A bill to require K-12 schools to post all curriculum and learning materials on their website passed the State Senate along party lines, 16-13. It now heads to the House for consideration.
Senate Democrats argued that the bill would hinder teachers’ ability to have flexible, constantly changing lesson plans. State Senator Christine Marsh (D-Phoenix) said that while she agrees “100 percent” with transparency, she said that the bill would result in a slew of unintended consequences. Marsh claimed that teachers would be too busy uploading curriculum data to spend additional time with students.
Some Arizona teachers complained that they can’t meet the requirements of the bill because there would be no way to have their curriculum done in time for review. The bill sponsor, State Senator Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix) rebutted that claim during the Senate’s vote on Monday, explaining that what was required of teachers concerned a list of material titles “like a syllabus.”
“It’s been even testified by opponents, teachers who oppose the bill, even in their testimony they were saying they already do something like this,” said Barto. “What it will require is merely putting up the title of what they’re teaching of their lesson plans every week. And not the entire year in advance, which some somehow translate this bill as requiring. Nope. It’s within seven days after, so they just have to use something like a Google Doc, which many are using already — it was testified over and over again.”
Barto cited a study that teachers spend an average of four hours a week searching for material to use in their classrooms.
Nobody expects, and sadly our children don’t deserve, an inquisition… but that is exactly what #SB1211 is – an unjustified, backwards, and blatant example of big/authoritarian government overreach that would hurt AZ’s children.
Some Republicans expressed reluctance to have their vote fall in line with the party.
State Senator Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-Scottsdale) expressed that the bill was a step in the direction but failed to get at the root of the problem with Arizona’s school system. Ugenti-Rita claimed that the problems concerned leadership, teacher’s unions, and nonpartisan school board members.
“Putting up loads and loads of information isn’t really going to solve the problem we have in K-12,” said Ugenti-Rita. “This is really not enough to get at the problem. This will leave parents with the impression that something is done when nothing is done. I don’t know what our obsession is with putting things online but you need to really go after the sacred cow, and it’s not the materials online, it’s the elections — these nonpartisan school board elections.”
Ugenti-Rita also expressed concerns that the bill was “intense and overkill.” She asked for commitment from House leadership to make the legislation implementable.
“To me, this is like a supplement. It’s like if you had real, deep health problems, a vitamin isn’t going to fix it. You need to diet, you need to exercise. This is helpful, but it’s really not going to get at the problem at our schools. This isn’t going to keep schools open. This is really going to do very little than look as though we’re doing something,” said Ugenti-Rita.
State Senator Tyler Pace (R-Mesa) said bills like Barto’s were the reason he took heartburn pills over the summer. Pace said he disliked the broad scope of what information educators would have to upload. However, Pace admitted there was a need for curriculum transparency, citing his own experience in which he learned a teacher allowed his kids’ class to play games like “Cupcake Vampire Princess Makeup Tutorials” after they finished an exam.
Other Republicans normally on the fence with certain party initiatives supported the bill wholeheartedly. State Senator Paul Boyer (R-Glendale) rebutted that the legislation wouldn’t be a burden on teachers, citing his own experience. Boyer insisted that it would alleviate current burdens on parents as well as benefit teachers looking to improve their curriculum by looking at what teachers are using at successful schools.
Passage of the bill comes over a month after the Senate Education Committee approved the bill.
NOW: SB1211 Academic Transparency passes the AZ senate! Now headed to the House. This bill let’s parents know what’s being taught in their kid’s classroom @GoldwaterInst@NancyBartopic.twitter.com/Or3xi1AYta
A Senate bill banning males from female sports teams advanced out of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, passing along party lines. The legislation would apply to both private and public K-12 schools, colleges, and universities.
The legislation prohibits political groups, licensing organizations, and athletic associations from investigating or taking action against schools for adhering to the bill provisions. Conversely, a school would bear civil liability for any deprivation of athletic opportunity, or causing direct or indirect harm by ignoring the legislation. Students would be entitled to take a private cause of action and could earn damages and relief.
The bill sponsor, State Senator Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix), said that the bill was based on scientific fact to ensure that girls have a “fair, level playing field.” Barto said that the threat of biological males identifying as females undermined Title IX.
Barto cited data from Save Women’s Sports, a coalition to prevent males from competing in female sports, documenting the males competing in female sports. Barto also cited the case of Lia Thomas, the transgender woman on the Penn State University women’s swim team.
After dubbing Barto the “Queen of Mean,” Arizona House Democrats praised a 13-year-old transgender girl, Skyler Morrison, who spoke against the legislation. The boy was accompanied by his mother.
“I’ve had my childhood ripped away from me by legislators for seven years and I’m sick of fighting for human rights, but I won’t stop until I know that me and all my transgender friends are safe,” said Morrison. “These anti-trans sports bills are unscientific and cause a real mental health issue for the people they would affect.”
Morrison claimed that testosterone doesn’t give biological males an athletic edge, and that females could still win in competition against their male peers.
Here it is! I accidentally said SB1138 instead of SB1165 at first. Click here to watch my testimony: https://t.co/XQRHor7Twj
The Arizona Interscholastic Association revealed that they have received 16 appeals for transgender athletes and only denied one.
Official with the Arizona Interscholastic Association testifies that out of 174k+ high school athletes at any given time, the board has only ever had 16 appeals for transgender athletes, denying 1. #SB1165 does not solve an Arizona problem, but would create multiple new ones.
— Arizona House Democrats (@AZHouseDems) March 9, 2022
Minority Whip Domingo DeGrazia (D-Tucson) claimed that the bill solved something that wasn’t an issue.
“If a youth loses an opportunity for something either to be in competition or that they lose a competition or that they don’t get a sponsorship or that they don’t get to be an influencer of TikTok; if that’s their indirect harm, how do you attribute that to sports to an opposing player?” asked DeGrazia.
After the committee approved the bill, Superintendent of Public Instruction Kathy Hoffman claimed that the bill would harm all student athletes — even those females whose opportunities and possibly safety that the bill promised to protect.
Lawmakers must pass policy that has student input and support.
I'm grateful for Skyler's testimony in opposition to #SB1165 – and incredibly disappointed that the Judiciary Committee chose to pass this anti-trans bill that harms all student-athletes. https://t.co/MHPX1gL5Rf
The Arizona Senate approved a bill to limit abortions after 15 weeks, SB1164, with punishment reserved for physicians providing the abortions and not the mother of the unborn child. Abortions past 15 weeks could be performed in the event that a mother’s life is determined to be at stake, but the physician must file a report with the Department of Health Services (DHS).
The bill sponsor, State Senator Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix), has been invested in phasing out abortion entirely. Barto was the sole state legislator outside the Supreme Court hearing for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which considers the legality of Roe v. Wade precedent, the ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.
Barto called her bill a “common-sense limit,” but lamented that the bill didn’t go far enough.
Barto did concede that the bill was still an opportunity to protect more women from late-term abortions, saying it was “honoring life and protecting women.” Barto criticized Planned Parenthood for not using its millions to help women with unplanned pregnancies,
“15 weeks? That puts Arizona in league with China and North Korea,” said Barto.
Senate Democrats defended the decision to end an unborn child’s life as the personal decisions of parents. State Senator Christine Marsh (D-Phoenix) said that the state of Arizona couldn’t put barriers on abortion until there’s a way to stop rape and incest for good.
State Senator Sally Ann Gonzales (D-Tucson) said that unborn children could be “a burden” to families.
“We ought not be supporting bills like this that really place not only a burden onto families but, as I always like to say, it’s really placing our own individual values and beliefs onto all the women of this state,” said Gonzalez.
State Senator Rosanna Gabaldon (D-Sahuarita) said she wanted to be proud to be part of a state that allows families to make the decisions of what their families look like. Gabaldon expressed a wish that the question of abortion would no longer be subject to moral debate but rather an accepted good.
“I want to live in a world where we respect other people’s decisions,” said Gabaldon. “I want one day for Arizona to look back and say, ‘Why did we have a problem with this?’”
State Senator Raquel Teran (D-Phoenix) compared Arizona women’s plight with unplanned pregnancies to the women of El Salvador under their strict abortion ban in place since 1998. Teran insinuated that the third-world justice system practices of El Salvador would befall Arizonans. She called the bill an “injustice.”
State Senator Stephanie Stahl-Hamilton (D-Tucson) claimed to be a Christian and that the Bible supported abortion.
We need a world where people respect each other’s personal decisions around parenthood and pregnancy—whether those decisions involve giving birth, putting a child up for adoption, having an abortion, or choosing not to have children at all. #SB1164#AbortionIsHealthcare
The “Save Women’s Sports Act,” a bill prohibiting transgender women from competing in K-12 and collegiate women’s sports, advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
State Senator Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix) introduced the bill, SB1165, but was absent from the committee hearing. Matt Sharp, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), spoke on behalf of Barto. Sharp recounted several instances of biological men that identified as transgender women dominating in women’s sports, and the losses that biological women faced. Sharp further explained the constitutional and legal support that the bill had in ensuring a “fair and level playing field” for women, citing opinions from the Arizona and federal supreme courts.
“It protects opportunities for women and girls, by ensuring women are not forced to compete against men playing on women’s teams,” said Sharp.
State Senator Martin Quezada (D-Glendale) asked Sharp if Arizona had experienced any instances or issues with transgender women in girl’s sports. Sharp responded that the Arizona Interscholastic Association (AIA) policy allows males to compete in women’s sports. Quezada insisted that a problem hadn’t occurred yet, insinuating that the bill wasn’t necessary; Sharp retorted that the intent of the bill was to be preventative.
Senate President Pro-Tempore Vince Leach (R-Tucson), asked if there were some kind of walls that would keep out the issues of males competing in female sports. Sharp affirmed that he’d witnessed states expressing regret for not taking proactive measures to prevent males from intruding on female sports.
“It’s never a bad time to implement good policy,” remarked Chairman Warren Petersen (R-Gilbert).
Several community members testified, both for and against the bill — including one transgender woman. He said he supported the bill.
“Believe me when I say this is not an attack on transness at all. This bill has nothing to do with that. All this bill has to do with is biological sex, biological reality, alright? So the reality is, we’re stronger, we’re taller, we have bigger bones, we can take in more oxygen, we have a better fat distribution that gives us an advantage in taking hits, right, we have stronger ligaments. There are very clear, obvious advantages,” stated the transgender woman.
This bill is not an attack on transness, it has nothing to do with that. It’s about biological sex, biological reality. #SB1165pic.twitter.com/cGgT2ZfSyQ
Quezada was joined in voting against the bill by Assistant Minority Leader Lupe Contreras (D-Avondale) and Stephanie Stahl Hamilton (D-Tucson). Those who voted to pass the bill in addition to Leach and Petersen were Vice Chairman Wendy Rogers (R-Flagstaff) and Majority Whip Sonny Borrelli (R-Lake Havasu City).
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
State Senator Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix) shared that she was the sole state legislator from Arizona in attendance at the rally outside the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Wednesday. Inside, the justices held a hearing for a watershed case in abortion law: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Their ruling is anticipated in the spring.
Barto told AZ Free News that the hearing was historic, as was the gathering outside the SCOTUS building advocating for an end to abortion. She said the rally was peaceful, and recounted how diverse their rally was: individuals reportedly represented from all across the political spectrum, the religious and non-religious, and a generational attendance from tikes to older adults such as herself.
“America has lived this lie long enough. Our laws need to be modernized to recognize [the science]: viability is different now, women are not burdened by pregnancy anymore. The greater standard is, of course, that our constitution needs to fit our laws and protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” observed Barto. “We will wait and see and keep praying for these justices to really follow the changing hearts in America, hearts that really have turned. People no longer support abortion through nine months; the more that they learn about what abortion does to women and the unborn in terms of pain, and how the development of an unborn child is trackable from the earliest moments in utero.”
The case brought by Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a Mississippi abortion clinic challenging the constitutionality of Mississippi’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks. On behalf of the defense, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch countered that SCOTUS should leave abortion law to individual states. A SCOTUS ruling in favor of Mississippi would overturn the precedent set by the 1973 case that legalized abortion nationally, Roe v. Wade, which was upheld in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
The crux of the plaintiff’s arguments during the hearing concerned the need for SCOTUS to stand by precedent set in previous rulings, discussed as the question of “stare decisis.” They also insisted that the interests of the woman outweighed those of the state, especially prior to the viability of the unborn child.
The plaintiffs also admitted that they were arguing a constitutional right to abortion under the constitutional guarantee of liberty when pressed by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas as to what right they were arguing needed protecting. Previous SCOTUS rulings on abortion considered concepts entailing rights under the Constitution and various amendments, such as personhood, undue burdens, and privacy.
Founding Father James Wilson warned of licentiousness, a concept conflated with liberty but truly its antithesis. “Licentious,” or “license,” comes from the Latin term “licentia”: an unbridled, wanton, chaotic freedom. The distinction between liberty and license wasn’t made by anyone in the hearing. Wilson was one of the original SCOTUS justices, serving from the onset of its establishment by the Judiciary Act of 1789 until his death in 1798.
“Liberty and happiness have a powerful enemy on each hand; on the one hand tyranny, on the other licentiousness. To guard against the latter, it is necessary to give the proper powers to government; and to guard against the former, it is necessary that those powers should be properly distributed,” asserted Wilson.
After the hearing, Congressman David Schweikert (R-AZ-06) shared one of his floor statements from earlier this year describing how his life was saved when his birth mother chose life over abortion and gave him up for adoption.
“I was born in an unwed mother’s home – so was my brother, so was my sister. You’ve all met my little girl that came to us as a gift out of nowhere. But I’m 38 years old [at the time] and through a series of accidents, I get the phone number for my birth mother – and I call her. And the first words were just through the tears and this high-pitch almost – she was struggling, you could hear her almost hyperventilating – is: ‘I prayed for you every morning. Are you okay? Are you healthy, are you happy?’ And I’m crying on my side, saying, ‘I have a great life. Thank you for letting me live.’ […] My little girl’s third generation adopted, now. […] And we will get together with our birth moms and our moms. The amazing thing is my mom became best of friends with my birth mom. This is the American family of today – let’s love it and respect it.”
Earlier this year, I spoke on the House Floor to share my personal story about how my life was saved when my birth mother chose life and gave me up for adoption.
