In a resounding declaration against over 50 years of genocide of the most defenseless among us, the Arizona Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling, firmly upholding a state law that safeguards the sanctity of life. The case of Planned Parenthood v. Mayes marked a pivotal moment in Arizona’s battle against the slaughter of innocent unborn children.
At its core, the court’s ruling represents a stand against the vile forces that seek to devalue and discard human life at its earliest stages. The law, A.R.S. § 13-3603, explicitly prohibits abortion at any stage, “unless it is necessary to save [the woman’s] life [emphasis added].”
The Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling serves as a powerful reminderthat every human being, from the moment of conception, possesses inherent dignity no matter the size or age. That’s something we should all be celebrating today, and it’s something we should be ready to defend at every given moment.
Right now, those who advocate for the continuation of this mass genocide, including proponents of the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment, are seeking to amend the state constitution to permit abortion up until birth. Their obstinate refusal to acknowledge the humanity of the unborn is an indictment of their souls and a stain on the conscience of our society. That’s why we should be ready to meet them with the truth at every turn that every human life is precious—and abortion destroys that precious life.
As we celebrate this monumental victory, let us recommit ourselves to the cause of life with renewed vigor and determination. Let us continue to fight against the culture of death that seeks to extinguish the most vulnerable among us. And may we remember that while this victory is significant, the battle is far from over.
We must build on this momentum to protect life by stopping the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment. We must decline to sign the petition to put this horrific amendment on the ballot and actively oppose any efforts that threaten to undermine the progress we’ve made in safeguarding the rights of the unborn. And our esteemed state legislators must hold firm in an unwavering commitment to uphold the sanctity of life. We cannot be swayed by fear. Abortion is not merely a choice; it is the termination of a precious life. We cannot abandon these unborn babies. Now is the time to be courageous advocates, standing steadfast in defense of those who cannot speak for themselves.
Katarina White serves as Legislative District Co-Chair for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed with the “Decline to Sign” initiative, visit the Arizona Right to Life website. Katarina also delves deeper into the proposed amendment through the “Conservative Seoul Show,” where she presents the “Sanctity Unveiled” segment. You can join her as she explores the challenges faced by the sanctity of life in the State of Arizona here.
One week the Environmental Protection Agency comes for our gasoline-powered cars, the next for our diesel-powered trucks.
EPA chose Good Friday, when many Americans were preparing to celebrate Easter Sunday (if not Transgender Day of Visibility), to release a new rule requiring that 25% of truck sales be electric by 2032.
Practically everything Americans use comes by truck, either all the way from the producer or from ports or railroad terminals. That’s why, if electric truck and charging technology existed, EPA’s new rule would raise costs of everything Americans buy, resulting in higher prices for goods and services and inflationary pressures throughout the economy.
All this at a time when the Federal Reserve is trying to get inflation down to 2%.
But America doesn’t have the electrical grid capacity, the charging stations, or the technology to operate long-haul electric trucks, and the nation won’t have them by 2032.
Trucking and utility companies would have to invest almost $1 trillion in charging infrastructure before electric trucks could be operational. EPA’s goals either will have to be discarded or moved steadily into the future.
The electric truck rule follows regulations released last month that would require 70% of cars and light trucks, such as pickup trucks, to be electric by 2032. Both these rules will face court challenges on the grounds that EPA exceeded its authority.
EPA’s stated rationale is to reduce emissions, but electrifying trucks would have minimal effect on global temperatures while raising transportation costs and therefore inflation.
The differences in the costs of diesel and electric trucks are monumental, and only a government official with no trucking experience could consider one a substitute for another.
A diesel truck costs about $120,000; an electric truck costs in the range of $450,000 to $500,000. Trucking companies would have to raise prices to cover these costs, and small trucking companies simply couldn’t afford the higher costs and would go out of business.
Not only that, but a proposed power plant rule from the EPA, soon to be released in final form, would make electricity more expensive. This rule, not mentioned in EPA’s vehicle tailpipe regulations, would require power plants to sequester 90% of their carbon emissions by 2039 or close in 2040.
Although smaller commercial trucks, including school buses and utility trucks, often travel locally and can be charged at depots overnight, heavy-duty trucks transport goods for long distances. These larger electric trucks can’t carry loads as heavy as diesel trucks do, because they lose range. So businesses need more trucks to carry a given volume of product, which raises transportation costs.
Electric trucks now have a range of 230 to 310 miles, and generally must stop and recharge when battery strength falls below 20%. Truckers would have to recharge every 180 to 250 miles, which can take one to two hours.
Long-haul electric trucks also can’t travel as many miles in a day, because truckers are limited to 11 hours on the road, and recharging time comes out of that.
Truckers are already in high demand, with 80,000 estimated job vacancies. Because of growing e-commerce, more trucks are needed, rather than fewer.
Requiring truckers to stop for two hours to recharge would reduce earnings and make these jobs less desirable. Some drivers would quit, and others would have to be paid more to remain on the job.
EPA calls the costs of truck electrification “billions of dollars’ worth of investments from trucking fleets, vehicle manufacturers, and U.S. states,” as though these investments would have a positive rate of return. But the costs would be borne by all Americans in the form of higher prices.
EPA’s massive project to reshape America’s transportation system would lower economic growth and increase the budget deficit as manufacturers attempt to comply with regulations and use green tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act to waste resources investing in products that are unsuited to companies’ needs.
EPA justifies its regulation on the grounds that America would have cleaner air as a result. But electric trucks are not emissions-free and impose costs on the environment that gasoline-powered cars don’t.
Electricity for battery-powered vehicles comes from coal and natural gas, not renewable energy sources. Solar, wind, and nuclear power are generally fully used for other purposes; additional sources of energy to meet demand for electricity come from fossil fuels and hydropower.
Batteries for electric heavy trucks are produced in China using energy from coal-fired power plants. Producing batteries for electric vehicles uses carbon; the longer the range of the battery, the more carbon is used.
Large electric trucks need two 8,000-pound batteries. Miners have to move 500,000 pounds of earth to get enough critical minerals for one 1,000-pound passenger car battery, according to physicist Mark Mills, and multiple quantities of these minerals would be required for electric trucks.
Mining for critical minerals is environmentally disruptive. America outsources the work to Asia, Latin America, and Africa.
In 2022, the Supreme Court concluded in West Virginia v. EPA that EPA had overstepped its authority in its 2015 Clean Power Plan by forcing states to shut down power plants. Chief Justice John Roberts described the plan as “a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously declined to enact itself.”
Now, in a similar sleight of hand, the Environmental Protection Agency is trying to determine what vehicles are allowed on the road, adopting a program that Congress has not voted into law.
EPA wants to require the purchase of electric trucks because companies wouldn’t use them otherwise—just as the agency is requiring more passenger vehicles to be electric than Americans want to buy.
It is pure illusion to think that America’s commerce could run on electric trucks. The size and composition of the batteries, the network of charging stations, and the electricity to run those stations make this whole enterprise fantastical.
Far more people believe in the Easter Bunny than believe that EPA will succeed in this particular mission.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth is director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment and the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow.
This is a provocation and an outright challenge for parents and guardians to take an inventory of their children’s mental health and level of intelligence after investing in public education. If you’re rearing teenagers who’ve endured government schools since pre-K, can you honestly say your kids are smarter, more respectful, and willing to take responsibility for their choices? Or is there increased mistrust, tension, and constant power struggles?
Some will say rebellion, gender confusion, and anti-traditional sentiments are part of every coming-of-age story. Many believe dysfunction between parents and children is a rite of passage, a sign of natural progression toward adulthood. Perhaps, to an extent, this is true. Clashes of personalities and worldviews are commonplace in most families. However, there are sure ways to test whether outside influences are driving unnecessary wedges between you and your child. If you’ve tried tough love, barring social media, confiscating electronics, assigning extra chores, intervening in unhealthy relationships, yet there’s no improvement — then it’s time to do something audacious.
Here are five reasons to pull your kids out of public schools.
1.No one loves and cares for your children like you do. — This point assumes you’re a dedicated parent doing everything in your purview to accept your children as unique individuals while passing along good morals. You balance “spoiling” them with the necessary disciplines that encourage gradual maturity and independence. You seek their well-being above all else and your standards are rooted in traditional values. Just know that our current public education model is constantly evolving to replace you as the primary influencer and arbiter of truth and morality. Government schools are gravitating toward social-emotional learning which entreats your children to develop inappropriate levels of confidentiality with other “trusted adults.” Furthermore, this system takes advantage of any area of perceived neglect on your part, especially when you fail to address identity issues. Of course, parents typically know when to explore an idea, apply correction, or ignore silliness altogether. Understand that this is the sphere of authority that radical educators, administrators, and board members are increasingly trying to disrupt. The most egregious message they’re sending your children is one that says they can be anything they want to be, including the opposite gender.
2.Student safety is rapidly deteriorating. — I once confronted a school board member about the pattern of predatory behavior among certified and classified staff. In less than two years, this Arizona school district had multiple incidents of adults grooming and/or assaulting students. In two high profile cases, where the workers were convicted of sex crimes, the criminal employees were allowed to quietly resign. The board member — who happened to be friends with one assailant that sexually assaulted a student — defensively assured me, “There’s pedophiles in every school district.” I assume she was either condoning or confirming this as a fact. A 2017 study showed 10% of students will experience sexual misconduct from a district employee by the time they graduate high school. Today, that percentage is likely higher and still represents only a small fraction of unreported cases. We know government entities protect their own when accusations fly. Additionally, a 1997-2022 research study revealed a 2,086.7% increase in school shooting incidents, from 15 incidents during the 2009-2010 academic year to 328 incidents in 2020-2021. Imagine, the radical majority of board members and administrators believe replacing student resource officers with DEI-certified social workers is the solution to this problem.
3.Your kids aren’t learning in public schools. — Although national, state, and district test scores may not provide concrete evidence of learning outcomes (i.e. a student can excel in collaboration with peers but fail to perform in isolated settings), these numbers serve as indicators to warn us of potential risks. Think of those assessment results like a cholesterol test that can indicate chronic heart problems. Regardless of how healthy and energetic the patient feels, a caring and ethical physician will bring this to the patient’s attention and prescribe immediate lifestyle changes to prevent medical crises. Logically speaking, standardized English, reading, and math scores are no different. Depending on which source you consult, Arizona is ranked anywhere between 45 and 49 out of 50 for K-12 education. Regardless of whether these numbers are based on a biased sample of traditionally educated students, it’s still in heart attack range. Loving parents are paying attention and making immediate lifestyle changes to prevent their children from graduating without basic survival skills.
4.Government (co)dependency creates moral hazard. — Since the Department of Education’s inception, more and more Americans believe state-regulated academics are a prerequisite to survival “in the real world.” Add to this the rabid feminist doctrines that shame and drive some women — who might otherwise educate their own children — outside the home to compete in the workforce, thereby producing a dual income situation that necessitates publicly funded childcare. Not to mention, family members and local churches are taking less responsibility to support parents than they did in the past. Since the government made it easy to queue up at the beginning and end of the workday, parents assume teachers, administrators, counselors, and coaches are primarily liable when kids fail. Unfortunately, the pervasiveness of public education has created an illusion of mitigated risks wherein parents have the convenience of temporarily “handing off” their children to government employees with minimal oversight. Then, when something goes wrong, parents quickly assert their rights…often without taking responsibility for directing their children’s education.
5.Public education is a corrupt financial enterprise. — In 2019-2020, the National Center for Education Statistics revealed the United States spent an estimated $870 billion on elementary and secondary schools. In 2023, Arizona reportedly spent a whopping $12.6 billion (not including charter schools). Last year, Mesa Public Schools (MPS) alone carried a classroom budget that was 10.6% higher than the state average. MPS is a morally corrupt and dangerous district that’s being sued for transitioning students’ gender without parental knowledge. Also, the majority of students are not minimally proficient in math or reading. Nowhere in the world of investment would Americans put up with such an alarming deficit. Yet, day after day and year after year, parents keep sending their children into these cesspools.
All this to say, parents, you have options and the time to explore is now.
Don’t wait around for things to get better — they never will. While there are a few decent educators holding on to the good they see in their classrooms, it’s impossible for the government to care about your child or your family. Don’t let your sons and daughters graduate high school with a 3rd-grade reading comprehension. Stop letting the government usurp your authority. Divest the trust you placed in public education and start asking questions. Get comfortable with confrontation. If your child is being bullied, and the district refuses to do something about it, remove them before the situation prematurely ends their young life. What appears to be an extreme and rare situation today can become your personal tragedy tomorrow. Be proactive. Intervene. Drastic times call for drastic measures.
And if you’re free Saturday, April 6 @ 2pm, come learn about your education options here in Arizona. You don’t need to settle for public school. Hope to see you there!
Tiffany is the Founder of Restore Parental Rights in Education, a grassroots advocate for families, educators, and school board members. For nearly two decades, Tiffany’s creative writing pursuits have surpassed most interests as she continues to contribute to her blogBigviewsmallwindow.com. She encourages everyday citizens to take an active role in defending and preserving American values for future generations.
Racist programs and activities do not belong in our state. But in the name of so-called “progress,” they have taken Arizona’s universities by storm. This isn’t the way it was supposed to be. Back in 2010, our state’s voters passed Proposition 107. This amendment to Arizona’s Constitution banned affirmative action programs in the state that were administered by statewide or local units of government, including state agencies, cities, counties, and school districts. But the left found a loophole and has been working to exploit it ever since.
Using words that sound harmless like “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” (DEI), our universities have been flying under the radar in an attempt to indoctrinate students and bring racial discrimination back to campus.
At ASU, the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication currently requires some of its students to take a course called, “Diversity and Civility at Cronkite.” And the Goldwater Institute recently revealed that more than 100 classes offered in ASU’s Spring 2024 catalog include terms like “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion.” The University of Arizona’s medical schools in Tucson and Phoenix have been the epitome of DEI best practices—with DEI offices, requirements to complete six hours of DEI credit, and more. And NAU has launched multiple initiatives to increase the number of Native American and Hispanic science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) graduates, including revising graduate admissions processes to increase inclusivity and diversity.
But it’s not just students who have been affected by DEI programs…
The Great Climate Change Revolution is headed for failure. You can tell because it was already in big trouble before the ultimate heavy lifting even started.
International accords, (i.e. Paris Agreement) passed with great fanfare to ensure cooperation on emissions reductions, are ignored by most of the signers, notably China. Consumers worldwide are balking at increased energy prices. Unsold EVs are piling up.
All this resistance is occurring well before the full rollout of the regulations and restrictions needed to achieve zero net carbon emissions by 2050, the agreed-upon goal of climate activists worldwide.
It may not seem at first glance like the climate change movement is struggling. After all, mainstream dogma still holds that man-made warming has us careening toward disaster, possibly an uninhabitable planet. The only solution is to “just stop oil” along with coal and gas.
As John Kerry explains, there is no alternative. Biden’s proposals have nothing to do with politics nor ideology. “It’s entirely a reaction to the science, to the mathematics and physics that explain what is happening.”
It was no surprise, then, when Biden officials recently rolled out new CO2 emissions requirements, maintaining the same endpoint by 2032. The only way for auto makers to comply would be for gas-powered cars to comprise only 30% of new car sales.
But there’s a telling detail. The 2030 requirements have been relaxed, which means that they’re still going to put the squeeze on to force more EV sales, just not right now. But what’s going to change to make regulations more palatable in 2032 than in 2030? There’s no evidence that the demand for EVs will be greater or that consumers will be more interested in purchasing them.
EVs were envisioned as the cutting edge of the “zero by fifty” campaign. If we could replace the outmoded, smoke-belching anachronisms on the roads with sleek new vehicles lacking tailpipe emissions, the new atmospheric standards would be a piece of cake.
But there are problems. Consumers aren’t wild about EVs. After years of the feds promoting them and subsidizing them in every way thinkable, they still account for just 8% of new car sales.
They are still too expensive, refueling can be difficult and they have poor resale value. Moreover the giant batteries are a disposal nightmare. EVs increase soot pollution. Depending on the fuel source used to produce the electricity, they may produce no net carbon reduction anyway!
Yet the Biden administration soldiers on, insisting EVs can capture 70% of all sales within eight years. Hint: they can’t. Look for other accommodations to reality to be made. Meanwhile they are doing a lot of economic damage, for no possible benefit.
Americans are less caught up in climate panic than ever. Surveys revealed that of all the issues in this year’s election, voters rank climate change 10th in importance. “We’re number 10” may not make an inspiring campaign slogan, but the massive media, academic, and governmental infrastructure dedicated to its promotion means the climate change industry won’t disappear anytime soon.
As Swedish economist Björn Lomborg points out, climate change is a problem but only one of several mankind must grapple with. Meta-analysis of all scientific estimates shows climate change costs will likely average one percent of GDP across the century, a figure sure to be dwarfed by anticipated economic growth. Meanwhile, the proposed solutions insisted upon by the panic advocates will average $27 trillion annually or seven times more than the problem itself.
Costs aside, we lead better lives because of fossil fuels. Abundant energy has more than doubled lifespans, dramatically reduced hunger, and increased personal income tenfold. Climate related deaths from droughts, storms, floods, and fires have declined an astonishing 97% over the last century.
The worst thing we could do is to drive ourselves into poverty by “following the (false) science.” We need to stay economically and technically strong to be able to accommodate change as needed. Human beings do that, you know.
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.
As a border state, Arizona has confronted the consequences of illegal immigration for decades. A not-often-discussed constitutional loophole is making this challenge perpetually harder to resolve.
Counting illegal aliens as citizens, as outlined in the 14th Amendment, leads to the over-allocation of seats to the dominant party in districts with large illegal populations. Democrats benefit from this, which may be why they don’t seem interested in solving the border crisis.
To analyze this, we can examine the districts where there is a high concentration of illegal immigrants and compare the number of registered voters in those districts to the ones where there are very few illegal immigrants. The districts with more illegal immigrants will likely have a significantly lower number of total voters compared to the ones with fewer illegal immigrants.
This is covered in detail in Howard Husock’s Citizenship and Congressional Districting in National Affairs-Fall 2023. He shows how congressional district voting totals vary widely for districts that are supposed to be equal, as in equal representation but aren’t.
In the 2022 Congressional Election, Jim Jordan’s Ohio 4th District had 290,156 votes, with 69.2% in his favor, while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s New York 14th District had 118,062 votes, with 70.6% supporting her. Interestingly, Jordan’s district had 146% more votes cast than AOC’s, despite being equal in size. It’s interesting to note that Jordan’s district is 99.1% U.S. citizens, and AOC’s is only 76.4% U.S. citizens (source: Data USA).
How is this possible? Due to the drafting of both the U.S. Constitution and the 14th Amendment, the courts have determined that for the apportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives, we must count all the “persons” residing in a state. The drafters likely had no idea that their words would be used to give political power to individuals who are not citizens and, in many cases, are breaking the law by even being in the U.S. Nothing short of a constitutional amendment will solve this problem on a federal level.
What about the states?
Arizona may adopt counting resident U.S. citizens for apportioning districts for state offices. Most states count all persons for apportioning state legislatures, including illegal immigrants, which can significantly affect seat allocation. By counting only residents of the U.S., Arizona could have a more accurate representation.
In the 2022 Arizona State Senate election, Republicans won 17 out of 32 districts, while Democrats won 15. If the theory is correct, Democrat districts should average a significantly lower number of total votes than Republican districts because most illegal aliens tend to live in Democrat majority districts. They are counted in the census, even though they are not U.S. citizens, and therefore, they are counted for purposes of apportionment.
In fact, the differences in voting population have been proven. The Democrat-winning districts have an average number of voters of 54,310, with a range of 25,626-123,321 total voters. The Republican-winning districts have an average total number of voters of 91,260, with a range of 59,471 to 133,510 total voters. The overall average total number of voters in a state senate district is 78,123. The average Republican-won district’s total number of votes is 68% greater than the average Democrat-won district’s total number of votes. These figures are prima facie proof of the theory.
Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions are of particular interest to state reapportionment. In 2016, the court decided Evenwel v. Abbott,which found a state (Texas) could not be forced to use a method, in this case voter-eligible population, to apportion its state legislative seats. The court ruled that the total population of persons was an acceptable method as it is the same method used by the U.S. House of Representatives and certainly met the court’s one-person, one-vote standard articulated in Reynolds v. Simms (1964).
In the Evenwel case, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the state’s method of counting the total population of persons violated the one person, one vote principle. The court clarified that the total population of persons was not the only basis for apportionment. Justice Ginsburg’s opinion indicated that it may not be the only method the court would accept for state legislative apportionment. Justice Alito’s concurrence vehemently disagreed with the Solicitor General’s argument that state legislative districts must be equal in total population, even if it resulted in grossly unequal districts in the number of eligible voters, particularly because of the illegal alien concentration in certain parts of the state. Alito called it a meretricious argument, “apparently attractive but having in reality no value or integrity-according to Oxford Languages.”
In 1966, the Court decided in Burns v. Richardson that Hawaii’s apportionment based on registered voters was valid. The state used registered voters because of the large number of tourists and non-resident military members. The Court clarified that the equal protection clause doesn’t require using total population figures from the census. It suggested that in Hawaii’s case, the state-resident U.S. citizen population would be more appropriate. While the court allowed the use of registered voters, it indicated that state citizen population was the best method. The court also noted that the distribution of registered voters approximates the distribution of state citizens or another permissible population base.
Arizona may change its constitution to use the US resident population for apportionment in state offices. Other states should consider doing the same.
