by Staff Reporter | Feb 23, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Republican-led Senate is poised to vote on multiple bills that would impose greater restrictions on gender transition procedures in Arizona.
The Senate Health and Human Services Committee passed four bills targeting different aspects of gender transition procedures: Senate Bills 1014, 1177, 1094, and 1095. All with the exception of SB 1095 were heard in committee last week. All were passed without the support of Democratic lawmakers.
Progressive activists lined up to testify against the bills during the several committee hearings.
SB1095, which would ban gender transition procedures for minors, provoked testimony from several activist adults who identify as transgender.
Former Liberty Elementary School District governing board member, Paul Bixler, said SB1095 would harm, not help, children. Bixler, a man, identifies as a transgender woman.
Ruth Carter, an attorney, said SB1095 amounted to discrimination. Carter, a woman, identifies as a nonbinary individual.
Marilyn Rodriguez, Creosote Partners founder and lobbyist representing the ACLU, said SB1095 was impermissibly broad as written.
Sen. Lauren Kuby (D-LD8) called the bill discriminatory, and argued that lawmakers shouldn’t ban gender transition procedures since certain healthcare experts support those procedures as treatments for gender dysphoria.
“These are private, personal decisions, healthcare decisions, we shouldn’t be discriminating against transgendered youth or those who have gender dysphoria as is described,” said Kuby.
Sen. Analise Ortiz (D-LD24) said the legislature would be better focusing on making healthcare more affordable. Ortiz said the legislation was not only discriminatory but violative of parental rights laws.
“It bans healthcare for a specific group of people solely based on gender identity; that is discrimination no matter how you want to paint it,” said Ortiz.
Sen. Mark Finchem (R-LD1), the bill sponsor, disputed the narratives of his Democratic colleagues that healthcare experts were to be trusted fully and that gender transition procedures were appropriate for minors.
“To those who worship the grounds that doctors walk on: they also said cigarettes were good for you,” said Finchem. “[Permanently altering treatments like mastectomies] are decisions that kids are being talked into, in some cases. I didn’t just dream this bill up myself. This came from kids and parents. More kids than parents.”
Majority Leader John Kavanagh (R-LD3) questioned the logic of his Democratic colleagues that parents had a right to submit children to irreversible medical treatments, but not the right to decide whether their children should be called by certain pronouns or alternative names in school.
SB 1014 would require health insurers to offer coverage for detransition procedures should those insurers provide coverage for gender transition procedures. It would also issue reporting requirements on insurance claims for gender detransitions.
“Detransitioners are people too; they deserve the same care as those who are manipulated into believing they have gender dysphoria, which leads them to undergo gender transition surgery that they later regret,” said the bill sponsor, Sen. Janae Shamp (R-LD29), in a press release. “This legislative package puts their long-term well-being above politics and ideology.”
Jeanne Woodbury, a lobbyist for the ACLU, argued the reporting requirements within the bill would result in discriminatory outcomes.
Bixler, the transgender-identifying former school board member, claimed the bill would result in providers refusing to provide gender transition procedures.
SB 1177 would ban public funding for gender transition procedures.
Sen. Wendy Rogers (R-LD7), the bill sponsor, explained during Wednesday’s HHS hearing that she discovered taxpayers were funding gender transition treatments for prisoners. Rogers also discovered that individuals were being arrested on purpose in order to receive free gender transition treatments.
“Taxpayer dollars should never be used to bankroll irreversible procedures on children,” said Rogers in a later press release. “This legislation draws a hard line and makes clear that public funds will not subsidize experimental or life-altering interventions on minors.”
Ashton Allen expressed support on behalf of Center for Arizona Policy. Allen said subsidies should be tied to valid medical treatments, which he said gender transition procedures weren’t.
Woodbury, the transgender-identifying ACLU lobbyist, argued against Rogers’ claims and said the treatments were affordable. Woodbury also said an end to subsidization would lead to excessive medical risks associated with forced detransitions.
Minority Whip Rosanna Gabaldon (D-LD21) said ending subsidies was “extreme and punitive,” as well as “unfair and dangerous.”
Sen. Sally Ann Gonzales (D-LD20) accused Rogers of faking a story that individuals were getting themselves arrested in order to receive free gender transition treatments. Gonzales called the bill discriminatory.
Sen. Shamp questioned why drugs historically considered to be dangerous were suddenly ethical in the context of gender reassignment.
“Lupron was deemed cruel and unusual punishment being utilized in the prison system for sex offenders, rapists. But now we want Arizona taxpayers to pay for that drug to be utilized for gender reassignment? How the heck did we get here?” said Shamp.
SB 1094 would allow individuals to seek damages in court against physicians who performed gender reassignment surgeries on them as minors. Kavanagh sponsored the bill.
“When permanent procedures are performed on minors who suffer harm, there must be consequences,” said Kavanagh in a press release. “These reforms restore transparency and provide a pathway to just compensation for those harmed.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Lisa Everett | Jul 24, 2025 | Opinion
By Lisa Everett |
On Wednesday, July 16th, I attended the quarterly public meeting held by the federal monitor overseeing the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, alongside Sheriff Jerry Sheridan. These meetings are intended to gather community input regarding the continued federal oversight. Historically, these sessions have been dominated by voices calling for the oversight to continue — but not anymore.
The people of Maricopa County are fed up. We’re tired of the federal government wasting taxpayer dollars, constantly shifting the goalposts, and interfering with our local law enforcement. Last week, hundreds of concerned citizens showed up to support Sheriff Sheridan and his dedicated team. And we’re not done. We will continue to make our voices heard every quarter until Judge Snow hears us loud and clear: enough is enough.
Out of thirteen mandated benchmarks from Judge Snow, the Sheriff’s Office has met twelve. The only remaining issue? Hispanic individuals, on average, experience encounters that are 17 seconds longer than individuals of other races. Seventeen seconds. That is the justification being used to prolong this multimillion-dollar oversight?
As someone who has worked in customer service, I can tell you that when a language barrier is involved, conversations naturally take longer. It’s not discrimination — it’s respect. It’s a commitment to ensuring clarity, understanding, and fairness. I would often take several minutes longer, not just seconds, to ensure someone understood important documents or procedures. That’s called good service — not racism.
Yet the ACLU and federal monitors insist this slight timing difference is grounds for continued federal control. They are actively seeking racism in places where it does not exist, undermining the professionalism and integrity of our Sheriff’s Office.
It’s time to end this charade. The citizens of Maricopa County demand the immediate termination of this federal monitoring. Let our sheriff do his job without unnecessary interference and outrageous costs.
Stop the federal monitoring of our Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.
Lisa Everett serves as the Legislative District 29 Chair. You can follow her on X here.
by Staff Reporter | Apr 3, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
On Monday, Arizona lawmakers joined activists in hosting an anti-deportation discussion panel at South Mountain Community College.
The event, “Resisting Mass Deportation,” featured State Senator Catherine Miranda (D-LD11) and State Representative Brian Garcia (D-LD08) along with American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona executive director Victoria Lopez, Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA) Arizona members, and Arizona Luminaria staff writer John Washington (also the author of the books “The Dispossessed: A Story of Asylum at the US-Mexico Border and Beyond” and “The Case for Open Borders”).
The ACLU of Arizona and LUCHA Arizona arranged the panel.
“Trump’s mass deportation agenda has oversaturated the news. His administration is pushing the moral and legal bounds of our country to expedite deportations, disregarding people’s rights and humanity in the process,” read the ACLU event page. “At the same time, the Arizona state legislature is advancing several bills that would force our state to do the anti-immigrant bidding of the federal government, use state resources to fuel the mass deportation machine, incentivize police to prioritize immigration enforcement over public safety, and more.”
A press release from the ACLU described the panel as a means of organizing “to take direct action to stop anti-immigrant legislation advancing in the state legislature.”
One such bill of concern for the anti-deportation faction is SB1164, the “Arizona ICE Act.”
The Arizona ICE Act would enable officials or agencies of Arizona or a county, city, town, or other political subdivision to enter into agreements with any federal agency for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws. The legislation would also prohibit officials or agencies of Arizona as well as counties, cities, towns, or other political subdivisions from establishing, adopting, or enforcing “any policy, pattern, or practice” that hinders cooperation with federal immigration authorities in immigration enforcement. SB1164 also allowed local governments to access federal resources and state agencies to issue grants for purposes of immigration enforcement.
The House Government Committee passed the Arizona ICE Act last week.
Miranda, who co-chairs the Latino Legislative Caucus, spoke out against the bill recently. She claimed the bill would only “worsen public safety.” Miranda expressed confidence in Governor Katie Hobbs’ intent to veto the bill.
“Arizona knows from experience that encouraging local agencies to engage in federal immigration enforcement will lead to racial profiling and discrimination, particularly against Hispanic, Latino, and other immigrant communities,” said Miranda.
Hobbs’ lack of support for the bill would conflict with her recent pledge last month to secure the border and reduce illegal immigration. Hobbs issued an executive order reminiscent of her predecessor, Doug Ducey, which directed the Arizona Department of Public Safety and Arizona Department of Homeland Security to create a joint task force, Operation Desert Guardian, to expand border security. The task force partners with the federal government and local law enforcement to stop transnational crime organizations within the border counties.
Under the Trump administration, border encounters dropped by over 90 percent and drug smuggling has slowed tremendously. Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels confirmed as such in a recent interview with KTAR News.
“Whether you like Trump or not, it’s irrelevant. It’s working,” said Dannels.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Dec 2, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
With the certification of the 2024 Elections complete, the battle lines are being drawn in what could amount to a lengthy legal clash over abortion restrictions in the state.
As reported by the Associated Press, the next fight to break out will likely be to render the present abortion law, a 2022 ban on abortions after 15-weeks with the exception of saving a mother’s life, inoperative. Unless and until a court rules or the legislature passes a new statute to align with the newly minted amendment, the 15-week ban remains in effect. It is around this bulwark that pro-life parties are beginning to build a defensive case, or conversely one that attacks the constitutional amendment.
Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes told reporters, “The position of the state of Arizona will be that we agree that abortion is legal in our state.”
Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) told reporters with the AP that the group is working to anticipate any legal challenges to the current statutes and are preparing to legally “intervene where appropriate.”
Darrell Hill, policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona told the wire service, “All the laws that have currently been on the books are under question and are subject to possible challenges at some point.”
In a post to X, the Center for Arizona Policy commented, “Today, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs ‘celebrates’ the passage of Proposition 139 to amend the Arizona Constitution to enshrine a constitutional, fundamental right to an abortion. It is not a time to celebrate. It is a time to mourn the legal taking of unborn children’s lives and the resulting harm to their mothers.”
The advocacy group warned, “Within days, Arizona will see one or more lawsuits that will prove the real intent of Proposition 139: to overturn up to forty of Arizona’s common sense safety standards. Standards that not only protect the viability of unborn children but also the well-being and lives of their mothers. These laws were passed to protect women and their unborn children. Prior to the election, Prop 139 proponents scoffed when we pointed out that the amendment would not only legalize abortion until birth but would put all of Arizona’s common sense abortion safety standards in jeopardy.”
In addition to the 15-week ban, as many as 40 additional statutes require abortion restrictions. They range from requiring pregnant women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound performed at least 24 hours beforehand, to forbiddding abortions explicitly performed due to the existence of a genetic abnormality in an unborn child.
CAP added, “The proponents of this disastrous amendment are revealing what their real agenda has always been: to expand abortion – and their profits – at any cost, even the cost of Arizona women’s health and lives. Governor Hobbs celebrates. Those who value the sanctity of human life at all stages weep. Our commitment remains what it had always been: protect both the woman and her unborn child. We will fight tirelessly to defend these critical, lifesaving measures. We will do all we can to limit the anticipated breadth of Proposition 139.”
Challenges to Prop 139 may range from the vagueness of its standard of “fetal viability,” to how “a compelling state interest,” is defined, with one argument being that preventing murder is in the state’s direct and compelling state interest. Further, allegations that the proposition was only approved through disinformation propagated by Governor Hobbs may lead to legal challenges as well.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Ed Steele | Dec 6, 2023 | Opinion
By Ed Steele |
The abortion lobby has made it clear. It wants to erase every pro-life law and enshrine abortion up to birth in the Arizona Constitution. If it’s successful, that would mean:
- No more requirement to inform women of the risks of abortion.
- No requirement to inform women of options other than abortion.
- No requirement for ultrasounds prior to abortion.
- No 24-hour waiting period.
- No requirement for parental consent for minors.
That last one is particularly shocking. It would open the door for sex traffickers, sex abusers, and other sexual predators to force women and underage girls into abortions. This is the terrifying reality that could be facing our state.
Right now in Arizona, the abortion industry is hard at work to collect the 383,923 valid signatures they need to put this constitutional amendment on the General Election ballot next November. While this may seem like a daunting task, they are well organized and well-funded, receiving support from the likes of Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and NARAL. Perhaps you’ve seen them at libraries, coffee shops, or the dollar stores asking you to help “protect women’s healthcare” or “support the right for women to make their own decisions about healthcare.” But here’s an interesting fact. The initiative never mentions “women.” It only mentions “pregnant individuals.” So, what are they really pushing?
It’s important to make the distinction between the old abortion debate that’s been raging for the last 50 years and the fight we face today. In the old abortion debate, everyone had a place on the spectrum regarding when it’s ok to take the life of a baby during pregnancy—from the moment of conception all the way up to birth. Both sides were in a constant battle to determine the inflection point where their side had the most support.
But this fight is completely different.
In this ballot measure, Arizona for Abortion Access (the group seeking this constitutional amendment) has drawn the inflection point for allowable abortion right up to the child’s birthday. That means anyone who signs this measure is actively supporting the end of a baby’s life right up until the moment that he or she is born.
Based on polls across the country, a vast majority of the population is not okay with abortion up to the moment of birth and should reject this initiative. But that’s why it’s so important that the general public know what they are being asked to sign.
This initiative is written with intentionally vague language which will allow “healthcare professionals” to use loopholes to perform abortions right up to the moment of birth. But don’t just take it from me. Look at the initiative petition itself, which says that the state cannot act in a manner that:
DENIES, RESTRICTS OR INTERFERES WITH AN ABORTION AFTER FETAL VIABILITY THAT, IN THE GOOD FAITH JUDGMENT OF A TREATING HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL, IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE LIFE OR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH OF THE PREGNANT INDIVIDUAL.
“…in the good faith judgment of a treating healthcare professional…”? Who gets to define “healthcare professional”?
“…is necessary to protect physical or mental health…”? What about pregnancy could be so dangerous to a mother’s mental health that it could be used to justify abortion up to birth? You can see where this is heading…
There once was a time when Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby repeated the slogan that “abortion should be safe, legal, and rare”? But this is where they were always heading—abortion up to birth and for practically any reason.
Arizona, it’s time to wake up and show up. We need to educate our friends and relatives with the truth about the abortion initiative petition. We need to wake up our church communities, so that our congregations can be properly informed. And we need to stand up anytime we see abortion activists collecting signatures for this petition to let potential signers know that their signature could allow abortion up to birth. (To get an information packet about this effort to share with your pastor, you can email AZdeclinetosign@gmail.com.)
This is literally a matter of life and death. Which side will you choose?
Ed Steele is a husband, father, grandfather, and Mesa resident who is helping to lead the Decline to Sign – AZ Abortion Act Movement. You can find out the latest by following this movement on X (Twitter) @declineabortion.
