On Sunday, Tucson Mayor Regina Romero announced that she contracted COVID-19 — despite being vaccinated and up to date on booster shots.
Romero clarified that her symptoms were mild.
Dear Tucsonans. Today, I tested positive for COVID. My symptoms are mild and I will be continuing to work from home in keeping with public health recommendations.
Under Romero’s leadership, the city of Tucson instituted a vaccine mandate for employees last August. Romero has characterized the vaccine mandate as a “policy” and “requirement,” though previously she acknowledged the county’s requirement of masks as a mandate.
The @cityoftucson’s vaccine policy has been overwhelmingly effective.
– 98% of our workforce is now complaint
– The number of non-compliant city workers has fallen from more than 500 workers to less than 90.
In response to the mandate, Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed a civil rights lawsuit in August (CV2022-011416). Brnovich accused the city of disparate treatment between unvaccinated and vaccinated employees. Brnovich claimed the city punished unvaccinated employees awaiting approval of their exemption or accommodation requests with unpaid suspension, denied additional sick leave to recover from COVID-19 or to quarantine if a family member contracted COVID-19, and required to undergo regular COVID-19 testing at their own expense.
However, vaccinated employees were given additional sick leave.
About 377 employees requested a medical exemption for the mandate, and 352 employees requested a religious exemption.
Brnovich’s lawsuit against the city is ongoing in the Arizona Superior Court.
Tucson’s vaccine mandate also prompted state intervention last year. Prior to the Arizona Supreme Court overturning a newly-enacted law banning state or local government from mandating the COVID-19 vaccine, Brnovich threatened to withhold over $175 million in state revenues.
(1/2) Today’s unanimous ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court should serve as a reminder to both @dougducey and our State Legislature that they are not above the AZ Constitution.
The city also required election workers to be vaccinated ahead of the special election in May. The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted in July to rescind that mandate for the primary elections. That decision followed requests from their elections officials concerned that they wouldn’t have adequate staffing with the mandate in place.
The county and city of Tucson implemented similar vaccine mandates. However, in September the Pima County Board of Supervisors rescinded its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees and $45 monthly penalty for unvaccinated employees. It also implemented a reward for those vaccinated employees who stay up to date on booster shots: 16 hours of paid time off every year.
A newly-enacted state law (HB2498) prohibits state and local governments from mandating the COVID-19 vaccine.
Romero has affirmed consistently that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective.
“The decision to not get vaccinated does not just affect personal health, it unjustly exposes others to the risk of illness; including coworkers, members of the public, and children,” stated Romero.
Republican Reps. Paul Gosar (AZ-04) and Andy Biggs (AZ-05) joined an amicus brief with 15 other lawmakers to prevent future airplane mask mandates.
Specifically, the lawmakers challenged the CDC’s legal authority to issue a mask mandate for airplane travel in Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Biden. They contested that Congress hadn’t and couldn’t grant the CDC the authority for such a mandate.
Astonishingly, Biden is still fighting to force you to wear masks on airplanes.
That’s why several of my colleagues and I are fighting back.
We sued the CDC, but another case received a ruling before ours, so we filed an amicus brief for that suit:https://t.co/YLylPHEihw
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY-04) led the amicus brief, joined by Biggs and Republican Reps. Barry Moore (AL-02), Lauren Boebert (CO-03), Bill Posey (FL-08), Brian Mast (FL-18), Andrew Clyde (GA-09), Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA-14), Matt Rosendale (MT), Dan Bishop (NC-09), Warren Davidson (OH-08), Ralph Norman (SC-05), Chip Roy (TX-21), Bob Good (VA-05), and Alex Mooney (WV-02).
Sen. Rand Paul (KY) also joined the amicus brief. These Congress members represent 13 different states.
The case is before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals currently.
The Florida Middle District Court ruled against the Biden administration in April, finding that the CDC exceeded its statutory authority and failed to follow notice and comment rulemaking. Following the loss, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a joint statement with the CDC pledging an appeal of the ruling.
“The Department continues to believe that the order requiring masking in the transportation corridor is a valid exercise of the authority Congress has given CDC to protect the public health,” stated the DOJ.
The lawsuit follows legislative attempts to end the mandate and prevent future ones, and years of aggressive crackdowns on resistance to mask-wearing on flights.
Last July, Biggs and Paul introduced legislation to prohibit mask mandates for public transportation. Neither version of the legislation made it to a committee in the Democratic-controlled Congress.
For two years, airlines put passengers who refused to mask up on their “no-fly list.” In February, Delta Airlines asked other airlines to share their no-fly lists to expand its own.
Negative public response to the move caused the company to backtrack. By April, Delta began removing people who refused to adhere to masking requirements from its no-fly list.
Last December, the CEO of Southwest Airlines testified to the Senate his doubts about masks’ ability to prevent COVID-19 transmission in airplanes. The fully vaccinated, double-boosted CEO caught COVID-19 a day after that testimony.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Even though I was raised in a loving, conservative home, and first registered to vote as a Republican, I switched to Democrat. Why? Partly out of pressure (basically bullied by my husband), but also, like many others, I had heard liberals were the compassionate ones, concerned about protecting the rights of others.
I justified that my husband was one of those liberals, and I could help the Party by sharing my conservative ideas. But he turned out to be a Leftist—insisting that we were “entitled to state benefits,” always angry about supposed racism (but without evidence), and always in fear of COVID or global warming. This was not the compassion I expected from liberals but instead a lot of ‘righteous’ anger. Eventually I woke up tired and worn out from the anger of the Far Left. I still have dear liberal friends, but I had to escape the mindset that took away my sanity and hope. Here’s what I learned.
1 – Democrats are no longer “the compassionate ones.” They’re either old school liberals (like John F. Kennedy or even Bill Clinton) OR they’re Leftists. The true liberals still care, but they don’t realize that their party has been taken over by socialists, and it’s demolishing what they believe in—what our forefathers created in our Constitutional Republic. The Democrat platform no longer cares about the rights and freedoms of the people; only about taking control.
2 – The Democrat media is NOT fact-based. When I registered as a Democrat, I noticed the videos posted to my Facebook made AOC look like the American Joan of Arc, standing up to Big Pharma and Big Tech. Nowhere was I shown the full sound bites where she makes no sense: ‘the Green New deal is going to save us from certain death in a decade!’ They use terms like fossil fuels, but have no idea what it really means. They say renewable energy is a great innovation that will keep improving, but it’s nowhere close to beating petroleum or nuclear power—both of which help most people in poorer countries.
3 – Democrat activists are kind of shady. Whenever someone found out that I was a registered Democrat, and they were too, the conversation turned SUPER secretive. They lowered their voice and looked around making sure no one else was listening, like we were part of a spy network. No joke. Every time! Once I was part of an activist group talking about staging a protest in front of a local GOP office—again it felt shady, rather than doing good work…. Eventually, I thought to myself: if what the Republicans (my family) are standing for is so bad, why is there a need to always be looking behind your shoulder? Why is everything in the Democrat party secretive?
After four years of living like this, I was obese, SUPER in debt, angry, and impatient with people: things I never wanted to be or have my son see. It hit me one day that my parents’ “normal” life was healthy. It had schedules, hard work, gratitude, and hope. Conservative values actually made happiness possible.
Leftist thinking had derailed my life. I had to make some tough choices, but now I’m free! Today, with my family’s support, I’ve lost and kept off over 20 pounds, paid off debts, been at peace with who I am, and become strong in my faith. Now, I have the ability to be fully present for my son. (He goes to the gym with me, and we even go to Republican meetings together!) Honestly, I can say it’s when I embraced conservative thinking that we started getting healthy.
Now I’m part of Chandler/Gilbert Republican Women, I’ve worked on campaigns, and contribute research and admin support for Arizona Women of Action. I’m excited to be an activist for freedom! I hope my story encourages others to think about their beliefs, and remember WHY we’re fighting—for a healthy, happy country.
Sarah is a part of the Chandler/Gilbert Republican Women and contributes research and administrative support for Arizona Women of Action.
Next month, teams from all over the world will participate in the Arizona State University (ASU) “Hacks for Humanity,” a 3-day hackathon to develop socially beneficial technical solutions — but participants don’t have to have coding knowledge to win.
Hacks for Humanity encourages non-coder participants in order to expand the creation of social justice solutions.
The purpose of the annual hackathon is to problem-solve social justice issues locally and globally. This year, the hackathon theme challenges participants to answer whether or not people are losing their humanity, citing the contexts of social disparities, racial injustices, and the COVID-19 pandemic generally.
“An unforgiving global pandemic as the backdrop for ongoing social disparities and racial injustice nationally and globally once again draws attention to this critical question: ‘Are we losing our humanity?’” stated the page.
Hacks for Humanity encouraged any member of the public to participate. The event page specifically named activists, artists, entrepreneurs, educators, scientists, and social workers as desired participants.
“When these diverse perspectives come together, innovation is the exciting result,” stated Hacks for Humanity.
Participating teams must select one of three topics: aging and wellbeing, civic engagement, and environmental justice. The winning hackathon team will receive $10,000 in cash prizes and $1,000 per team member.
The annual hackathon began nearly a decade ago through Project Humanities, an ASU initiative founded in 2011 by Neal Lester focused on social justice theories such as diversity and intersectionality. Lester has defended controversial concepts like Critical Race Theory (CRT) and gender ideology.
This year’s sponsors are State Farm, ASU University Technology Office, ASU Entrepreneurship + Innovation Institute, JDT Family Foundation, and Jenny Norton & Bob Ramsey. Additional supporters are the Odysea Aquarium, ASU School of Social Transformation, Heard Museum, Arizona Cardinals, Desert Botanical Garden, Japanese Friendship Garden of Phoenix, the Nile, Tempe Boat Rentals of America, and the Phoenix Symphony.
The hackathon will take place from October 7-9, and is open to individuals aged 16 and older.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Tuesday, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed a civil rights lawsuit against Tucson over its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees.
In a press release, Brnovich argued that the mandate was a violation of personal liberty and an exemplar of government overreach.
“Tucson dictated a widespread vaccine mandate without regard to its impact on the liberties and civil rights of its employees,” said Brnovich. “Many of those affected are first responders, and it’s our turn to be there for them. The city’s misguided vaccine mandate is an ugly example of government overreach that we must vigorously oppose.”
Brnovich accused Tucson of punishing unvaccinated employees with unpaid suspension regardless of whether their exemption or accommodation requests were pending or approved. A majority of the city employees affected by the slim deadline were first responders.
According to the lawsuit, at least 377 city employees requested a medical exemption, and 352 employees requested a religious exemption.
The lawsuit further criticized the city’s blanket policy approach for requiring the vaccine, noting that some unvaccinated employees were or could work remotely. It alleged that the city made employment “more onerous” for unvaccinated employees.
Among those alleged more onerous requirements: the city gave vaccinated employees additional leave to recover from COVID-19 infection or to quarantine if a family member became infected with COVID-19 but denied that benefit to unvaccinated employees. Additionally, the city gave only vaccinated employees an 8-hour “floating holiday,” as well as the ability to travel outside of Pima County for job-related career enhancement opportunities. Furthermore, certain unvaccinated employees were required to undergo regular COVID-19 testing at their own expense.
In doing so, Tucson claimed its denial of equal treatment to unvaccinated employees was a means to incentivize vaccination.
“[The city of Tucson’s] purported ‘incentives’ were, severally and collectively, coercive actions that punished employees who could not comply with Defendant’s vaccine directives because of a sincerely-held religious belief and/or disability,” stated the lawsuit.
The city did put their vaccine mandate on hold last September, after Brnovich warned the city that its original five-day unpaid suspension of unvaccinated employees was unlawful. At the time, Brnovich said he would direct Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee to withhold the city’s state shared revenues, totaling over $175 million.
However, the city kept up its vaccine mandate. The next month, a divided city council voted to terminate the unvaccinated by December 1. Tucson’s action prompted Governor Doug Ducey to intervene. Ducey informed the city that their mandate conflicted with Arizona law.
It’s unfathomable that after a year as tough as last, the Tucson City Council voted to FIRE unvaccinated city employees. The state Legislature has spoken on this issue — they want Arizonans and their sincerely held beliefs to be protected from overreaching mandates. 1/ pic.twitter.com/EQMrLaN5Hm
However, the next month the Arizona Supreme Court overturned Arizona’s new law banning any level of government from requiring COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
(1/2) Today’s unanimous ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court should serve as a reminder to both @dougducey and our State Legislature that they are not above the AZ Constitution.
Mayor Regina Romero and other city leaders have insisted in public messaging that their workforce was mostly compliant with their vaccine mandate, which Romero called a “vaccine policy.”
The @cityoftucson’s vaccine policy has been overwhelmingly effective.
– 98% of our workforce is now complaint
– The number of non-compliant city workers has fallen from more than 500 workers to less than 90.
Several weeks after Tucson’s deadline passed, Ducey issued an executive order banning local or state governments from issuing COVID-19 vaccine mandates. In a response statement, Tucson Mayor Regina Romero alluded to Brnovich’s legal opinion that employers could institute their own vaccine mandates as a defense of Tucson’s mandate.
“Arizona Attorney General Brnovich already told the governor what he doesn’t want to hear. He has no authority to preempt local actions through executive orders,” stated Romero.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
