by Daniel Stefanski | Oct 10, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Concerned Arizonans continue to take action to defend the future of women’s sports in their state.
Last month, the Arizona Women of Action filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Doe v. Horne. This case concerns a challenge to the Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act, which was passed by the state legislature in 2022 and signed into law by former Governor Doug Ducey.
Kim Miller, the Founder and Director of Arizona Women of Action, said, “On behalf of Arizona parents and their student-athlete daughters, Arizona Women of Action strongly supports the Save Women’s Sports Act to ensure the safety and level playing field of female athletics. The facts and statistics don’t lie – the differences between males and females are real, even before puberty, and AZWOA stands with Superintendent Tom Horne and the Arizona Legislators to protect women’s sports here in Arizona.”
In their brief, the Arizona Women of Action make three arguments for the west coast appeals court to consider. First, that “the Arizona Legislature’s findings were thorough and based on sound evidence.” Second, that “the Arizona Legislature enacted the Save Women’s Sports Act for a legitimate purpose and to address a real problem.” And finally, that “the District Court improperly ignored the harm to biological females when biological males participate in girls’ sports.”
Earlier this summer, District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps granted a preliminary injunction against SB 1165, the Save Women’s Sports Act, which blocked the law from going into effect. At that time, Arizona’s Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, the defendant in the case, promised to appeal the ruling, saying, “This will ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court, and they will rule in our favor. The Plaintiffs in this case claimed that this only involves pre-pubescent boys, but we presented peer-reviewed studies that show pre-pubescent boys have an advantage over girls in sports. The only expert presented by the Plaintiffs was a medical doctor who makes his money doing sex transition treatments on children and who has exactly zero peer-reviewed studies to support his opinion.”
Joining Horne as defendants in the case are Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma, who have actively filed motions throughout the proceedings at both the District and Appeals Court levels. In a recent motion to the Ninth Circuit, the Republican legislative leaders wrote, “Under the district court’s preliminary injunction order, ‘the [Save Women’s Sports] Act shall not prevent Plaintiffs from participating in girls’ sports’ and ‘Plaintiffs shall be allowed to play girls’ sports at their respective schools.’ Any success by Plaintiffs in try-outs and meets will displace biological girls from making a team, getting playing time, and succeeding in final results. Biological girls will be irreparably harmed if they are displaced by, forced to compete against, or risk injury from Plaintiffs.”
According to Arizona Women of Action, “the district court still has not ruled on (their) Motion to Intervene,” which was filed in June. The amicus brief before the Ninth Circuit lists three parent representatives – Anna Van Hoek, Lisa Fink, and Amber Zenczak. All three ladies have daughters who play sports, which, per the legal filing, means that they are “directly affected by the presence of biological males on girls’ sports teams.” Fink and her daughter shared their belief “that a biological male on their team would have an unfair advantage to be able to get a starting position on the team and achieve similar benefits and advantages. This would create an environment on the team of disunity and corrosive rivalry. Furthermore, if biological males were allowed to play on competing teams, those teams would have an unfair advantage. It would create a strong sense that the competition was not on a level playing field.”
The group’s bio outlines its purpose, which “is to revive the American dream of strong families, safe cities, and thriving kids, with a focus on citizen action in the areas of education, community, life, anti-trafficking and prayer.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Jul 12, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona’s Republican Legislative Leaders continue to fight in federal court on behalf of state laws.
On Monday, House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen filed an amicus brief for the case Toomey v. State of Arizona, seeking “to protect Arizona’s recently-enacted statute prohibiting gender reassignment surgeries for minors.”
In a statement about the amicus brief, Speaker Toma said, “Although Governor Hobbs and I may disagree on matters of policy, state statute prevails over any statements or executive orders from the Governor. Given that Arizona law prohibits gender reassignment surgeries for anyone under 18, Governor Hobbs cannot expressly or implicitly undo Arizona’s statutory prohibition, through litigation or otherwise. It was critical that the legislature provide this important perspective, which the parties neglected to address in their proposed settlement.”
According to the release issued by Speaker Toma about the submission of the court filing, the amicus brief “seeks to protect Arizona’s statutory mandate by encouraging the court to narrowly interpret the governor’s executive order to avoid a conflict with current law, and it also urges the court to reject the parties’ unreasonable agreement to award $500,000 in taxpayer monies for the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees.”
The Speaker’s release added that Hobbs’ recent Executive Order, which requires “the state employee health care plan to cover gender reassignment surgeries,” made “no mention of A.R.S. 32-3230, a law that the legislature passed and was signed last year by then-Governor Ducey which prohibits irreversible gender reassignment surgeries for minors.”
That law was the result of SB 1138, which was sponsored by Petersen in 2022. In a letter to then-Secretary of State Hobbs, Ducey wrote, “Distinguishing between an adult and a child in law, as this bill does, is not unique. Throughout law, children are protected from making irreversible decisions, including buying certain products or participating in activities that can have lifelong health implications. These decisions should be made when an individual reaches adulthood. Further, many doctors who perform these procedures on adults agree it is not within the standards of care to perform these procedures on children. The irreversible nature of these procedures underscores why such a decision should be made as an adult, not as a child, and further supports the importance of this legislation.”
Last month, Hobbs signed three Executive Orders that generated significant controversy, including the one in focus for Toma and Petersen’s amicus brief. After the governor’s action, Petersen tweeted, “Instead of helping struggling AZ families plagued by inflation, the governor just issued an order for taxpayers to cover the cost of elective, sex reassignment surgeries. This illegal, out of touch, unprecedented overreach did not receive proper JLBC review as required by law.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Mar 17, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs’ propensity for politically motivated decisions continues to lead to drawn-out fights with the Republican-led Legislature.
On Wednesday, Republican legislative leaders, Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma, filed an amicus brief with the Arizona Supreme Court over the governor’s controversial action to halt the execution of Aaron Brian Gunches.
A press release from the State Senate Republican Caucus stated that “the legislative leaders filed an amicus brief with the Arizona Supreme Court to support the victim’s sister, who submitted a petition for special action last week asking the court to direct the Governor to carry out the warrant issued earlier in the month to execute Gunches.”
In announcing his filing with the state’s high court, President Petersen said, “Right now, victims’ rights protected under the Arizona Constitution are being threatened by the Governor and the Attorney General. It’s incredibly disturbing to see them unwilling to enforce the law and are siding with the most vile individuals convicted of carrying out the most heinous crimes in our state. Furthermore, the Executive Branch is clearly undermining the very foundation of separation of powers by attempting to override the statutory process adopted by the Legislature and affirmed by the Judiciary. This is a dangerous precedent to set by our newly elected Governor.”
The Senate President and the House Speaker argue that “the Governor’s unilateral executive decision threatens bedrock principles of separation of powers by usurping the statutory process established by the Legislature and affirmed by the Judiciary,” that “the decision willfully defies this Court’s mandatory order – signaling to all Arizonans that the Governor is not subject to this Court’s jurisdiction and is, in fact, above the law,” that “the Governor has effectively provided a reprieve of Gunches; death sentence without complying with the statutory limitations on her limited clemency power,” and that “the Governor’s action violates Arizona’s Victim’s Bill of Rights, stripping the victim, Ted Price’s sister, of any finality in this decades-old murder case.”
Senate President Pro Tempore, T.J. Shope, signaled his approval of the court filing, writing, “I agree 100% with President Warren Petersen on this. If we are truly caring less about the victim and their family than the criminal, we are in for years of pain and high crime.”
Petersen and Toma conclude their filing with the following plea for the Arizona Supreme Court to force the state to execute the condemned murderer: “Absent clear and specific delegation of authority from the Legislature or the Judiciary, the Executive cannot rule by fiat and choose which statutes or court orders to follow. The Governor’s actions here set a dangerous precedent, opening a Pandora’s Box and inviting litigation every time she disagrees with a jury’s verdict, a court order, or other statutory mandates passed by the Legislature.”
The saga over Gunches execution started in late-2022, when former Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich asked the Arizona Supreme Court for a warrant of execution. After the January 2 transition of power to Katie Hobbs and new Attorney General Kris Mayes, the state desperately attempted to reverse the actions that set Gunches’ execution process into motion. These efforts proved to be unsuccessful, however, when the high court did, in fact, grant the warrant of execution, ordering the state to put Gunches to death on April 6. The governor refused to comply with the court-issued warrant, stating that the State would not be seeking to carry out the execution at this time. Hobbs’ decision triggered court filings from Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell and Petersen and Toma.
The Arizona Supreme Court is expected to take expedient action in this case with a life and a court-imposed date of execution hanging in the balance.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Page 1 of 11
