by Dr. Erica Kreller | Oct 8, 2024 | Opinion
By Dr. Erica Kreller |
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.
by Katarina White | Oct 5, 2024 | Opinion
By Katarina White |
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.
by Mike Bengert | Oct 4, 2024 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
As you read the following excerpts from a book titled “Push” found in a Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) school library, ask yourself – does it have any literary, educational, or scientific value? Is this something you would read to your children?
“I don’t fucks boyz but I’m pregnant. My fahver fuck me. And she know it. She kick me in my head when I’m pregnant. …I think my daddy. He stink, the white shit drip off his dick. Lick it lick it. I HATE that. But then I feel the hot sauce hot cha cha feeling when he be fucking me. I get so confuse. I HATE him. But my pussy be popping. He say that, “Bif Mama your pussy is popping!” I hate myself when I feel good.”
“My clit swell up think Daddy. Daddy sick me, disgust me, but still he sex me up. I nawshus in my stomach but hot tight in my twat and I think I want it back, the smell of the bedroom, the hurt- he slap my face till it sting and my ears sing separate songs from each other, call me names, pump my pussy in out in out in out awww I come…. Orgasm in me, his body shaking, grab me, call me Fat Mama, Big Hole! You LOVE it! Say you love it! I wanna say I DON”T. I wanna say I’m a chile. But my pussy popping like grease in frying pan. He slam in me again. His dick soft. He start sucking my tittie.”
Parents, do you think this kind of material belongs in a school library?
Does it possess any serious educational value for minors, or in any way enrich and support the curriculum in SUSD?
Apparently Governing Board President Dr. Hart-Wells does.
In July, a request to pull certain books from school libraries was submitted by an SUSD parent on behalf of Scottsdale Unites for Education Integrity, a local grass-roots organization.
During the September 10th board meeting, Dr. Hart-Wells made the following comments regarding the request. She prefaced her comments by saying she wanted to put some “sunshine” on the topic.
“Recently the Board received an out-of-state political organization’s request along with a super-minority of other like-minded folks, that submitted a demand to ban certain books from our school libraries. I would just like to encourage the super-majority of our community members and taxpayers who are opposed to book bans to request additional information from your neighborhood school and District administration about these efforts.”
At the board meeting on October 1st, during my public comments, I pointed out Dr. Hart-Wells’ comments. In response, she said my “representation was manipulated and were lies.”
Here is what I said:
“At the last board meeting, Dr. Hart-Wells made a bold statement that a ‘super-majority’ of Scottsdale residents agree with her position of wanting their kids to have access to adult-only rated books with sexually explicit content at school, which appears to violate Arizona laws and SUSD policy. She doesn’t just suggest that a few, some, many, or even a majority of Scottsdale residents, but asserts that a ‘super-majority’ supports her stance and wants to provide children with adults-only rated books at school.”
I suggest Dr. Hart-Wells is the one who lied and manipulated information in her September comments.
During my public comments, I pointed out that the request was submitted by a local group and not some out-of-state political organization, as Dr. Hart-Wells claimed in September.
The request was that books containing pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable content be removed from SUSD libraries, classrooms, and online curricula. The goal is to ensure that all the books in the SUSD libraries comply with Arizona law and SUSD policy IJL. It specifically states it is NOT a request to ban books, despite Dr. Hart-Wells’ statement in September.
Dr. Hart-Wells knows or should know, that in response to the request from Scottsdale Unites, using its authority under a U.S. Supreme Court decision and its obligations under Arizona law and SUSD policy, the district began a review of the books in question to determine if they comply with the law and policy.
Rather than supporting an effort (something you would expect the president of the governing board to do) to keep sexually explicit and vulgar books out of the hands of SUSD students, Dr. Hart-Wells purposely lied about the request, even going so far as to encourage community members and taxpayers to contact their school and the district administration about the request.
What was the purpose of her making such a request of the community?
During my public comment, I asked if Dr. Hart-Wells was somehow trying to influence the district review of the books. A valid question, given her encouragement for the community to contact the district.
It seems she objects to the removal of sexually explicit books from libraries. Does she also object to SUSD complying with the law and policy? And why is she apparently encouraging others to object as well?
Following Arizona law and SUSD policy is not optional. It is a basic responsibility of the governing board, a responsibility that the current board and Dr. Menzel’s administration have failed to live up to.
Rather than spending time undermining an effort to keep vulgar and educational unsuitable material out of the hands of SUSD students, Board President Dr. Hart-Wells should be spending her time addressing the low academic performance, record high staff turnover rates, and declining enrollment that SUSD has experienced under her leadership and Dr. Menzel’s administration.
Let’s just be honest about this, union-endorsed candidates are running for the SUSD governing board who want to “protect SUSD” and support Dr. Hart-Wells’ efforts to keep inappropriate, adults-only rated books available to students.
Parents, you don’t have to accept that outcome.
In the upcoming election, you can vote for candidates who want to make SUSD strong by focusing on academics, parents’ rights, safety, and fiscal responsibility.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
by Dan Grossenbach | Oct 4, 2024 | Opinion
By Dan Grossenbach |
Universities are free to adopt ethics contrary to constitutional values, but they aren’t free from the consequences. This is especially true when the University of Arizona hired me, a Christian apologist to teach government ethics, and then fired me on ethical grounds.
For the last four years, I taught college students the skills of effective moral decision making in a required course titled “Ethics for the Public Administrator.” The students come from majors like law, criminal justice, and political science—many becoming cops, lawyers, and bureaucrats. I have countless emails and evaluations praising me for offering something they never had before: deep thinking on moral issues.
Selecting course content wasn’t easy. At first, I was tempted to model my predecessors by surveying the most popular moral theories like utilitarianism, deontological ethics, virtue ethics, relativism, natural law, and divine command theory so students could select their preferred choice.
However, ethics isn’t something public administrators can choose. They are bound by an oath to protect and defend constitutional values which are based on biblical ethics. So, that’s what I taught.
While constitutional values are based on biblical values, they aren’t the same thing. There are some obligatory commands (loving God and making disciples) and prohibitions (idolatry, blasphemy) that apply only to those who accept biblical theology. However, all values in the Constitution can be traced back to some biblical principle. No other moral theory (or combination of theories) captures the totality of constitutional values like the Bible. This is probably why the Bible was far and away the most cited text by the Founding Fathers when the Constitution was written.
While I always avoided teaching theology in my classroom, part of me worried that administrators may confuse my teaching of biblical ethics with the teaching of biblical theology. Whether this ever was their concern remains a mystery since it wasn’t why I was fired.
To my own surprise, the department director didn’t mention anything about my beliefs or my class content but pointed instead to a financial reason for firing me. After thanking me for my good service to the students, she announced I was being terminated because an unexpected budget surplus allowed them to hire full time tenure track faculty to teach my course instead.
This would be a legitimate reason, if true, but it’s not. Around the same time, the U of A made headlines for just the opposite reason. Just two weeks earlier, the AP reported U of A disclosing a nearly quarter-billion-dollar funding crisis. Needless to say, this historic calamity didn’t cohere with the director’s claim of excess funding. So, I became suspicious and asked if there was anything else that weighed into her decision to fire me. She replied simply, “No, nothing more.”
Unconvinced, I filed a freedom of information request the next day. After a seven-month wait, I enlisted an attorney to compel the university to disclose the truth of what led to their decision. The disclosure showed administrators panicked by two anonymous letters from community members complaining about statements I made at a public school board meeting. The letters alleged that I criticized the LGBTQIA+ community and asked the university to punish me for violating the university’s “values.”
The first anonymous email was sent on October 12, 2023. That same day, a Facebook thread shows three people—a teacher, parent, and school board candidate—plotting to submit their complaint. This was followed two weeks later by a second anonymous email containing similar defamatory claims. This is the true reason I was fired.
No one ever cited evidence of these alleged statements, and the university never asked me about them. They simply ended my employment for constitutionally protected speech I’m accused of making outside of the workplace, and then they lied about the reason.
This problem is much bigger than me or any other persecuted U of A employee. The problem is that there is no longer any ethical standard employed by the university that’s consistent with constitutional values. As I said at the beginning, they are free to embrace another morality, but not free from the consequences.
The university suppresses speech outside the workplace and lies about it. If this behavior accurately reflects the university’s values, we may wonder what kind of ethics they base all other decisions. If not constitutional ethics, what model will they use to operate their institution? Furthermore, what kind of moral system will they teach to future public administrators now that professors teaching constitutional ethics are not allowed? It’s a scary thought.
Dan Grossenbach is a 20-year federal criminal investigator, state-certified educator, husband, dad, patriot, and Jesus-follower in Tucson, AZ. You can follow him on X here.
by Earl Taylor | Oct 3, 2024 | Opinion
By Earl Taylor, Jr. |
There are many reasons why America’s Founders wanted a republican form of government rather than a democracy. Theoretically, a democracy requires the full participation of the masses of the people in the legislative or decision-making processes of government. This has never worked because the people, as good as they might be, become so occupied with their daily tasks that they will not properly study the issues, nor will they take the time to participate in extensive hearings before the vote is taken. The Greeks tried to use democratic mass participation in the government of their city-states, and each time it ended in tyranny.
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, summarized the Founders’ thinking by writing:
“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths….” (Federalist Papers, No. 10)
“…and to the Republic, for which It stands…”
Madison continues:
“We may define a republic to be … a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. (Federalist Papers, No. 39)
The Founders knew that if the people were continually presented with the many issues and problems of government, they would soon tire of it and become disinterested in studying the issues in order to make intelligent decisions. They would tend to yield to the enticing emotions presented to them by those who have the power to control the masses. They chose, rather, to place such decisions in the hands of wise representatives or agents who would be specifically chosen to take the time to hold committee hearings, analyze data, and consider consequences of proposed laws. The main decision for the people would be who will represent us, and it would happen on a regular periodic basis, say every two or four years.
Even in making the choice of President of the United States, the Founders rejected a vote of the people. They knew, once again, as good as the people may be, they will not take the time to study the issues or the candidates in order to make such an important decision. Hence was born the original, brilliant, electoral college system, which, while we still have it somewhat, has since been terribly abused and distorted.
The People Are to Choose Qualified Representatives, Not Decide Issues
Since issues are always changing, the Founders advised to not continually excite the people about issues, but instead choose honest, experienced representatives to tackle issues as they come. In early New England, it was customary to have a respected clergyman give what was called an “Election Sermon” prior to an election. Samuel Langdon gave that before the Massachusetts legislature in 1788. He declared:
“On the people, therefore, of these United States, it depends whether wise men, or fools, good or bad men, shall govern…. Therefore, I will now lift up my voice and cry aloud to the people…. From year to year be careful in the choice of your representatives and the higher powers [offices] of government. Fix your eyes upon men of good understanding and known honesty; men of knowledge, improved by experience; men who fear God and hate covetousness; who love truth and righteousness, and sincerely wish for the public welfare…. Let not men openly irreligious and immoral become your legislators….”
A Frustrating Ballot
One only has to look at the current Arizona ballot to appreciate the wisdom of the Founders. It is two long pages of not only candidates, but also many propositions and laws to be voted on directly by the people. Every registered voter also receives, by mail, several multi-page pamphlets explaining the legal details of the proposed laws and the submitted arguments both for and against. Who will read all this stuff? Emotion and ignorance will reign again at the ballot box!
Citizens of Arizona may be interested to know that our Initiative measure in our Arizona Constitution which allows all these laws to be voted on by the people is a technical violation of the U. S. Constitution, which requires a republican form of government, not a democracy, in every state. (U. S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4)
Perhaps, Benjamin Franklin saw what was happening in our day when he reportedly described what they had given us by saying, “A Republic, if you can keep it!”
Ah, the wisdom of the Founders!
Earl Taylor, Jr. is the President of The National Center for Constitutional Studies.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Oct 2, 2024 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Every year, thousands of people flock to Arizona to enjoy the safe, affordable, and free way of life. Most of these transplants are escaping blue states such as Illinois and Washington, but most of all from California. In 2023 alone, 73,000 Californians moved to the Grand Canyon State as their own home state has become unbearably dangerous, costly, and oppressive.
But Arizona is now at a tipping point. Along with that influx of newcomers has come a morphing of political governance. In 2016, Republicans in the state legislature held majorities in the House with 36-24 members and 18-12 in the Senate. Those majorities have dwindled to a bare single seat majority of 31-29 and 16-14. With the Governor’s office changing hands in 2022 to Democratic control, the threat of a Democratic trifecta looms large, and is something Arizona hasn’t grappled with for over 60 years, a long-gone era when Democratic statesmen were rural blue dogs.
Today’s Arizona progressives are definitely not that. Cut from the same cloth as Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris, given all the levers of state government, Arizonans can expect the state to do a complete U-turn. Governor Katie Hobbs has publicly taken up the mantle, pledging millions of dollars (even from her dubious inauguration funds) and her out-of-state billionaire friends to flip Arizona blue and enjoy frictionless implementation of her most radical agenda.
That agenda has been hiding in plain sight for years, and it looks a lot like California…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
