Throughout history, we have witnessed the horrors that unfold when societies dehumanize entire groups of people. In the era of slavery, Black people were considered less than human—mere property to be bought, sold, and exploited. During the Holocaust, Jews were labeled as “subhuman” and systematically exterminated. Today, we look back on these atrocities with disbelief and sorrow, wondering how such inhumanity could have ever been justified. And yet, in our current era, we face a similar moral crisis with abortion—a modern-day holocaust where the humanity of unborn children is denied, and their lives can be murdered right up to the moment of birth.
Proposition 139 is not just another policy debate—it is a question of life and death. If passed, this proposition would permit the killing of unborn children until birth. The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled that the term “unborn human being” will remain in the ballot language for this proposition. This decision challenges us to face the uncomfortable truth: the lives at stake are not mere “fetuses” or “clumps of cells” but human beings in their most vulnerable form.
The Arizona Abortion Access Campaign, which claims to stand for “truth,” has fought fiercely to exclude the term “unborn human being” from the language of Proposition 139. Why? Because they understand that words matter—words shape perceptions. If voters are confronted with the reality that abortion involves the killing of an unborn human being, they might see through the euphemisms of “reproductive rights” and “women’s health” to the brutal truth.
Yet, the scientific truth is clear. According to Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed., 1998), “Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” From conception, a developing life in the womb carries its own unique DNA—a distinct genetic blueprint that is undeniably human. To deny this is to deny biological reality in favor of a narrative that serves a political agenda.
Consider the parallels. In both slavery and the Holocaust, those in power used language and rhetoric to strip away the humanity of their victims. Slaves were considered property, not people. Jews were referred to as “vermin.” These labels made it easier to carry out heinous acts without facing the moral consequences. Today, the abortion industry reduces the unborn to “fetuses,” distancing from the murderous act of abortion and its reality—the ending of a human life.
Despite this, Dawn Penich, a spokesperson for Arizona for Abortion Access, argued that the court’s decision to use the term “unborn human being” would prevent voters from understanding the ballot in a “fair, neutral, and accurate way,” claiming they would be “subjected to biased, politically-charged words developed not by experts but by anti-abortion special interests to manipulate voters and spread misinformation.” But isn’t it more manipulative to hide the biological reality of what abortion truly involves?
The irony is staggering.
The Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to allow the term “unborn human being” on the ballot forces us to confront what is truly at stake. This is not just a matter of “reproductive rights”—this is about whether we, as a society, will sanction the destruction of human life up to the point of birth.
History has taught us the catastrophic consequences of dehumanization. In every era, from slavery to the Holocaust, society’s refusal to recognize the humanity of its victims has led to unspeakable horrors. Today, abortion stands as the latest chapter in this tragic story—a chapter that will be judged by future generations. Will we turn a blind eye, or will we stand for the truth that every human life, born or unborn, deserves recognition and protection?
As Arizona voters head to the polls in November, they must decide whether they will be complicit in this modern-day holocaust or whether they will choose to defend the most fundamental of all human rights: the right to life. The fight over language is a fight over truth, and truth, once revealed, compels us to act. Let us not be found on the wrong side of history.
Katarina White serves as Board Member for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed, visit the Arizona Right to Life website.
The Scottsdale Education Association (SEA), known for endorsing school board candidates who want to “throat punch” parents, has once again proven it is out of touch with the community. This year, the SEA is backing the divisive “Protect SUSD” team, who apparently wants to “protect” the district from parents who are involved in their kids’ lives.
First up on team “Protect SUSD” is Mike Sharkey, who announced his candidacy on LinkedIn by proclaiming that parents should take a back seat to the “experts.” Despite Arizona law that gives parents the final say in their children’s education, Mr. Sharkey plans to work against parents and defer to SUSD administration who prioritizes social justice over academics.
Then there’s Matt Pittinsky, who is so impressed with SUSD, where he wants to govern, that he sends his own kids to private school. Pittinsky is also the CEO of a company that SUSD uses for student services, a clear conflict of interest.
And finally, we have Donna Lewis, who believes children can have multiple genders and is a failed superintendent from Creighton Elementary School. According to former colleagues, Lewis created a toxic environment, and under her leadership, only 17% of students were proficient in English Language Arts (ELA). Lewis is also conducting research on “political extremism” in schools.
These are not serious people.
Citizens of Scottsdale cannot afford four more years of a hyper partisan agenda that brings politics and sexualized curriculum to our children. Our kids need a serious school board focused on improving academic achievement.
Thankfully, the “Just Be Honest” team of Gretchen Jacobs, Jeanne Beasley, and Drew Hassler provides a distinct alternative to “Protect SUSD.” These three candidates are focused on bringing common sense back to the district while improving academic outcomes, supporting teachers, prioritizing school safety, and respecting the voice of parents in the education and upbringing of their children. If Scottsdale’s schools are ever going to improve, they’re exactly who we need leading the charge.
Patricia Pellett is a mother of a special needs boy in SUSD. She became active in 2021 in fighting for students after SUSD failed her son’s transportation needs.
Positive education experiences from the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s are dwindling away. Today, students are facing unprecedented onslaughts of inappropriate attention and criminal behaviors at the hands of district representatives and staff members. Public schools are no longer safe for children. These government indoctrination camps now exist to create and perpetuate cycles of crises while producing a victimized citizenry that’s controlled by fear.
Child abuse is increasing at alarming rates as a growing number of educators and administrators commit atrocious acts against their students. These incidents range from emotional to psychological to illicit sexual encounters. In some cases, predators are impregnated by their victims and vice versa. If that’s not enough, Biden’s new Title IX regulations effectively remove privacy and safety barriers between males and females on school campuses.
According to a report from The Federalist, one in 10 students are sexually abused by teachers. These findings agree with a 2017 case study from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service that revealed 10% of K-12 students will fall prey to sexual impropriety by a school employee. Furthermore, CBSNews quoted an estimate from the Department of Education (DOE) that said “12% of all public school students in the United States experience sexual misconduct by the time they graduate high school.”
The Federalist declared:
“Every day millions of parents put their children under the care of public school teachers, administrators, and support staff. Their trust, however, is frequently broken by predators…in what appears to be the largest ongoing sexual abuse scandal in our nation’s history. Given the roughly 50 million students in U.S. K-12 schools each year, the number of students who have been victims of sexual misconduct by school employees is probably in the millions each decade…For a variety of reasons…elected or appointed officials, along with unions or lobbying groups…have fought to keep the truth hidden from the public.”
For clarification: Out of 50 million children enrolled in public schools each year—between five and six million are sexually abused by a teacher or district staff member! Unfortunately, these statistics most likely represent a mere fraction of sex crimes that are never reported or investigated.
According to CBS, Redlands Unified School District (RUSD) paid out over $45 million to settle multiple cases of child sexual abuse dating back to the late 1990s. The report said the district repeatedly failed to take action against predators on their payroll, opting instead to relocate these criminals to different schools or nearby districts. The CBS documentary “Pledge of Silence” further exposed RUSD’s cover up of rape and sexual abuse that occurred between 1999 and 2022.
The DOE is still investigating hundreds of sex crimes and Title IX violations that allegedly occurred on school campuses across the nation.
District policies and school libraries are breeding grounds for sexual grooming and child abuse. Parents Defending Education compiled a list of U.S. school districts that actively implement “transgender support plans” and similar gender-based practices. These programs serve as de facto policies and guidelines that enable government employees to engage minors in intimate conversations without parental knowledge or consent. Many students also have access to pornographic reading materials during educational hours.
Mesa Public Schools (MPS) Board President Marcie Hutchison and Superintendent Andi Fourlis have overseen an unknown number of social gender transitions via the district’s secretive transgender support plan. The plan—which was implemented in 2015 and includes a student’s choice of bathrooms—resulted in a recently dismissed lawsuit. Furthermore, a general search of the MPS virtual library reveals numerous LGBT-themed texts including:
Under the leadership of Superintendent Scott Menzel and a radical majority governing board, Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) supplies students with novels that depict young people as victims of rape, incest, sex trafficking, and graphic homosexual activities. The reality of these situations is irrelevant to the fact that parents/guardians have the authority to decide at what age or maturity level their children are introduced to these topics. The existence of such nasty books in K-12 schools draws attention to the motives of district officials who enable and entertain discussions about multiple sexuality disorders, sodomy, and prostitution among children.
The screenshot below features several titles with an “adult” interest level that appear available on SUSD’s virtual library page.
These examples don’t scratch the surface of what’s being forced on children through public education. We are witnessing a federally funded, trauma-infused, demoralization of the next generation. Not nearly enough parents are outraged by this tragedy. Not nearly enough students have been pulled from government indoctrination camps, though some promising trends are starting to emerge.
According to the Heritage Foundation’s “State Report Card,” Arizona ranks #1 for education choice and #2 overall in education freedom. The Washington Post said, “ESAs provide an average of $7,143 for parents of children leaving traditional public schools…Arizona spends about $13,500 per public school student; if everyone opted for ESAs, the state would save money.”
As leftist politicians work hard to demonize and destroy parents’ choice, it’s not recommended that families solely rely on ESAs. There may be more suitable and secure funding alternatives that can withstand volatile election cycles. Any amount of time spent researching this topic will be worthwhile. Still, as the door of opportunity stands wide open, we should do everything we can to intervene in the lives of our youngest, most vulnerable, and innocent members of society.
Parents: it’s not only your right, but also your responsibility to proactively defend your kids against the evil that’s manifesting in our education system. Use your authority to seize control of your child’s mental and physical health by removing them from dangerous, predator-infested public schools. You won’t regret the sacrifices you make to spare your sons and daughters from becoming the prey of wolves in teachers’ clothes.
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.
On August 26, 2024, Our America Hometown Heroes made their voices heard at the Phoenix City Council meeting, standing up for local control and the autonomy of the Phoenix Police Department (PPD). Wearing their signature yellow T-shirts, several Hometown Heroes rallied and spoke during the public comment period, advocating for the city’s ability to manage its own police force without federal intervention.
In stark contrast, a smaller group of Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists attended the same meeting, calling for a DOJ Consent Decree that would place the PPD under court-ordered oversight. Their demands stemmed from a controversial June report issued by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which criticized the PPD and pushed for federal oversight despite the department’s voluntary efforts to implement sweeping reforms.
Our America’s presence at the meeting was bolstered by leaders of organizations representing minority communities, such as BLEXIT Arizona, the Hispanic Liberty Alliance, and the Independent Women’s Network. This coalition underscores the broad support for local control.
During the meeting, four speakers from Our America took to the podium, urging the Phoenix mayor and council to continue the reforms that have already significantly reduced crime while safeguarding all citizens’ civil rights.
Reflecting on her long history of positive engagement with law enforcement, Bella Ceballos-Viner shared, “For over 25 years, I have had nothing but great experiences, and I speak on behalf of my Hispanic community and many African-Americans who support the police.” Her words resonated with the room, highlighting the importance of community trust and collaboration with local law enforcement.
Christy Narsi, another Hometown Hero and part of Independent’s Women’s Network spoke passionately about the failures of DOJ Consent Decrees in other cities, warning the council against relinquishing local control.
Christy emphasized, “I urge you not to surrender local autonomy by allowing federal overreach to steal control of our local law enforcement and the city they serve.” Her argument underscored the belief that decisions about local policing should be made by those who know the community best.
The debate over the future of the PPD is a microcosm of a larger national conversation about the balance between federal oversight and local autonomy in law enforcement. Our America firmly believes that the best way to achieve safer streets and a brighter future is through a combination of police and criminal justice reforms tailored to the unique needs of each community. The reforms that the PPD has already implemented are a testament to the power of local action and the effectiveness of community-driven solutions.
As the City of Phoenix faces pressure from the DOJ to enter into a Consent Decree, the voices of local residents and activists like those from Our America will play a crucial role in determining the path forward.
By continuing to advocate for local control, Our America Hometown Heroes are not only standing up for the autonomy of the Phoenix Police Department but also for the principle that communities are best served when they have a direct say in how they are governed.
Paul Parisi is the Arizona Grassroots Director for Our America.
When tragedy strikes, politicians often rush to draft new laws to show that they are taking action in the wake of public outcry. But in the haste to “do something,” proposed solutions can actually have the opposite effect and make us less safe. They limit the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones and embolden criminals. Even worse, these knee-jerk legislative “fixes” are not only ineffective but dangerous.
New data continues to confirm what many of us have known for years: gun control doesn’t work. According to a recent study at the Duke University School of Medicine, which examined the impact of 36 different gun control laws on suicide and homicide rates involving children under the age of 18, there are “no significant reductions in suicide death rates in states with laws setting a minimum age for possession or purchase of firearms.”
Even in states with enhanced regulations for background checks, mandatory waiting periods, safe storage mandates, and Red Flag laws, researchers could not find “notable distinctions between states with and without the identified laws” when it came to deaths by homicide.
We have also seen data that affirms my deeply held belief that firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens can save lives. Colorado State University Professor Youngsung Kim and K. Alexander Adams from the University of Wyoming’s Firearms Research Center analyzed crime statistics from all 50 states plus the District of Columbia between 1980 and 2018, finding that states with constitutional carry laws have a 6 percent lower homicide rate. They concluded by stating “Constitutional Carry does not lead to large-scale changes in homicides or firearm suicides. The doomsday scenarios of constitutional-carry opponents are not supported by social science.”
While restrictive gun control measures are clearly not the answer to curbing violence and keeping our families safe, we know that inaction yields the same result. That’s why I’m proud to be a part of Women for Gun Rights, a national, non-partisan organization that is working to safeguard the Second Amendment. We fundamentally believe that education – not legislation – is the key to a safer, stronger, more prosperous future.
Since our founding, we have sponsored firearms training classes for women and educators, advocated for programs like FASTER to protect children in the classroom, supported hunting education, testified in Congress and State Houses across the country in opposition of harmful legislation, and amplified the stories of women whose lives were saved by the Second Amendment.
During times of crisis, it is tempting to expect our leaders to enact immediate solutions and broad reforms without considering the long-term, unintended consequences. In these situations, data and research – coupled with some common sense – should drive the conversation instead of impulsive legislation written only to appease the vocal anti-gun crowd.
If we really want to protect our loved ones, we need policy decisions to reflect the facts – not political agendas.
One of the principles of liberty our Founders adhered to is that only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being reserved to the people. This principle is clearly followed in Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution wherein is outlined the 20 or so areas in which Congress can make law. This concept was abandoned decades ago as Congress began legislating in many other areas not mentioned in Article 1, Section 8.
James Madison clearly explained this principle in Federalist Paper 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.” Unlike the federal Constitution, you will not find in state constitutions specific areas in which state legislatures can make law because there are so many.
How, then, are we to understand the limits our state legislatures, our city councils, our county board of supervisors have in making law? The answer to this question lies in the constitutional phrase “promote the General Welfare.” If one observes the 20 or so powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution, they are all areas that benefit the whole people like: military defense, a monetary system, a postal system, a system of weights and measures, a federal court system, etc. In other words, general welfare means if you tax all the people, then you only spend that money for things that benefit the whole people. Under “general welfare” there is to be no tax money going to individuals, special groups, or specific geographic locations, or any other kind of “specific” welfare.
This same principle should apply to state and local governments. For example, city councils should ask themselves what are the things that benefit all the people and that all the people use? The answer would include such things as: good streets, a well-functioning domestic water system, a good sewage system, good police protection, a fair local court system, etc. These are things individuals all want and are willing to spend money to obtain because they use them. It’s really what makes us want to live in a community rather than out in the wilderness. And furthermore, there is usually not much argument or contention about these things because we consider them things that make our lives comfortable.
But what happens when government officials try to use our tax money to provide things most of us don’t want and don’t use, such as: light rail and bus systems, sports stadiums, homeless facilities, conference centers, arts centers, museums, libraries, electric vehicle charging stations, narrower streets and more bike lanes? They try to sell us on these ideas as “Quality of Life” issues. These are issues that do not pay for themselves and therefore are a significant burden paid for mostly by taxpayers who do not use them. These are also issues that cause the most disagreement and contention in a community.
But the true purpose of government is to only protect equal rights so that people can be free to invent and produce items that give us real quality of life. This also leaves more resources in the hands of the people to give compassionate service to the truly needy.
The authority to govern rests innately with the people. Government only has the authority that the people give it. If a person has no authority to take from one person and give to another (stealing), then how can he give his agent, the government, the authority to forcibly take money from citizen A and give it to citizen B so he can, for example, be transported from point A to point B? Isn’t that stealing also? Someone may say, “Well, that’s why we vote.” But can the vote take away a person’s property by legalizing stealing? Of course not!
When we vote this November, hopefully we will choose those who respect the rights of all citizens and reject those who endorse programs which use the power of government to do what individuals can’t do – steal from the people.
