A bill designed to shield Arizona’s children from inappropriate and mature advertisements on digital applications was signed into law on Tuesday.
Under the new law, “A child-directed application shall take appropriate measures to prevent the display of inappropriate and mature advertisements on the child-directed application.” It describes “inappropriate and mature advertisements,” as “an advertisement that sells or promotes any of the following: (a) violence, (b) explicit language, (c) sexual content, (d) alcohol or drug use.”
Rep. Julie Willoughby, who sponsored the law, explained, “As a mom and a legislator, I know how easily harmful content slips into apps that claim to be kid-friendly. Parents should be able to trust that their children won’t be bombarded with adult-themed ads. This law compels Big Tech to clean it up or face serious penalties.”
If the application owners targeting children 11 and younger fail to take meaningful measures to prevent the display of “inappropriate and mature advertisements,” they could face civil penalties of up to $100,000 per violation effective January 1, 2026. With the proliferation of child-facing applications and their wide adoption base, the potential civil liability for application-makers could be catastrophic.
The bill enjoyed rare bipartisan cooperation in the Arizona legislature, passing the House 48-11 with one member not voting, passing the Senate 16-9 with five Senators not voting, and finally getting signed into law by Arizona’s veto-prone Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs.
One of my favorite bills (HB2195) of the session passed the Senate yesterday! I'm grateful to get this legislation to the Governor's desk. pic.twitter.com/ahy6eO9ver
The new law is an advance along the trajectory laid out by the House Republican Majority Plan, designed to promote the safety of the youngest Arizonans while protecting parental rights by bringing “greater transparency and accountability to the digital platforms children use every day.”
It was just about 2 years ago that a fury ran through the Mesa Public Schools community over a controversial document that had gone largely unnoticed. That document is titled “Support Plan for Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students” (also called “Guidelines for Support of Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students.”) This plan allows a student who “consistently asserts at school a gender identity that is different from the student’s sex assigned at birth” to “participate in such activities and access such facilities consistent with their gender identity.” (Notice there’s no mention of a parental consent requirement.) This means restrooms, locker rooms, and showers.
There were multiple concerns raised to district leadership regarding the plan. How would non-transgender students be protected and affirmed when someone of the opposite biological sex is now allowed to enter their private spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers?
Numerous stories surfaced reporting females were not eating or drinking during the day to avoid having to use the restrooms, which they were now compelled to share with biological boys. Why was their “safe space” suddenly being violated? Why were they suddenly denied any expectation of privacy that matched their values? Why is there allowance in the document for the district to conceal a student’s transgender ideation and the district’s course of action affirming that ideation from their parents? Does this concealment violate ARS 1-601, Parents Rights Protected? Does this plan amount to providing behavioral health services as defined by the Arizona Behavioral Health Board? District leadership has successfully danced around providing clear, unambiguous answers to these questions. Why? What are they trying to hide from parents?
Even though Superintendent Dr. Andi Fourlis issued carefully worded, yet vague assurances to the contrary, there still remains within the plan/guidelines, allowances to NOT notify parents of their child’s transgender ideations as the district personnel provide “gender affirming care” for the child. A Public Records Request in early 2023 exposed a school counselor who was maintaining a spreadsheet of trans students along with notation as to whether parents knew.
This counselor was informing other staff how to avoid “outing” students to parents when speaking with them. The plan originally included a checkbox for the student to indicate if their parents were to be told.
Additionally, the plan expressly states that although changes to the student’s “preferred name/pronouns” may be made in district records, “parental consent is not required.”
At the governing board meeting on May 9, 2023, (begin at 3:35:25), board member Rachel Walden asked leadership, “What is the criteria for a student to be put on this Transgender Support Plan?”
District general counsel, Kasey King, responded “…there’s not specific criteria. It’s a student who’s requesting to use the restroom of their choice or to designate the pronouns or names of their choice. Also, as a tool to help the student and the school process how that information is going to be shared, IF AT ALL!”
It is student-initiated, primarily. Notice the complete absence of any parental involvement or even notification here.
Mrs. King continued, “I’m thinking at the younger grades, it might be a situation where the student simply starts asking for some accommodations. And as a way to make sure everybody is on the same page, their teacher or counselor might suggest they put it into writing.”
Are you following this? A student at the “younger grades” might ask for transgender accommodations from the school, and the teacher or counselor will suggest putting that student on a Transgender Support Plan! No parental consent or notification required. Mrs. Walden continued to press for transparency into what is occurring: “There’s nothing in these guidelines about notifying the parents. Isn’t there an opportunity for parental notification process in this?”
Mrs. King: “Parents always have the right under FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) to inspect and review their child’s education records.”
Mrs. Walden responded, “How would they know to ask that?”
Then-board President Marcie Hutchinson chimed in, “I guess they would ‘check in’ with the school.”
So, moms and dads, the only way to know for sure if your child has been placed on a Transgender Support Plan at Mesa Public Schools is for you to “check in with the school.” Since you don’t know the day that this might happen, I suggest you “check in” every day. Don’t expect to be notified otherwise. This is akin to child abuse in many people’s minds, yet the district refuses to make suitable provisions for parental notification, even to this day.
There is, in the old version of the plan/guidelines, a provision for parental notification “if changes are made in Synergy.” But apparently otherwise, mum’s the word.
OLD VERSION
The district has since revised the wording to make sure staff inform students “…that IF they request to change information in Synergy, parent(s) will be notified.”
When I see this, I read “SHHHH! Nobody has to know. Just don’t request a change in Synergy, and it’ll be our secret.”
The other concerning change explicitly states that parental/legal guardian consent “is not required” for a student to request district personnel provide gender affirming care to them.
These changes occurred in July 2024.
NEW VERSION
In a further assault on parental rights, the district has modified the guidelines from the verbiage previously, which stated, “Disclosing confidential student information to others may violate privacy laws” to a more intimidating and yet ambiguous, “Disclosing confidential student information to…parents…may violate privacy laws.”
Are teachers or counselors more likely or less likely to notify parents with this threat of violating privacy laws looming over their heads? I say less likely.
OLD VERSION
NEW VERSION
Then, as if that is not sufficient means for the district to usurp parental authority, Dr. Fourlis and Kacey King have now decided that the transgender plan/guidelines, which have for years resided on the Legal Services webpage on the district website, should be moved to a private internal location, away from public/parent access. When I asked the Governing Board President, Courtney Davis, why the district would make such a move as to lessen transparency, her answer allayed no concerns. “It was moved because it is a tool for school personnel to use to work with transgender students.”
It was always that Mrs. Davis! The only difference is, the public, and more importantly parents, no longer have access to documents describing what could potentially be happening to their child at Mesa Public Schools without their knowledge or consent.
After calling them out on this, Dr. Fourlis and Mrs. King have restored the document to the website, with an interesting change in title. They went from “Guidelines” to “Guidance.” Why that subtle change? For the record, contrary to the wording of Dr. Fourlis’ email, I did not request anything. I simply noted that hiding the document from public view was a “terrible decision.” Apparently, she agreed.
Interesting to note, since this document is considered a “guideline,” or now “guidance” and not a policy, it has not gone before the governing board for approval.
In an attempt to restore parental rights as defined under ARS 1-601, board member Sharon Benson proposed a policy at the April 8, 2025 board meeting which would require parental notification anytime a student indicated to a district employee any transgender ideations. During public comment (starts at 1:59:30), dozens of trans activists showed up in protest. Their overarching message was along the lines of, “If you ‘out’ students, they will be victims of abuse from their parents,” and “School personnel are much better equipped to deal with these issues than parents,” and “It’s not necessary for parents to know about their child’s mental distress.” All patently false statements.
Now, self-proclaimed members of the Communist and Socialist parties weighed in, trying to advance the narrative that children belong to the state, not parents (i.e. parents have no need to know about their child’s mental or emotional distress because the school is taking care of it). This is happening in Mesa folks! Are you paying attention?
It’s time to get involved. Attend district governing board meetings and make your voice heard. It’s critical that we stand for students and for parents.
Ed Steele is a husband, father, grandfather, and Mesa resident with a passion for helping the younger generation succeed in education.
A bill requring schools to use students’ real names and biological pronouns is making its way through the Arizona legislature.
SB 1002, sponsored by Arizona Senator John Kavanagh (LD-3), would prohibit school districts, charter schools employees, or independent contractors from referring to any student by a pronoun differing from their biological sex or a name other than their legal name without parental consent. It also prevents a school district or charter school from requiring an employee or independent contractor to use a pronoun that differs from a person’s biological sex, if doing so is contrary to their convictions.
The bill has moved to the Arizona House of Representatives where it awaits approval by the caucuses and a final vote.
Explaining the bill in a video, Sen. Kavanagh said that his bill “has to do with school staff and teachers using a pronoun or a nickname for a student that is not aligned with that student’s biological sex. The bill says that no school personnel can call a student by such an inappropriate pronoun or nickname unless the parents consent. And in addition when the parents do consent, no school employee can be forced to call the person by the pronoun that does not align with their biological sex if it violates the employee’s religious or moral beliefs.”
He continued, “This is important because students that want to be called by a different name or pronoun than their biological sex, or so-called transgendered students, many of them have a condition called gender dysphoria, which causes a lot of anxiety, sometimes even suicidal thoughts. So, the parents may know about this and may have the child under psychiatric care and the child’s doctor may have told the parents do not entertain a different pronoun or name that’s different from the from the child’s real sex because it could harm the child. So, we certainly don’t want school personnel harming children and threatening their psychological well-being or driving them to suicide. So, we’re going to require parental permission because also it’s a matter of parents’ rights. Parents determine what’s good for their children, not a school staff member or a school teacher, however well-meaning they may be.”
As noted in the text of the bill, Arizona’s Parental Bill of Rights “reserves parental rights to a parent of a minor child without interference from the state, a political subdivision or other governmental entity or any other institution.” Among the rights enshrined in the laws A.R.S. §§ 1-601 and 1-602 are parental rights to direct their children’s “education, upbringing and moral or religious training,” and making healthcare decisions on their behalf.
Exactly a century ago this year, the Supreme Court, in its decision in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, recognized the right of parents to direct the education of their children, writing that “[t]he fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children . . . The child is not the mere creature of the state.” Today, just as they did a century ago, parents rely on the courts to serve as a backstop against abusive government policy.
Sadly, some courts in America are shutting the door of justice in the face of parents seeking to vindicate their rights and the rights of their children. In a case out of Wisconsin called Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area School District in the Seventh Circuit, the federal court of appeals with jurisdiction over cases arising in Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana, parents challenged the school district’s policy directing school officials to hide a child’s “social gender transition” from their parents. As the school told its employees, “parents are not entitled to know their kids’ identities.That knowledge must be earned.”
Incredibly, the Seventh Circuit found that the parents’ harm in that case was merely speculative. Apparently, since plaintiffs must show harm to have standing to sue, parents must wait until they find out that their son’s school has been helping him dress as a girl and use the girls’ restroom for six months before they can challenge the policy.
The Supreme Court chose not to review the Seventh Circuit’s decision in that case. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a short dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, explaining that the parents’ harm is not speculative and that “some federal courts are succumbing to the temptation to use the doctrine of Article III standing as a way of avoiding some particularly contentious constitutional questions.”
Nor is this an isolated incident of judges dodging the controversy of gender ideology. The Fourth Circuit, the appeals court with jurisdiction over Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, came to the same conclusion in John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education. A district court in Ohio did the same in Doe v. Pine-Richland School District.
Parents’ fundamental rights to direct the upbringing of their children, and the right of children to be free from ideological indoctrination by school officials, depends on courts that are willing to protect those rights. That is why Advancing American Freedom is filing an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to take up Blake Warner’s challenge to an Eleventh Circuit rule which effectively requires parents to hire a lawyer before they can represent their children’s interests in court. Specifically, while people can bring their own claims in court without a lawyer, and parents can sue on behalf of their children, the Eleventh and some other courts have found that parents cannot sue on behalf of their children without hiring a lawyer. While Mr. Warner’s claim is not related to gender ideology, his challenge to this rule is essential because his success would ensure that parents who are unable to afford an attorney can still seek judicial protection for the rights of their children.
On Jan. 29, President Trump issued an executive order that, among other things, ordered the removal of federal funding from schools that engage in “social transitions of a minor student” and directed the attorney general to work with state and local officials “to enforce the law and file appropriate actions” against school officials who “facilitate the social transition of a minor student.” Trump’s order is important but know that gender ideologues will undoubtedly stage massive resistance. Parents must remain vigilant, and courts must begin to take their claims seriously. The Supreme Court should entrench parents’ rights by taking Mr. Warner’s case and striking down the counsel mandate.
The newly elected Peoria Unified School District (PUSD) board president is a conservative mother, declining to re-elect the sitting president.
PUSD elected its new president, Heather Rooks, during Thursday’s regular board meeting following their 8-hour study session. Members Janelle Bowles, Jeff Tobey, and Becky Proudfit voted for Rooks, with only board member Melissa Ewing voting against. Ewing didn’t provide an explanation for her “no” vote.
Proudfit attempted to re-elect herself, but only Ewing voted for her.
Public comment on the board president election expressed hope in the prospect of new leadership.
One mother and community advocate, Nikki Eancheff, explained that Rooks helped her navigate school procedures after her daughter encountered a boy in a girls’ restroom at Liberty High School.
“What Mrs. Rooks said earlier today in the retreat, that she was elected by parents to be our voice and be our champion and advocate here in the board room and the district level is the truth,” said Eancheff.
Several other mothers also expressed their overt support for Rooks due to her prioritization of parents while backing public schools.
Kristen Balthis with the Peoria Principals’ Association said that while their organization didn’t endorse any one candidate, they supported the candidate that “can facilitate the education environment that allows our children to thrive.”
Teddy Todd, who has spoken out against PUSD board policies before, expressed her pleasure with the makeup of the governing board for this year, and said she hoped the president would foster “trust, hope, and collaboration” among all members.
However, those aligned with the teachers’ unions disagreed with some parents’ desire for change.
Trina Berg, president of the Peoria Education Association (PEA), asked for the reelection of Becky Proudfit for board president. PEA is part of the Arizona Education Association and the National Education Association. Berg questioned whether Rooks’ lawsuit against PUSD presented a conflict of interest.
In September 2023, Rooks sued PUSD for prohibiting her from quoting Bible verses during board meetings. The First Liberty Institute is representing Rooks in her case, which is ongoing. The Arizona District Court scheduled in-person oral argument for Friday in the case.
Berg also said that Rooks didn’t exhibit the qualities of a president, citing her past decisions to step out of executive meetings she felt should be public as well as Rooks’ decision to not silence certain speech from her supporters.
“Allowing misconceptions and sometimes downright misinformation to flourish and move through your group of supporters on social media without any correction is not leadership material,” said Berg.
Devon Moseler, vice president of PEA, also asked for the reelection of Proudfit for board president.
“We may not always agree with decisions that have been made, but we have appreciated the transparency and willingness to discuss challenging topics in an effort to understand the needs of our educators, administrators, and students,” said Moseler.
Proudfit’s husband, Taylor Proudfit, urged the board members to change their minds on Rooks and vote for his wife. Taylor claimed that board members supporting Rooks weren’t voting in accordance with their constituents.
Rooks’ rise to the leadership position came, in part, from the elections of new members Bowles and Tobey, ensuring the board’s flip to a majority of more conservative-minded members.
In recent years, the PUSD board came under community and even national scrutiny for adopting policies that favored progressive ideologies. This included the alignment with the Biden administration’s interpretation of Title IX which ordered schools to allow bathroom or locker room access based on gender identity. Ewing was one of the defendants of that policy, arguing that discrimination based on gender identity violates Title IX protections.
Rooks attended PUSD and graduated from Sunrise Mountain High School. Rooks first took office in January 2023.
Rooks’ campaign platform prioritized parental rights, academics, and organizational transparency. She ran in opposition to mandates for masks and COVID vaccines, Critical Race Theory ideology, and sexual content materials in classrooms.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
