by Tamra Farah | Apr 17, 2024 | Opinion
By Tamra Farah |
Imagine a world where your child becomes the child of the state, effectively no longer under your care or influence. Their heart, soul, mind, and body are captured by the state’s dictates, philosophy, and immorality.
Sadly, if your child attends a K-12 public school, this nightmare is becoming a reality and worsening daily. Through entities like the US Department of Education, the CDC, and influential non-governmental organizations, your role as your child’s primary influence and caretaker is being stripped away.
Like the proverbial frog in the pot, hardly noticing as the heat rises until it’s too late, our children are being indoctrinated to align with the state’s norms, leaving parents behind as mere spectators in their upbringing.
One avenue for this process is via school counselors. School counselors, formerly called “guidance counselors,” are no longer solely focused on college and career guidance; they’re now delving into academic and career concerns and social, emotional, and behavioral issues while potentially crossing legal boundaries when discussing sensitive topics without parental knowledge or involvement.
The delineation between certified and licensed professionals is critical. Certification by the Department of Education in Arizona, for example, does not equate to a license to practice behavioral health; it merely designates an employee classification. Unlicensed practitioners need to have the same standards of practice and ethics as their licensed counterparts, raising serious concerns about the well-being of children.
Unlicensed individuals engaging in behavioral health practices within schools in Arizona are not held to the same standards as licensed professionals, raising severe ethical and legal concerns. The unauthorized practice of behavioral health is unethical and a felony offense.
Parents must be vigilant. Arizona law enacted in 2022 aimed to bolster parental rights, requiring teachers and school counselors to disclose any information divulged by students, particularly regarding their physical, emotional, or mental health. Parents are entitled to access all educational records and counselor notes, with legal recourse available if information is withheld.
Despite these safeguards, oversight is lax, leaving parents in the dark about school counselors’ activities and the protection of their rights. Parents must demand transparency and accountability from school administrators regarding counseling practices and records. For example, every parent should demand to review their child’s counselor and teacher notes, including preferred names and gender identities.
The influence of external organizations, such as the American School Counselor Association, raises questions about the ideological underpinnings of counseling practices in Arizona schools. Are counselors truly prioritizing the well-being of our children, or are they advancing agendas that undermine parental authority?
The lack of oversight also raises questions about how school counselors are monitored to ensure compliance with these laws and ethical standards. It’s imperative to inquire about the credentials of school counselors and therapists and ensure they hold proper licensure from the Arizona Board of Behavioral Health Examiners.
A school counselor in Arizona is facing allegations of maintaining a covert spreadsheet documenting transgender students’ preferred names and pronouns. Mesa Unified School District (MUSD) is currently embroiled in a lawsuit brought forth by America First Legal (AFL) over accusations of aiding a student’s gender transition without parental consent. According to the lawsuit the student’s mother filed, school district officials permitted her daughter to use a name and pronouns inconsistent with her birth certificate.
The mother asserts that her daughter was referred to using these names and pronouns for six months before she accidentally discovered it. Upon confrontation, the school principal purportedly confirmed the practice. An amended complaint now highlights the involvement of an additional MUSD employee. The complaint reveals that, based on a public records request, a counselor at Kino Junior High School was maintaining a clandestine spreadsheet to track which transgender students’ parents were informed about their preferred names and pronouns.
We cannot ignore this encroachment on parental rights and the well-being of our children. It’s time to take action to safeguard our children’s futures and protect our rights as parents. If you suspect your child has received unauthorized behavioral health services, report it to the Arizona Board of Behavioral Health Examiners.
Together, we can ensure that our children receive the education and support they deserve, guided by parental wisdom and consent, not state interference. Join us in advocating for the rights of parents and the well-being of our children in Arizona and every state. Parents, check out your state’s laws and administrative rules that govern school counselors and parental rights.
Originally published at Townhall.com.
Tamra Farah has twenty years of experience in public policy and politics, focusing on protecting individual liberty and promoting limited government. She’s served at the director level at Americans for Prosperity-Colorado, FreedomWorks, and is currently the Director of SMART Families Network with Arizona Women of Action.
by Paula Scanlan | Apr 15, 2024 | Opinion
By Paula Scanlan and Christy Narsi |
Governor Katie Hobbs has a rare opportunity to do something with the overwhelming support of her citizens, and that would make her a groundbreaker. She could become the first female governor to sign the Women’s Bill of Rights.
This shouldn’t take courage. This legislation, which was just passed by the Arizona state house, defines words like “woman” and “female” so when it comes to laws that use these words, we can all speak a common language. The bill also declares the state’s important interest in preserving female-only spaces and opportunities when privacy, safety, or fairness are implicated. Importantly, this law doesn’t prevent policymakers or local leaders from deciding to allow trans-identifying individuals from being included in any arena, but it gives us a language so that there is truth in advertising, and we have the ability to reserve some spaces and opportunities just for women.
We both know personally why this is so important.
I, Paula Scanlan, was a teammate of Lia Thomas at the University of Pennsylvania. Governor Hobbs, you’ve undoubtedly heard about how Lia Thomas – formerly Will Thomas when he competed on the men’s team – took competition spots, won titles, and smashed female records from female swimmers like me. But perhaps you haven’t heard about what it was like to have to share a locker room with him. As a sexual assault survivor, I was forced to change next time him, and have him undress just a few feet away from me, often several times a day. When I tried to tell administrators that I was uncomfortable sharing such private spaces with fully intact men, they told me I should get counseling, that I shouldn’t complain, and that they didn’t care about how this felt to me or the other women on my team.
I, Christy Narsi, serve as a chapter leader for Independent Women’s Network in Phoenix, and I hear daily from moms who are concerned about the message that we are sending our daughters today. We hear of mothers who are concerned about their daughters’ safety when they are forced to face bigger, stronger male-bodied athletes on the athletic fields. My colleague, Payton McNabb, had to face a male volleyball player on the court when she was a junior in high school. He spiked the ball in her face so hard that she had a serious concussion and brain injury. More than two years later, she still has partial paralysis. Why are women and girls’ safety concerns being brushed aside? Why is it that women and girls are being told that they need to step aside, that their dreams and aspirations don’t matter and have to be sacrificed for male-bodied athletes who want to join the women’s teams?
Governor Hobbs, as I’m sure you know, this is about more than just sport. Women’s rights—and the very concept of womanhood—are under assault as never before in history. Inmates in women’s prisons are being put at risk when they allow male prisoners—including violent sex offenders—into women’s prisons around the country. Men are entering female sororities, domestic violence shelters, and educational training programs that were created specifically to encourage women’s engagement.
Overwhelmingly Americans recognize that it isn’t fair to force women to compete against biological men. To back up this common sense is hard scientific data, like that outlined in the Competition Report, which shows that a human being who goes through male puberty, when testosterone levels rise by about 20 times, enjoys an irreversible advantage in strength and athletic power. Taking testosterone suppressors later in life doesn’t change that reality. Data shows that men have physical advantages—not just in terms of strength and speed but in lung capacity and how their hearts process blood—that are hard-wired in their bodies. This is why there are women’s leagues and competitions in the first place, and why it is simply dangerous and inhumane to have female inmates forced to share their spaces with men.
We are so grateful that Arizona’s state legislature decided to do something about it by passing this truth-in-advertising legislation. We hope that you will sign this bill into law and stand up for women’s rights in Arizona—and be a model for others across the nation.
Paula Scanlan is an ambassador with Independent Women’s Voice and a former swimmer at the University of Pennsylvania. Christy Narsi is the co-leader of the Independent Women’s Network Arizona Chapter, and is based in Surprise, AZ.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Apr 14, 2024 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
The notion of color-blindness derives from the principle that moral persons of conscience should disregard race in judging their fellow human beings. It is a sincere aspiration but not necessarily meant as a description of reality. It was once considered a non-controversial mainstay of the American ethos.
No longer. The term “color-blind” has become an object of scorn among America’s elite. The usual crowd directing our national groupthink has determined that proclaiming color-blindness is intentionally deceptive, simply a cheap cover for racism.
Thus, Critical Race Theory guru Ibram X. Kendi informs us that the most threatening racist movement is not the “alt-right’s drive for a White ethnostate but the regular American’s desire for a race-neutral one.’ Best-selling author Robin DiAngelo claims that the color-blind strategy boils down to “pretend we don’t see race and racism will end.”
One critic alleges that color blindness was “developed in the neo-conservative think tanks during the 1970s.” Another condemns color blindness as “part of a long-standing whiteness protection program, associated with indigenous dispossession, colonial conquest, slavery, segregation, and immigrant exclusion.”
It’s not clear where these professors acquired their bizarre claims, but the historical record tells a far different story. The ideal of color-blindness was not birthed in some loony right-wing outpost but was the philosophical basis of the fight against slavery. As author Coleman Hughes points out, color-blindness was the driving passion of civil rights leaders from Frederick Douglass to Martin Luther King.
Wendell Phillips, known as “abolition’s golden trumpet,” called in 1865 for the “creation of a government color-blind” in which all laws referencing race would be repealed. Later, the idea of color-blindness was the inspiration for the battle against Jim Crow.
In the 1896 Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson, which affirmed the discredited “separate but equal” doctrine, the lone dissent was from Justice John Marshall Harlan. His declaration still rings through the ages that “our constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens.”
When then-NAACP attorney Thurgood Marshall, later a Supreme Court Justice, argued segregation cases in the courts, he referred often to the Plessy dissent. “Our constitution is color-blind” became the mantra of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Color-blindness in the 1940s was the first demand of the original March on Washington, which successfully pressured FDR to integrate the defense industry. Color-blindness was also the first argument made in the NAACP’s appellate brief supporting the Brown v. Board decision, which finally reversed the Plessy decision in the 50s.
Americans sometimes forget how much progress was made when color-blindness was the guiding principle driving racial progress. By the 1950s, America was clearly lifting itself out of its deeply racist past. Economic opportunities for blacks were burgeoning. Black families and churches were strong. A solid black middle class was forming while black professionals and political leaders became more common.
So, what happened? How did we end up with a race-drenched public life where “systemic racism” is considered the accepted explanation for just about everything bad that happens. Award-winning public intellectuals teach that the races are inherently different and that treating individuals differently based on race is not only acceptable but desirable.
Citizens grounded in the philosophy of individual liberty are difficult for centralized government to control. The Marxist-inspired left clearly wants Americans to identify as members of an oppressed group, be it race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Life’s failures and disappointments can then be blamed on racism, even where none is readily apparent, and used to stoke racial resentments. Any successes or achievements are attributed not to individual merit or diligence but to the privileges bestowed on favored groups by government.
Ward Connerly, a leader in the anti-affirmative action movement, tells critics “I don’t care what color you are. Do you care what color I am?” That simple question may be the key to a brighter racial future.
Americans must decide if we really want to turn away from our Enlightenment-based notions of racial equality and once again embrace sanctioned racism. We will never achieve a society in which race really doesn’t matter if we can’t agree on the most basic principle of all— absolute equality granted by the Creator.
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 AZ Free Enterprise Club | Apr 12, 2024 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Everyone knows that political pundits, social media influencers, and the corporate media love a good narrative. And one of their favorites for years has been the claim that Arizona is trending blue—that a demographic shift toward Democrats is inevitable.
This ‘conventional wisdom’ is repeated so often that much of the Republican political class in the state has accepted it as fact. Some are even advising candidates that the only path forward for Republicans is to abandon their conservative principles, embrace center-left policy solutions, and settle for a future of divided government.
But a funny thing about narratives and conventional wisdom: numbers don’t lie, especially those showing party preference when people are registering to vote.
Last month, the Secretary of State updated the statewide voter registration data prior to the Presidential Preference Election. The latest figures show that Republicans are once again the largest voting bloc in Arizona, surpassing Independents by nearly 40,000. This is certainly an important development—especially given all the attention it received on social media when Independent registrations surpassed Republicans last year.
But that’s not the most significant voter registration trend…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Katarina White | Apr 10, 2024 | Opinion
By Katarina White |
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.
by Diana Furchtgott-Roth | Apr 7, 2024 | Opinion
By Diana Furchtgott-Roth |
Originally published by The Daily Signal.
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.
