by AZ Free Enterprise Club | May 19, 2025 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Joe Biden caused a lot of damage in just four years as president. He undermined national security, cratered the economy, and weaponized the deep state against ordinary Americans and civil liberties. Considering these monstrous failures, the devastation he caused in transportation and infrastructure is largely overlooked. But shockingly, Biden’s USDOT director Pete Buttigieg made it pretty far down the road implementing a woke transportation agenda across the country.
In the past decade, environmentalists and central planners have linked arms with woke evangelists to radicalize transportation policy across the country. This was super-charged under Biden’s administration that pushed propaganda about roads being racist, rewrote rules and policies to force the Green New Deal, and made billions in grants to states and localities contingent on them adopting this woke agenda.
Now, Trump is hitting the brakes on the Left’s anti-car agenda, and in just 100 days Secretary of USDOT Sean Duffy has begun reversing course, cleansing the agency of DEI, environmental red tape, and wasteful and damaging spending…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Laura Pedersen | May 17, 2025 | Opinion
By Laura Pedersen RN, MSN |
No one wants to see expectant mothers suffer, physically or mentally—no one but the Big Abortion industry that is. Yet pro-abortion activists in Arizona repeatedly insist that abortion behemoth Planned Parenthood and its affiliates have women’s best interests in mind, when evidence reveals that nothing is further from the truth.
Activists at Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL) recently launched political ads against Rep. Juan Ciscomani (AZ-06), misinforming viewers that if Republicans cast a vote to defund Planned Parenthood, they will inflict harm on women and deny them essential health care. Reasonable constituents of Ciscomani’s district, myself included, know full well that these ads are nothing but a fearmongering attempt and an effort to keep Planned Parenthood open for business as usual – to the detriment of women and their vulnerable children in the womb.
It’s a well-documented fact that Planned Parenthood does little to meaningfully move the needle on women’s healthcare in America, and worse, causes mothers unnecessary pain and turmoil during their most vulnerable moments in life. Even the abortion-promoting New York Times recently admitted there is a problem with care received at these abortion facilities when it published a February 2025 report covering horrific examples of low-quality patient treatments. One child, the report said, was stillborn after a Planned Parenthood improperly implanted an IUD in the mother’s uterus. In Missouri, a Planned Parenthood was shut down in 2024 for using moldy abortion equipment on women. Likewise, in Colorado, an 18-year-old girl recently died from an abortion Planned Parenthood conducted at 22 weeks. Yet despite these tragedies, Reproductive Freedom for All continues to sing Planned Parenthood’s praises.
While Planned Parenthood’s competency in performing safe abortions decreases, the services they offer women beyond abortion – such as breast exams and cancer screenings – are also on the decline. Contrary to what the recent ads against Ciscomani claim, Planned Parenthood’s cancer screenings, breast exams, and pap smears have dropped by more than 70 percent in the time that taxpayer funding for the abortion giant has increased by 43 percent. Even contraception services are down nearly 40 percent and mammograms aren’t offered at all, clearly indicating that Planned Parenthood isn’t a health care provider, but a soulless abortion business that cares little if anything about the women who walk through the doors of its 600 facilities across the nation.
Planned Parenthood’s own reporting reveals that they are overwhelmingly preoccupied with destroying life instead of helping mothers and their children thrive. Prenatal services account for only 1.6 percent of services offered at their facilities, miscarriage care accounts for 0.9 percent, and adoption referrals 0.4 percent. They perform 228 abortions for every one adoption referral, and more than 97 percent of pregnant women who walk through their doors end up getting abortions.
From a political point of view, it’s no surprise that Reproductive Freedom for All – an organization hell bent on using millions of dollars to put progressive policies into law – would back Planned Parenthood, itself known for engaging heavily in political spending to help pro-abortion Democrats win elections. These activists’ political leanings, however, are stopping them from advancing real medical progress for women’s health.
What political activists and their television ads don’t want you to know is that if Planned Parenthood is defunded, all women – especially Medicaid recipients – will be left with safer, higher quality care at federally funded community health centers which offer a full range of women’s health services, including OB/GYN care, well-woman care, and family planning. They also outnumber Planned Parenthoods 15 to one. If Americans are no longer forced to subsidize the Big Abortion industry, pregnant women will receive true, comprehensive health care, even in rural areas.
Far from cutting benefits to women, defunding Planned Parenthood would save them from extreme anguish at the hands of abortionists everywhere. It’s with great concern for the women of Arizona and all expectant mothers that I urge my fellow residents to challenge the political talking points presented on screen and stand behind Rep. Ciscomani and against the Big Abortion lobby.
Laura Pedersen RN, MSN is a Tucson, Arizona, resident and pro-life advocate.
by Mike Bengert | May 16, 2025 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
Last Tuesday night, the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board held what could only be described as a marathon meeting, lasting six and a half hours, including the executive session. The agenda was packed with items, but one issue drew the most attention: the proposed adoption of a new Social Science curriculum.
Eighteen individuals participated in the public comment portion of the meeting. All but one focused on the curriculum. A significant majority urged the Board not to adopt it, citing deep concerns. Opponents argued that the curriculum was saturated with DEI narratives, anti-law enforcement bias, gender ideology, climate activism, misleading COVID-19 claims, and advocacy for student activism over academic learning. Their primary concern: the curriculum fosters political indoctrination, not education.
Despite their differences, both supporters and critics of the curriculum appeared to agree on two points: students need to be taught the truth about current events, and they must learn to think critically. The debate centers on what constitutes the truth and how critical thinking should be developed.
Those supporting the curriculum’s adoption argued that it presents an honest, if uncomfortable, portrayal of America, especially regarding race and law enforcement. The curriculum cites examples like the 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. It emphasizes that Brown, an unarmed Black teenager, was shot six times and killed by a white police officer, and points to the incident as emblematic of systemic racism.
The curriculum also discusses the rise of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and its evolution from protesting police brutality to addressing broader systemic issues like housing, healthcare, and employment disparities for Black Americans.
Additional content includes explanations about gender identity, stating individuals can identify as male, female, both, or neither. The curriculum also addresses the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that the FDA approved two highly effective vaccines and suggesting that lockdowns saved lives. It frames the environmental benefits of lockdowns as evidence of climate change and the need for continued action.
One speaker supporting the curriculum even admitted that for those questioning these narratives, “I don’t know what to say.”
Critics, however, challenged these representations as incomplete or misleading. Regarding the Michael Brown case, there is no mention that the Department of Justice’s investigation found Brown was attacking the officer and trying to take his weapon—his DNA was found on the gun—and that the claim he had his hands up saying “don’t shoot” was debunked in court. By omitting these critical facts, the curriculum pushes a one-sided narrative that paints law enforcement as inherently racist.
If the goal were truly critical thinking, the curriculum would also include studies like that of a Harvard professor, who, despite his preconceived belief that there is racial bias in policing, found no racial bias in police shootings after analyzing hundreds of cases. An honest and open discussion would allow students to examine why Black Americans commit crimes at a rate disproportionate to their population, not just claim they are victims of systemic racism. Perhaps the high rate of crimes being committed by young Blacks might explain their high rate of involvement with the police. But with this curriculum, it is doubtful the students will ever have such a discussion.
Law enforcement professionals also voiced concerns. The President of the Maricopa County Colleges Police Officers Association, a former Scottsdale police officer, and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office both criticized the curriculum’s anti-police tone. They warned that such content erodes trust between youth and law enforcement—trust, they say, is essential for community safety.
Rather than comparing the BLM movement to the civil rights movement and implying BLM has done great things for Blacks in America, why not tell the truth that the leaders of BLM stole money and bought houses for themselves? Or that several of the local chapters said nothing has been done by BLM to help Blacks in their communities.
Critics also took issue with how the curriculum handles topics like climate change and COVID-19. The omission of data showing that Antarctica has gained ice in recent years, information that contradicts climate change alarmism, is concerning. While skeptics of the climate narratives are called “science deniers,” the curriculum promotes the idea that there are more than two genders and that gender is fluid is a fact, when it’s really a denial of biological science.
On COVID-19, the curriculum claims the vaccines were effective at preventing infection but fails to acknowledge how the scientific narrative evolved. Initial claims about vaccine efficacy were later revised, with experts clarifying that while vaccines may not prevent infection, they can reduce the severity of symptoms. The curriculum also omits discussion of the high survival rate of COVID-19, 99%, particularly in children, and the long-term educational harm caused by prolonged school closures. There is no mention of the fact that the government actively blocked any negative discussion about the vaccine, including reporting on the severe negative side effects many people experienced.
One especially controversial element of the curriculum encourages students to take political action, such as organizing protests or social media campaigns, in support of transgender rights, or creating NGOs, leading critics to argue that it turns students into political activists.
Questions were also raised about how the curriculum was reviewed and recommended. Supporters of the adoption process claimed the committee’s work was “thorough and inclusive,” but the review committee was composed mostly of teachers, with only one community member, who happened to be the spouse of a former Board member, and no parents on the committee. One supporter of the curriculum told the Board members it was their responsibility to approve the committee’s recommendation, apparently without considering the curriculum themselves and just rubber-stamping the committee’s work. I don’t think so.
There are financial implications, too. Because the curriculum includes DEI and gender identity material, the SUSD risks losing funding—not just from government sources but also due to declining enrollment—as some families opt out of SUSD altogether. This ongoing trend of declining enrollment tracks with Dr. Menzel’s leadership of SUSD. Not only are students leaving, but critical, experienced staff and teachers are leaving. At this time, only about 50% of the eligible students attend SUSD—a dismal number, but reflective of just how well SUSD is perceived in the community.
I urge you to do your research on the curriculum and draw your conclusions. Follow Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity on X to see the specific examples taken directly from the textbooks, and watch the May 13, 2025, Board meeting on YouTube to see the discussion for yourselves.
Keep in mind that indoctrination aims to instill a specific set of beliefs or ideas without allowing for critical thinking or questioning, whereas education encourages exploration, curiosity, and independent thought, fostering a deeper understanding through evidence and critical analysis.
After doing your research, ask yourself: Is this curriculum indoctrination or education? Which do you want for your child?
The current Board makeup makes any substantial changes in SUSD unlikely. Dr. Menzel’s apparent security in his position of “leadership” means we can expect him to continue his destruction of SUSD. I expect to see more 3–2 votes going forward and remain skeptical about the Board’s willingness or ability to restore trust and balance in SUSD and the classroom.
As this school year comes to an end, talk to your kids about what has gone on in their classrooms. What have they learned? Go to the SUSD website and look at the materials they will be using next year. If the information you are seeking is not available, use the Let’s Talk feature to question the staff and Dr. Menzel. If you find something objectionable, exercise your rights under Arizona law and opt your kid out of lessons.
Go to the Arizona Department of Education website and check the academic performance of your child’s school, or the new one they will be attending next year. Don’t fall for the SUSD hype of having so many A+ schools; rather, compare that rating to the academic performance of your schools. Does it meet your definition of A+? You just might be surprised at what you find.
Not every parent can take their child out of SUSD. Many will return next year, but despite the challenges, we must continue to strive for change in SUSD. Get involved. Go to Board meetings. Email the Board with your thoughts and concerns. Talk to the teachers. I know everyone is busy, but you can’t sit idly by and expect others to do the work by themselves. The number of people involved matters.
It’s your kid’s future we are talking about.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | May 14, 2025 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Since becoming Governor of Arizona in 2023, Katie Hobbs’ name has been synonymous with corruption. Now, one of her latest vetoes shows the lengths she is willing to go to protect her own schemes.
Buried on the afternoon of Friday, May 2, Hobbs vetoed SB 1612, along with 21 other bills. Sponsored by Arizona State Senator TJ Shope, SB 1612 would have required anyone applying for grants to various state agencies to disclose gifts, donations, or other support provided to the sitting governor. That sort of transparency should be something that every Arizonan can get behind—Republicans, Democrats, Independents, you name it—unless, of course, your agenda doesn’t involve the best interests of Arizona citizens, right Katie Hobbs?
This whole story starts at the very beginning of Hobbs’ tenure as governor. If you’ll recall, at the time, Hobbs set up a shady slush fund to provide donors with a conduit to buy political favor from her administration. While setting up and managing the fund, Hobbs illegally used public resources—like the state’s website—to solicit money for her inauguration. And she also tried to stop the disclosure of the names of those who donated to her inaugural fund.
But after immense political pressure and public records requests filed by groups like the Arizona Freedom Foundation (who operates AZ Free News), Hobbs finally released the names of the donors. One of the names of the groups on the list was Sunshine Residential Homes Inc., a for-profit company that contracts with the State of Arizona to provide some child welfare services. At the time, Sunshine Residential Homes made a donation of $100,000. But in June 2024, an eye-opening report revealed a deeper level of corruption—an alleged pay-to-play scheme between Hobbs and the group home…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | May 9, 2025 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
There has likely never been a more tendentious transfer of power in presidential history than the Biden-Harris team’s final act. They salted the ground by allocating billions of unspent COVID funds to George Soros and other radical left-wing groups.
Out of spite, they sold the border wall at giveaway prices. They tied down policy preventing offshore oil drilling, granted Social Security benefits to previously ineligible government employees, defied the Supreme Court to forgive student loans, and were uncooperative in relinquishing the VP residence.
Yet by far the most consequential crisis they unleashed is the massive number of illegal aliens now embedded within our borders. Many Americans were astonished to see our leadership not only ignore American immigration law but actively work for its violation.
Now we know for certain their claims that they needed more funding and legislation were made-up excuses. Their successors have reduced daily crossings to near-zero without the benefit of either.
Their attempted deceptions fooled some but not all. As public outcry grew, they doggedly persisted, willing to take the heat in order to transform America’s future electorate.
Worse, they succeeded. No reliable statistics are available for the getaways, unlawful crossings or total new “guests,” but most estimates are in the range of 20 million illegally within our borders.
Many sanctimonious Americans claim these lawbreakers should be allowed to stay for humanitarian reasons since they’re just “seeking a better life” or “fleeing persecution” in the case of the mostly bogus asylum seekers. But when a busload of “victims” was delivered to the left-wing enclave of Martha’s Vineyard, they were speedily transported elsewhere within a day.
That’s understandable, hypocrisy aside. These are not your grandfather’s immigrants, who wanted to be contributing Americans and often endured generations of hardship to assimilate, learn the language, and become self-supporting.
Today’s illegal immigrants are rewarded for wading the Rio Grande by becoming entitled wards of the state. They are fed, sheltered, and transported around the country. They are housed, sometimes in luxury hotels, and introduced by helpful NGOs to benefits like health care, education, and permanent food programs.
No serious consideration was given to the prospect that immigrants or their proxies would bear financial responsibility for all these goods and services. Thus, jurisdictions like New York City are feeling the pinch of what amounts to a sudden, dramatic expansion in their welfare roles, forcing out existing programs.
Trump made the resolution of this threat a major feature of his election campaign by vowing to close our borders and deport millions of illegal immigrants. To his credit, he has made a sincere effort, reducing breaches of the border from 130,000 monthly last April to a mere trickle today.
But reversing the inflow has proved more problematic. As of recently, relying almost solely on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to remove illegals has resulted in a total of 65,000 deportations. Those with criminal records have commendably been prioritized, but at the rate so far achieved, we would deport only 1 million, or about 5%, of those who are eligible, in four years.
Trump often prefers confrontation to resolve conflicts, but there’s a better way, using incentives and voluntary self-removal. Immigrants are attracted to America primarily by work and welfare. If those magnets could be eliminated, immigrants would eventually self-deport.
The welfare piece is relatively simple logistically. There is no coherent reason to grant benefits to those who intentionally defy our laws and take advantage of our generosity.
Government welfare benefits to illegals should be phased out immediately. Moreover, their home countries would benefit from having their working age citizens return.
Jobs are more complicated. E-Verify is the federal system for assuring that illegal immigrants don’t take American jobs, but it has not worked well, partly due to lack of cooperation from employers who frankly prefer foreign nationals who are compliant and work for less.
To prevent a future glut of unskilled, unneeded workers, President Trump must work with Congress to make E-Verify the enforceable law of the land. Like the border itself, it is simply a matter of having the will to make it happen. Lettuce may cost a bit more, but the vegetables will still get picked.
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.
by Katarina White | May 9, 2025 | Opinion
By Katarina White |
Before Arizona voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2024 to legalize abortion up until birth, the state’s abortion laws still had some guardrails in place—things like parental consent, waiting periods, and informed consent. But even with those protections, the 2023 Abortion Report shows how far the abortion industry had already entrenched itself in our state.
In 2023 alone, 12,705 surgical abortions were performed across seven reported facilities in Arizona. This number does not include chemical abortions, which are increasingly common and more difficult to track in detail.
Two Planned Parenthood facilities—in Tempe and Flagstaff—do not appear in the report because they were not fully operational in 2023 and did not perform surgical abortions. However, both clinics are now fully open and positioned to expand services under Arizona’s new constitutional amendment declaring abortion a “fundamental right.”
These facilities weren’t included in the 2023 data—but they will be moving forward. And with surgical and chemical abortions alike being completely accessible, the number of lives lost will certainly rise.
These aren’t just statistics. These are real buildings where children lost their lives—some within walking distance of the State Capitol.
Here are the seven facilities listed in the 2023 report:
- Camelback Family Planning – 4,295 abortions
4141 N 32nd St. STE 105, Phoenix, AZ 85018 – 5.84 miles from the Arizona State Capitol
- Family Planning Associated Medical Group – 2,644 abortions
1331 N 7th St. Unit 225, Phoenix, AZ 85006 – 2.17 miles
- Acacia Women’s Center – 2,355 abortions
2023 W Bethany Home Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85015 – 5.12 miles
- Choices Women’s Center – 1,148 abortions
5240 E Knight Dr, #112, Tucson, AZ 85712 – 108.26 miles
- Planned Parenthood Glendale Health Center – 1,422 abortions
5771 W Eugle Ave, Glendale, AZ 85304 – 10.38 miles
- Planned Parenthood Southern Arizona Regional Health Center – 552 abortions
2255 N Wyatt Dr, Tucson, AZ 85712 – 108.71 miles
- Desert Star Family Planning, LLC – 264 abortions
5501 N 19th Ave #420, Phoenix, AZ 85015 – 4.74 miles
And here are the two locations not included in the 2023 report—but now fully operational and likely to contribute to higher abortion totals in future reports:
- Planned Parenthood – Flagstaff
2500 S Woodlands Village Blvd, Suite 12, Flagstaff, AZ 86001 – 149.3 miles
- Planned Parenthood – Tempe
1837 E Baseline Rd, Tempe, AZ 85283 – 13.1 miles
In 2023, Arizona recorded 77,881 live births. But alongside that hope, 12,705 babies were surgically aborted—and that’s just what we can confirm. That means over 14% of pregnancies in Arizona ended in death rather than life. With new clinics now open and constitutional protections in place, there is every reason to believe that number will rise sharply in 2025 and beyond.
Let’s be clear—this is not about “empowering women.” The abortion industry has stalked poor and minority communities for decades, flooding their neighborhoods with clinics and pushing abortion as a solution to poverty. They’ve told vulnerable women that ending the life of their own child is liberation. They’ve called this “healthcare.” They’ve called it “compassion.”
It’s none of those things.
They don’t offer housing. They don’t offer prenatal support. They don’t offer stability or hope. They offer a suction machine and a billing invoice—and they call that freedom.
Friedrich Nietzsche warned of what happens when societies lose their moral clarity:
“There is a point in the history of society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly.”
That is precisely what we are witnessing now. Arizona didn’t become more just when it added abortion to the Constitution. It became more dangerous, more dishonest. It wrapped violence in the language of rights and stripped away the last legal defenses for the most defenseless people among us.
This is not progress. This is exploitation—and it’s protected now by law.
The abortion industry and its political allies think the people of Arizona will look the other way. That we’ll adjust. That we’ll stop being horrified. But we won’t. We will keep pointing out the numbers. We will keep naming the buildings. We will keep exposing the lies.
And we will not stop until the killing ends—and Arizona remembers what it means to protect life.
Katarina White serves as Board Member for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed, visit the Arizona Right to Life website.
