedom to speak up about issues of concern is a hallowed right unique in human history, as expressed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It safeguards speech in the press, at an assembly, and the right to petition the government from governmental interference. Its protections include what we say and wear on a hat, a T-shirt, a sign, and other symbols. Yes, even at school board meetings.
However, freedom of speech appears to be eroding across the board, including on social media platforms. And this affects all issues of concern, including education. The recent SCOTUS case (Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck) determined that while freedom of speech applies to federal, state, and local governments, the First Amendment does not govern private entities. That makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is that this ruling is being applied to social media platforms. They are exempt from the responsibilities of a publisher. Yet, Facebook and other social media can regulate or restrict speech hosted on their platforms by manipulating algorithms to favor their friends and harm their enemies.
In addition to honestly examining whether our right to free speech is being infringed, we should also determine whether we are operating out of mutual respect when it comes to the free speech of others despite everyday differences of opinion. For example, what is the real reason that the Loudon County Public School Board decided to shut down certain kinds of speech at board meetings? Well, for one thing, in doing so, they are shutting down dissent. Government entity or not, this differs from where we should go as a society.
Tamra Farah has twenty years of experience in public policy and politics, focusing on protecting individual liberty and promoting limited government.
Free-market economist Milton Friedman was hardly anti-immigration. He acknowledged that, pre-1914, immigrants came “for a better life for them and their children. In the main they succeeded,” broadly benefiting their adopted country.
But there was an important caveat. “It is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare.” Immigrants dependent on public benefits don’t boost their host country. They have the effect of “a reduction of everybody to the same, uniform level.”
Leftists may not like it, but Friedman was right. We’re about to learn the lesson good and hard.
The tens of millions of “undocumented” immigrants now arriving in America have a much different outlook than immigrants of a century ago. In short, today’s immigrants don’t work that much.
A study of Census data by the Atlanta Federal Reserve reported that while over half of new jobs created in the last two years have gone to illegal immigrants, so many have come that barely half of working age, non-college immigrants are in the labor force. Five of six native Americans 25 through 64 regularly work.
The Border Patrol recorded over 10 million illegal immigrants processed during the Biden years plus countless millions not detected. Yet foreign-born employment increased by only 2.32 million. So, who is supporting the rest? We are.
California is the poster child for dependent illegal immigrants. There they get taxpayer-funded health insurance, food stamps, housing allowances, and myriad other benefits, costing $22.8 billion in state and local taxes alone, according to the pro-immigration Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Yet this for a population that generated just $8.5 billion in income.
Moreover, many of the programs are direct federal subsidies which means we all participate in their funding. Beyond all this is the escalation in spending by NGOs and philanthropic agencies to house, clothe, and feed the millions of “newcomers” being bused around the country, again at our expense.
The increased pressure on the federal budget, which immigration “hawks” warned against not long ago, has already been normalized. The discussion has subtly passed from whether illegal immigrants should be included in public benefits to how this should be accomplished. Deportation, once assumed for those who failed their asylum hearings (which most do), is now regarded as logistically and morally impossible.
It’s no mystery why our welfare system is a worldwide magnet. Average benefits received by working age households have risen from $7,352 in 1967 to $64,700 in 2022, adjusted for inflation. Welfare spending now consumes 72.6 percent of unobligated revenues (an accounting which doesn’t count payroll taxes or mandatory interest payments) while defense spending has fallen by half.
Most Americans don’t realize that official poverty statistics distributed by the Census Bureau don’t count as income. 88% of the transfer payments made to alleviate poverty. As noted by Gramm and Arrington in the Wall Street Journal, “The census doesn’t count refundable tax credits, food stamp debit cards, free medical care through Medicaid or benefits from about 100 other transfer payments as income.”
When these benefits are deemed to be income, 80% of those today who are counted as poor are no longer poor and the bottom three income quintiles in the Census Bureau all have approximately the same spending power.
With the abundance of means-tested transfer payments available, the percentage of working age persons in the bottom quintile who work has fallen from 68% to 38%. For about the same income, 2.4 times as many workers in the second lowest quintile actually work—and on average work 85% more hours than those in the bottom quintile.
Welfare beneficiaries in the main aren’t liars or cheaters. They are making rational decisions in an irrational environment. America is unfortunately a nation deeply in debt, living on anticipated income from the future. We spend money as if we still had it. The kids will figure it out.
The driving motive behind immigration policy is still to permanently alter the political landscape. The ultimate victims may be the migrants themselves, attracted by promises that in the long run can’t be kept.
As Friedman pointed out, we can’t enrich others by impoverishing ourselves. We all just become more poor.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
The Scottsdale teachers’ union has endorsed three candidates for the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board, emphasizing their extensive experience as education professionals. While their expertise may seem impressive to some, the pressing question remains: does SUSD need more so-called experts on the Board, or do we require individuals who prioritize common sense, academic excellence, and respect for parents’ rights?
Under the current leadership of Dr. Menzel, an education expert, the SUSD has experienced a troubling decline in academic performance and significant student and staff turnover. Despite promises by the experts that social-emotional learning (SEL) would improve academic educational outcomes, the reality has been disappointing. Not only has academic achievement not improved but it has declined during his tenure.
Dr. Menzel and the experts on the Board, who rubber stamp everything he wants to do, not only have a dismal academic record but have caused over 2,200 students to leave SUSD along with record-high staff turnover.
Some studies and reports suggest that SEL is harming the emotional and mental health of students. The shift in spending away from teachers and to more social workers and counselors further drives down academic performance.
The three endorsed candidates—Dr. Donna Lewis, Matt Pittinsky, and Michael Sharkey—have questionable records that raise concerns about their suitability for the Board, but they also promise to “protect SUSD” and Menzel, ensuring the continued disruption and dismantling of the District.
Dr. Lewis has highlighted her accolade as the national superintendent of the year during her time at the Creighton School District, claiming she improved schools from Cs, Ds, and Fs to As, Bs, and Cs. However, she conveniently omits that only 13% of students were proficient in English Language Arts (ELA) and just 8% in math during her celebrated year. Additionally, her leadership style has been criticized for creating a hostile and toxic environment, prompting a formal public apology from a school board member after her departure.
Matt Pittinsky, another candidate with 25 years in education, has been less than forthcoming about his business ties to SUSD. One of his companies provides services to the district, a fact he only revealed after being confronted publicly. This raises serious questions about his transparency and the potential conflicts of interest in his role as a board member. Furthermore, his acceptance of over $10,000 in out-of-state campaign contributions, primarily from CEOs of companies that sell to schools, adds another layer of concern. What motivations could these out-of-state contributors have for influencing a local election?
Michael Sharkey, who has over 20 years of experience in education, has publicly linked his candidacy to the rise of the parents’ rights movement, which he blames for many of SUSD’s current issues. Sharkey asserts that the “book bans, cultural wars, and dysfunction” that are plaguing SUSD are due to the parents’ rights movement.
He rejects the idea that parents are best positioned to make educational and healthcare decisions for their children, asserting that trained professionals know better. This stance is contrary to the Arizona Revised Statutes, which enshrine parental rights in the Parent’s Bill of Rights. Sharkey’s reluctance to recognize these rights suggests a troubling approach to governance that may not prioritize parental input nor respect their legal parental rights.
Despite Sharkey’s recent claims of wanting to engage with families and welcome their input, it’s important to note that initial statements often reflect true beliefs. His previous rhetoric implies a preference for limiting parental involvement and allowing “experts” to take charge of children’s education and healthcare.
You also must ask yourself why a school board member, who should be focusing on academics, would be involved in making healthcare decisions for the students. Again, Arizona law leaves it up to the parents.
This upcoming election presents a critical choice: we can either “protect SUSD” and continue down the path of endorsing more educational experts who have failed to deliver results and are harming children, or we can elect board members who demonstrate common sense, a focus on academics, and a commitment to respecting parents’ rights. Candidates like Gretchen Jacobs, Jeanne Beasley, and Drew Hassler embody these qualities, promising to be responsible stewards of our tax dollars while prioritizing the safety and educational needs of all students in SUSD.
It’s time for a change that puts our children’s future first.
Mr. Williams is a longtime Scottsdale resident, businessman, grandfather, and the parent of an SUSD graduate.
Every election cycle, out-of-state special interests spend millions trying to put their bad ideas onto our ballot. Because these groups do not understand our laws or our constitution, the measures they peddle are poorly drafted and are often unworkable or illegal. In some instances, they do know better but don’t seem to care that their proposed measure is unconstitutional.
For example, in 2020, two out-of-state groups collected signatures to put the largest tax hike in state history on the ballot. Nonpartisan attorneys at legislative council told them prior to gathering any signatures that their measure was unconstitutional. They didn’t care. After a multi-million-dollar campaign that resulted in the measure passing by a slim margin, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled the initiative unconstitutional a year later.
Why was it on the ballot in the first place, if it was so clearly unconstitutional? The courts have long held that they currently do not have the power to consider any challenges to the constitutionality of a measure before it is passed on the ballot. The only challenge that can be brought is against the signatures filed with the Secretary of State, or for a violation of the single subject or separate amendment requirements.
But if an out-of-state group is trying to put a measure on the ballot that is clearly unconstitutional, like statutorily exempting a tax hike from a constitutional spending limit, as Prop 208 tried to do, a challenge is not considered “ripe.” Instead, costly campaigns are run on both sides, and only after voters have been presented with a broken measure can a challenge be brought.
As an OB/GYN with over a decade of experience treating patients with high-risk pregnancies and complications, I have seen firsthand how complex and vulnerable caring for these women can be. While political activists claim that Proposition 139 will improve healthcare in Arizona, nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve never encountered a proposal more dangerous for women’s health.
Supporters of Prop. 139 claim that it’s a necessary step to safeguard abortion access, but in reality, this measure dismantles critical health and safety standards, exposing women—particularly young women—to grave harm. Arizona is just one of 10 states considering such a measure, and the adoption of these constitutional amendments would send shockwaves across the country, paving the way for a radical erosion of reproductive health standards that could influence national policy.
Arizona law already allows abortions up to 15 weeks, with exceptions for later abortions in medical emergencies — a policy supported by 90% of the state’s residents. Prop. 139, however, goes far beyond guaranteeing access.
Consider this. Under Prop. 139, regulations that protect women during abortion procedures would be outlawed. Imagine a teenager seeking an abortion—shouldn’t her physician be required to explain the potential risks and ensure she understands her options? Under this amendment, such a requirement would become illegal. Mandatory ultrasounds to detect dangerous conditions like ectopic pregnancies? Illegal. Parental consent for minors? Also illegal. Requiring that a licensed physician perform the procedure? Illegal.
This isn’t speculation… it’s in the text of the proposition. Prop. 139 prevents any law or regulation that could be interpreted as a “barrier” to abortion. Even commonsense regulations such as regular inspections of facilities, or a waiting period before undergoing an abortion, would be cast aside. These precautions are simply designed to protect women’s lives and well-being. Worse yet, and perhaps most concerningly, the amendment is deliberately vague in its definition of who can perform abortions, labeling them simply as “health care professionals” without specifying their qualifications. This could allow unlicensed and unqualified individuals to perform the procedure.
The consequences would be devastating, and not just for Arizona. We’ve already seen states across the country adopt radical amendments like this one, and in Michigan, good laws that enhance healthcare for pregnant patients have been stripped away. What happens in one state often ripples into others, influencing policy debates and shaping future legislation at the national level.
This isn’t a return to reproductive rights; it’s a step back into the unsafe, unregulated, and dangerous world of back-alley abortions— but this time, with legal protection. The risk of botched procedures, infections, infertility, and even death would rise dramatically. Women will pay the price.
As a physician, I’ve treated women who were led to believe that abortion was a quick solution to their problems, only to experience lasting trauma—both physically and emotionally. These women deserved better medical care and better counseling that Prop. 139 simply will not provide.
And the danger doesn’t stop there. This amendment would likely lead to an increase in abortions performed later in pregnancy, where the risks to a woman’s health grow exponentially. According to research from the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, a woman’s risk of death increases by 38% each week after eight weeks of pregnancy.
Prop. 139’s proponents argue they want to make abortion “safe and easy,” but the reality is the opposite. Removing essential safety standards does not make abortion safe; it makes it deadly for women. Stripping away regulatory oversight doesn’t expand women’s rights—it puts their lives in jeopardy.
This fight extends beyond Arizona’s borders. If Prop. 139 passes, it will encourage other states to gut health and safety standards under the guise of expanding access. We cannot allow this dangerous and reckless model to keep gaining traction. Women across the nation deserve better – and the buck stops with us, the physicians entrusted to provide them with excellent healthcare.
As physicians, we are committed to doing no harm. But Prop. 139 would prevent us from upholding that oath. It would rob doctors of the ability to protect their patients and deliver quality, informed care. And in the end, more women will be hurt—physically, emotionally, and sometimes fatally.
The women of Arizona — and the women of America — deserve a future where reproductive care is safe, informed, and compassionate. For the sake of women’s health, we must reject Prop 139.
Dr. Erica Kreller is a board-certified OB/GYN practicing in Gilbert, Arizona. She is also a founding member of Arizona Physicians Against Prop 139.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has set her sights on Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRCs), launching an unfounded consumer fraud report against these life-saving organizations. It’s one thing to disagree politically, but when someone in a position of power like Mayes starts deliberately targeting groups whose mission is to protect life, it raises serious concerns. What kind of message is being sent when the state’s top law enforcement officer chooses to weaponize her office against organizations that offer free services and support to women in crisis?
Mayes’ consumer fraud report absurdly claims that PRCs “ALMOST NEVER SAY ON THEIR WEBSITES THAT THEY DO NOT PROVIDE ABORTION CARE OR REFERRALS.” This is not only misleading but entirely illogical. Expecting a Pregnancy Resource Center to advertise that they don’t offer abortion services is the same as demanding that a dentist disclose they don’t provide chiropractic care. It’s a manufactured issue designed to discredit these centers, and it’s terrifying that such a tactic is being employed by someone with such power and influence.
To make matters worse, this aggressive stance could pave the way for even more dangerous outcomes if Proposition 139 passes. Prop 139, which seeks to enshrine abortion as a constitutional right in Arizona, would only strengthen the hands of those, like Mayes, who are intent on dismantling any organization that dares to stand up for the lives of unborn human beings. If passed, this amendment would not only make abortion legal up until birth, but also makes it even harder for PRCs to operate without fear of government interference or harassment. The attack on PRCs that we’re seeing now would be just the beginning.
Consider the work being done by the Aid to Women Center. This incredible facility offers a range of services from free pregnancy tests to parenting classes, helping women navigate unplanned pregnancies with care, compassion, and real solutions. Yet, in Mayes’ world, because they don’t provide abortions, they’re somehow guilty of fraud. The real fraud here is the notion that abortion is “healthcare.” Abortion dismembers life—PRCs like Aid to Women Center work to protect and preserve it.
Mayes’ attack on PRCs is not about transparency—it’s about silencing those who stand for life. If Proposition 139 is passed, it will only embolden those who want to shut down PRCs, making it harder for women to find the real reproductive care they need. Pregnancy Resource Centers do not need to apologize for their mission to protect the most vulnerable among us. Instead of demonizing these centers, our attorney general should be lifting them up as the real champions of women’s health.
Katarina White serves as Board Member for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed, visit the Arizona Right to Life website.
