On Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a lawsuit arguing against the state’s ban on abortions solely for genetic defects.
In the case, Isaacson v. Mayes, pro-abortion doctors and groups appealed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against Arizona’s ban on abortions based on genetic defects.
The legislature passed the ban, SB 1457, back in 2021.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the ban are abortionists Paul Isaacson and Eric Reuss, along with the National Council of Jewish Women, Arizona National Organization For Women, and Arizona Medical Association.
Isaacson was a Phoenix-based abortionist with Family Planning Associates. Reuss was a Scottsdale-based OBGYN and former board member for Planned Parenthood of Arizona.
Judges Roopali Desai, Ronald Gould, and Andrew Hurwitz heard the oral arguments. While Desai and Hurwitz were engaged in the arguments with their questions, Gould hardly spoke except to request an adjustment of the livestream audio.
In March, House Speaker Ben Toma (R-LD27) and Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) stepped up to defend the ban after Attorney General Kris Mayes said she would refuse to enforce the law. Mayes is acting as the defense in the lawsuit currently.
During Monday’s oral arguments, the main question at hand was whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing. Article III of the Constitution, as held by the Supreme Court, requires plaintiffs to prove an actual or imminent alleged injury that is concrete and particularized.
Jessica Sklarsky with the Center for Reproductive Rights argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that they suffer undisputed economic harms and threat of prosecution due to the abortion ban. The district court determined that the plaintiffs failed to meet the standard set by the 2014 Supreme Court case Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, which determined that pre-enforcement challenges satisfy the Article III standard and are justiciable when a statute’s enforcement is sufficiently imminent.
Sklarksy also argued that the abortion ban qualified as a vague law, and therefore violated due process rights.
“Vague laws force those they govern to either avoid doing anything that is arguably covered by the law, or to engage in that conduct with the constant threat of arbitrary enforcement,” said Sklarsky.
Denise Harle with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), counsel on behalf of Toma and Petersen, countered that no Article III injury exists due to the lack of a credible threat of enforcement.
Harle pointed out that all 15 county attorneys have acceded their authority to Mayes, and that Mayes has disavowed enforcement of abortion law. Harle also pointed out Gov. Katie Hobbs’ executive order in June usurping all county attorneys’ authority on abortion law and conferring it to Mayes.
Hurwitz and Desai pushed back against Harle’s reference to Mayes and Hobbs’ conduct, arguing that Mayes didn’t issue a disclaimer in this case specifically detailing her intent to not enforce the law.
Hurwitz indicated that Toma and Petersen’s support of the law, as well as the private enforcement aspect of the law, indicated a credible threat of enforcement.
“Does the law really require that a credible threat be communicated? If the state of Arizona passes a statute and the two leaders of the legislature are here defending its constitutionality, isn’t that enough to show there is a credible not a certain but a credible threat of enforcement?” asked Hurwitz.
Harle disagreed, saying the potential for private enforcement constituted a hypothetical. She alluded to the arrangement by Hobbs and Mayes to not enforce abortion law.
“[T]he theoretical possibility of an injury sometime in the future is too conjectural when it’s not imminent,” said Harle.
Desai followed up by stating that the court’s decision in Tingley v. Fergusoncould apply to this case. In that case, a family counselor challenged the state of Washington’s ban on conversion therapy as a violation of free speech and religious practice. Harle responded that the existence of a law alone wasn’t sufficient for direct injury.
“Virtually anyone could look at a law, say ‘I’m not sure what that means, I’m going to do something or not do something’ [and] that would be enough for a federal court to weigh in and adjudicate the merits of that claim on a facial challenge,” said Harle.
Watch the full hearing here:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
This week, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne announced that he was “making $40 million available to parents of elementary grade students to pay for free tutoring in reading, writing and math beginning October 2.”
Superintendent Horne is laser focused on raising academic outcomes for students. This new tutoring program will help our students learn! #EducationForAllhttps://t.co/ESOrPN9V8i
According to the release sent out from the Arizona Department of Education, the funding source for these re-allocated dollars originates from a federal government 2021 program, which allowed the previous Superintendent to distribute funds earmarked to help “overcome pandemic-related learning loss” to several organizations around the state. In August, Horne’s administration asked these organizations “to provide evidence of the academic impact of their work, and those who could not show reasonable impact for the money had their contracts cancelled or reduced.”
Parents will have options of public school teachers or private tutoring companies to assist with their children’s educational development under this program. The Department projected the $40 million would cover approximately 1.3 million hours of tutoring.
The schools chief explained his action, saying, “My first priority as Superintendent is to raise academic outcomes, therefore I am making $40 million available so parents whose children did not test as proficient can get free tutoring for students in first through eighth grades.”
Superintendent Horne is confident that his program will achieve results for Arizona children, promising, “If they cannot show increased academic outcomes, I will, with this massive tutoring program.”
Horne also discussed the impact this stream of funding would have on teachers who participated in this reimagined program. He said, “Public school teachers who tutor will be paid $30 an hour and will earn a $200 stipend for each student who shows a one-half year gain from the tutoring. A teacher who tutors the maximum amount would earn an extra approximately $8,000. I believe teachers deserve more pay, which is why I supported Rep. Matt Gress’s recent bill for a $10,000 raise. I was shocked to see that the Governor and teachers’ union opposed it. If they won’t help teachers get more money, I will.”
More details are expected to become available for this new program on September 15. Members of the public and interested parties can visit the Arizona Department of Education’s website to learn more after that date.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizona’s housing costs continue to climb at a concerning rate for minimum-wage workers.
The National Low Income Housing Coalition recently released its annual report, showing how much renters need to earn to afford a modest apartment in each state across the United States. Arizona checked in with the 12th highest housing wage among all 50 states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
According to the report, Arizonans need to bring home $29.93 an hour to afford a two-bedroom rental home. Individuals would need to work 86 hours each week at the state’s $13.85 minimum wage to hold onto that two-bedroom apartment – or 71 hours for a one-bedroom rental.
In comparison, Arizona’s neighbor to the west, California, has the highest housing wage in the country. California renters must make $42.25 an hour to afford a two-bedroom rental home, and the state’s minimum wage workers ($15.50/hour) would need to toil for 109 hours each week to maintain their living arrangements.
Arkansas took the trophy for the State with the lowest housing wage around the union with a $16.27 per hour rate required to afford a two-bedroom rental home and only 59 hours of employment per week at minimum wage ($11.00/hour).
Arizona has 2,683,557 total households according to the report, and 917,899 of those households classified as renters (34% of households in the state). The percentage of renters in California is 45% of total households, while that number is 34% in Arkansas.
The report shows that the fair market rent for a 1-bedroom apartment in Arizona is $1,287 and $1,556 for a 2-bedroom apartment. The median renter household income ($52,391) would support a monthly payment of $1,310 for an apartment.
Addressing the increasing housing costs for the state was a priority for Arizona legislators, though those efforts produced few results. Republican lawmakers were able to strike a deal with Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs during the final stretch of the extended session to prohibit the rental tax for Arizona tenants. Arizona Senate Republicans claimed that “approximately 70 municipalities within our state charge this tax,” and that “this tax can cost as much as $200 per month.”
Senate Majority Whip Sine Kerr applauded the signing of this bill, explaining how important the removal of rental taxes across the state would be for countless Arizonans. She stated, “Rental prices aren’t going down anytime soon, and Arizona tenants are agonizing over just how much more expensive it is now to rent an apartment or house than ever before. For Metro Phoenix, June of this year saw the second-highest monthly total of evictions since the 2008 Great Recession. According to Maricopa County records, landlords filed to evict nearly 7000 times last month. We needed to act promptly. This bill will provide some help, and I’m proud the Majority Caucus spearheaded this change in tax policy.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Days after an Arizona Republican Senator noted the increasing return of COVID-19 restrictions, another state legislator is doing the same for his constituents.
On Wednesday, Republican Representative Joseph Chaplik released an in-depth statement about the perceived rise in COVID-19 fears and restrictions as the fall season approaches. Chaplik attributed this to “recent media headlines panicking over the latest COVID variant, case numbers, and calls by some for the return of mask mandates.”
✅FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE✅ Are Masking Mandates Making a Comeback? Not in Arizona.
State Representative @JosephChaplik on Arizona’s laws and masking mandates: “There have been plenty of recent media headlines panicking over the latest COVID variant, case numbers, and calls by… pic.twitter.com/Pj3PpM8Zg8
Chaplik assured constituents that Arizona laws afforded them more freedom than other states that might be on the verge of bringing back COVID-19 restrictions, writing, “While some states may go in that direction, the good news is that mandates won’t be happening here in Arizona. That’s due in large part to our state adopting common-sense laws to protect against government-imposed mask mandates on private businesses and requirements that children wear masks in public schools.”
The lawmaker pointed to two bills that he previously sponsored – both of which were signed into law by former Governor Doug Ducey over the past couple of years. The first was HB 2770, which empowered “businesses with the freedom to decide whether or not to observe and enforce any mask mandate imposed by government politicians from the state, county, city/town or other jurisdiction in Arizona.” The second was HB 2616, which prohibited “school districts and local governments from requiring minors to wear a mask or face covering without parental consent.” Chaplik called this enacted policy “a victory for parents’ rights and our children’s health.”
HB 2770 was signed into law in April 2021, while HB 2616 received Governor Ducey’s signature in April 2022.
In December 2021, Governor Ducey pointed to HB 2770 to counter reports that the Pima County Board of Supervisors were considering an implementation of a county-wide indoor mask mandate. Ducey tweeted, “Arizona law clearly states businesses are NOT REQUIRED to enforce mask mandates that any city, town, county or other jurisdiction in this state established. Rest assured, this law will not change. It took effect in September, following the signing of House Bill 2770 which echoed an Executive Order.”
There is no mask mandate in Arizona. Remember that when the Pima County Board of Supervisors takes up the issue. Local jurisdictions did not enforce the mask mandates they imposed, putting an unfair burden on businesses. 1/https://t.co/8j1vLhUB13
Representative Chaplik ended his statement, adding, “Masking mandates imposed on the public didn’t work and certainly weren’t effective at preventing the spread of COVID. Mandates were especially unnecessary for children, the least at-risk population. If an individual chooses to wear a mask, that remains their personal choice, but it should never be mandated by the government. And, thankfully, the public won’t need to contend with new mandates in Arizona because of the action we’ve taken at the state capitol.”
Last week, freshman Senator Janae Shamp sent out a press release, “reminding Arizonans of the safeguards put in place by Republicans at the Legislature to protect against future outrageous overreach and scientifically baseless restrictions.” Shamp referenced both of Chaplik’s aforementioned bills – in addition to two other laws enacted in 2022: A.R.S. 36-681 and A.R.S. 26-303.
Reports have surged about an increase in COVID-19 cases with the spread of the EG.5 (“Eris”), FL.1.5.1 (“Fornax”), and BA.2.86 (“Pirola”). These developments have led to the return of some masking requirements around the nation. In Atlanta, Morris Brown College sent an email to its faculty, staff, and students, announcing the reinstatement of its COVID-19 mask mandate because of “reports of positive cases among students in the Atlanta University Center.” The college also reimposed physical distancing and gathering restrictions on campus.
The movie studio Lionsgate in Los Angeles also brought back its mask mandate for the office, as did Kaiser Permanente for its Santa Rosa (California) hospital and medical offices.
Author and one-time New York Times reporter, Alex Berenson, has also noted the increased attention for the newest wave of COVID-19 cases across the country, pointing to a headline in his former paper about the predictions for rising hospitalizations. Berenson said, “OMG this is the lead headline on the NYT right now. They really are not going to let it go ever ever EVER. I do not understand the game here, truly.”
OMG this is the lead headline on the NYT right now
They really are not going to let it go ever ever EVER
Another Republican freshman representative at the Legislature, Austin Smith, has also been focused on the potential return of COVID-19 restrictions. Earlier this week, Smith tweeted, “We are not doing the mask thing again. Refuse.”
Arizona mothers, who are concerned about the future of their children, have a new website to visit.
Last week, Moms for America gave the green light to MomsforArizona.com, which “is designed to provide moms with the information and resources they need to defend their rights and stand up for their children’s well-being.” Moms for America was started in 2004 and is a “national, non-profit 501c3 educational corporation rooted on the principles of liberty and virtue our nation was founded on, and focused on promoting these principles, values, and virtues in the home and family, particularly through the women and mothers of America.”
According to a press release for the announcement, “the leadership team includes grassroots director Shiry Sapir, a small business owner; state outreach coordinator Shelli Bogg, a former educator; and state director Mayra Rodriguez, a former Planned Parenthood director and whistleblower.”
Kimberly Fletcher, the founder, president, and CEO of Moms for America said, “This new website will be an invaluable resource for moms in Arizona who want to fight back against the radical indoctrination of our children and work toward restoring sanity to our education system. The people targeting our kids depend on moms being isolated and ignorant, because they know they don’t stand a chance against moms who are united and informed.”
Shiry Sapir added, “My own experience with the failures of public education – especially the disastrous school closures of 2020 and 2021 – inspired me to take matters into my own hands and fight for my kids. Not all moms have the time or the resources to engage in this fight on their own, which is why I’m excited to work with Moms for America to mobilize an army of moms to take back our rights and give our children the quality education they deserve.”
On the Moms for America website, its leaders outline a three-part mission, which is to “Empower Moms, Promote Liberty, and Raise Patriots.” The group vows to “fulfill our mission by providing educational resources, programs, and events to support moms in nurturing a love of liberty in the home, advance freedom in their communities, and protect it with their vote.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
