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 Ethan Faverino | Feb 21, 2026 | News
By Ethan Faverino |
On Wednesday, the Arizona Senate Health and Human Services Committee has advanced SB 1214, the “Arizona Stem Cell Therapy Act.”
The bill, sponsored by Senator Janae Shamp (R-LD29), builds on Arizona’s established status as a “Right to Try” state. SB 1214 introduces comprehensive medical standards and ethical guidelines for stem cell therapies and birth tissue therapies.
The legislation permits physicians to offer certain non-FDA-approved treatments within their scope of practice, provided they adhere to strict requirements on sourcing, transparency, informed consent, and quality control.
“When Arizona patients pursue innovative therapies, they deserve to know treatments are being delivered safely and responsibly,” stated Senator Shamp in a press relase announcing the advancement of the bill. “This legislation puts medical guardrails in place, strengthens transparency, and helps ensure bad actors cannot take advantage of vulnerable people searching for hope. We are promoting access to therapies while making sure patients know they are receiving care that meets recognized medical standards.”
Key provisions of SB 1214 include:
- An explicit prohibition on the use of cells or tissues derived from aborted fetuses or embryos in any stem cell or birth tissue therapy, with willful violations classified as a Class 5 felony and subject to professional discipline.
- Mandates that stem cells and birth tissues come from facilities registered with the FDA or accredited by recognized organizations, such as the American Association of Tissue Banks, the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies, the National Marrow Donor Program, or the World Marrow Donor Association.
- Requirements for post-thaw viability reports for live stem cells, certificates of analysis for birth tissues (confirming negative tests for communicable diseases and presence of growth factors), and compliance with federal good manufacturing practices.
- Strong informed consent rules, requiring physicians to disclose that treatments are not FDA-approved, outline risks, benefits, alternatives, and encourage consultation with a primary care provider.
- Mandatory advertising disclosures in prominent type: “This notice is required by Arizona law. This physician offers one or more stem cell therapies or birth tissue therapies that are not approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. You are encouraged to consult with your primary care provider before undergoing any stem cell therapy or birth tissue therapy.”
- Civil remedies allowing patients harmed by violations to seek $10,000 in statutory damages per violation, plus attorney fees.
Supporters, including medical experts who testified before the committee, stressed that the bill establishes a medical standard of care rather than a political one. They highlighted the clinical use of ethically sourced afterbirth tissues—such as placental or amniotic materials collected during planned C-sections from healthy mothers and deliveries—as a safe, effective approach for regenerative applications.
Healthcare policy expert Brigham Buhler emphasized the sourcing process: “The standard of care is to have a preplanned C-section so that you can get the most out of that tissue. So, healthy birth, healthy mother, pre-planned C-section is how they collect this discarded afterbirth tissue to avoid any cross contaminants. Those tissues, when applied appropriately into the right patient under the right standards of care, can be life changing. I’ve seen it impact soldiers who come back from war. I have seen it impact patients with Alzheimer’s, dementia. We’ve helped orthopedic injuries, knees, shoulders, elbows, soft tissue. The beauty of these products is they’re healing you from within.”
Dr. Pradeep Albert reinforced the medical rationale for excluding aborted tissue: “We don’t use aborted tissue, not from a political point of view, but from a medical point of view. Placenta tissue contains DNA from both the mother and the father, which helps regenerate soft tissue. There is no country on the planet that uses aborted tissue for regenerative stem cell therapies, like injections into joints, because it can cause tumors and other serious problems.”
The bill now advances to the Senate floor for further consideration.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Ethan Faverino | Feb 5, 2026 | News
By Ethan Faverino |
Arizona State Senator Janae Shamp (R-LD29) has introduced legislation to safeguard patients and local pharmacies from the growing influence of “corporate middlemen” in the prescription drug market.
Senate Bill 1545 prohibits pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) from owning or holding any direct or indirect interest in retail pharmacies in Arizona. The bill addresses a fundamental conflict of interest that allows PBMs—mediators between insurers, drug manufacturers, pharmacies, and patients—to steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies, under-reimburse independent competitors, drive up costs, and reduce patients’ choice.
“Arizonans deserve transparency and fairness in their prescription drug costs,” stated Senator Shamp. “PBMs were created to manage benefits — not to own pharmacies, control the rules, and profit off the entire system. PBMs were never meant to be both the referee and the player.”
PBMs control key aspects of prescription drug access, including which medications are covered, where prescriptions can be filled, and the reimbursement rates to pharmacies. When PBMs own pharmacies, they can prioritize their own outlets, quietly eliminate local and independent pharmacies, and inflate overall drug costs.
“This bill sends a clear message: our healthcare system exists to serve patients, not corporate profits,” added Shamp. “When the middleman becomes the gatekeeper, prices rise, choices narrow, and local pharmacies are pushed out. SB 1545 ends that self-dealing and puts patients back in control. This bill is about fairness, transparency, and making sure Arizona’s healthcare system works for families — not for corporate executives gaming the system behind closed doors.”
The legislation directs the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy to enforce compliance by revoking or refusing to renew any permits held in violation of this measure.
To protect patient access, the bill establishes safeguards for rare, orphan, or limited-distribution medications that might otherwise become unavailable. The Board is authorized to issue limited-service pharmacy permits in these cases and to convert existing permits as needed for a minimum of 90 days while assessing ongoing market availability. The measure also allows temporary extensions of pharmacy permits for facilities that provide critical services during pending sales to eligible buyers.
The legislation sets a phased implementation, beginning with an initial assessment of all active pharmacy permits as of July 1, 2026. At least 90 days before January 1, 2027, the Board must send written notice to any permit holders reasonably believed to be in violation, and affected pharmacies must then provide written notice to their patients and prescribing providers at least 60 days before the effective date of December 31, 2026.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Feb 1, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
A committee within the Arizona Senate approved a bill banning fluoride additives in public water systems.
The Senate Committee on Government advanced SB 1019 solely through Republican support. Democratic lawmakers voted against the bill based on the opposition of certain major health organizations.
The bill would prohibit individuals and political subdivisions from adding fluoride or fluoride-containing compounds to public drinking water.
State Sen. Janae Shamp (R-LD29), a registered nurse, sponsored the bill.
Shamp argued that water fluoridation is no longer necessary for public health due to the widespread availability of fluoride in dental products and treatments. Shamp also cited research connecting adverse health effects to ingesting fluoride: neurodevelopmental harms resulting in IQ reduction, weakened bones, arthritis, and thyroid dysfunctions.
“It’s more effective when applied to the teeth rather than ingested,” said Shamp during a committee hearing on Wednesday. “If there is absolutely any possibility that their child could have their neurodevelopmental [development] delay[ed] because they’re ingesting systematically a product that works better topically, I would question anyone who is against stopping [this ban].”
Shamp dismissed opposition to the bill from certain healthcare organizations as the typical resistance to change among institutions. Among those opposed are the Arizona Dental Hygienists Association, Arizona Dental Association, and Arizona Public Health Association.
“As we move forward with the science, we have to make sure we’re staying up to date with evidence-based practice,” said Shamp. “The evidence is showing this is not the way to decrease tooth decay in the population.”
State Sen. David Farnsworth offered his own anecdote on the matter. Farnsworth said he was diagnosed with fluoride sensitivity after suffering headaches while using the first formula for Crest toothpaste to brush his teeth.
Jessica Robertson on behalf of the Arizona Dental Association and American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry said water fluoridation was necessary because certain communities, especially tribal communities, were too poor to afford toothbrushes or toothpaste. Robertson credited water fluoridation for her not coming down with cavities in her youth.
Valerie Brady on behalf of the Arizona Dental Hygienists Association argued against the bill as a “significant risk to public health.” She said that thousands of studies and decades of scientific evidence back the perception that fluoridated water prevents tooth decay. Brady said fluoridated water was significantly impactful to communities with poorer dental hygiene habits or inconsistent dental care.
“It is the ability to provide consistent low-level exposure to fluoride ions in the mouth, helping prevent tooth demineralization and promoting enamel remineralization,” said Brady.
Shamp questioned why those opposed to the bill don’t factor in the variable levels of fluoride people might ingest — or the disparate impacts those variable amounts could cause. The senator claimed this was the opposite of informed consent.
“The fact of the matter is this is a chemical that is added to water and there is absolutely no one out there telling people, ‘Well, you should use this much toothpaste if you drink this much tap water,’” said Shamp. “You don’t know how much someone is ingesting. You don’t know if their only source of water is tap water. You don’t know if they’re using mouthwash three times a day.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Jonathan Eberle | Dec 16, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
Arizona State Senator Janae Shamp (R-LD29) has introduced legislation that would prohibit the addition of fluoride and fluoride-containing compounds to public drinking water systems across the state. The proposal, Senate Bill 1019, would bar state agencies, municipalities, and other political subdivisions from fluoridating public water supplies. Shamp, a registered nurse and former Senate majority leader, says the bill is intended to limit what she characterizes as government-mandated medical treatment and to give individuals greater control over their health decisions.
In announcing the legislation, Shamp cited concerns about the practice of water fluoridation, including questions about consent and potential health risks. Supporters of the bill argue that fluoride is widely available through toothpaste, mouth rinses, and dental treatments, making its addition to drinking water unnecessary.
Shamp also referenced research suggesting that excessive fluoride exposure may be associated with adverse health outcomes, including potential impacts on cognitive development in children and risks to bone health. Public health authorities, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have long maintained that water fluoridation at recommended levels is safe and effective in reducing tooth decay, a position that has been the subject of ongoing debate nationwide.
“Medical decisions should be made by individuals and families, not imposed through public utilities,” Shamp said in a statement. She added that banning fluoridation would allow residents to choose whether and how they use fluoride products.
The senator also pointed to financial considerations, arguing that eliminating fluoridation could reduce costs associated with chemicals, equipment, and maintenance for water systems. Those savings, she said, could be redirected toward infrastructure improvements or water conservation efforts. The bill comes as other states have reconsidered fluoridation policies in recent years, with lawmakers in Utah and Florida passing measures to limit or ban the practice in certain jurisdictions. Shamp framed SB 1019 as part of a broader movement emphasizing individual choice and medical autonomy.
If approved by the Legislature and signed into law, Arizona would join a small but growing number of states restricting fluoride use in public water systems. The bill is expected to generate debate among lawmakers, public health officials, and dental professionals as it moves through the legislative process.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
