by Staff Reporter | Jul 6, 2024 | Education, News
By Staff Reporter |
A north central Phoenix legislative district may have a chance to replace its Democrat state senator in the upcoming November election.
State Senator Christine Marsh is running for reelection in Arizona Legislative District 4 this November. Based on her history of election finishes, Marsh may be in for another close contest in the swing district.
Marsh has served in the Arizona Legislature since January 2021. In the November 2020 General Election, she defeated Republican State Senator Kate Brophy McGee by fewer than 500 votes in Legislative District 28 (under the last redistricting lines). The previous election, McGee had bested Marsh by 267 votes in the 2018 General Election.
In the first election under the new redistricting lines for the decade, Marsh won another narrow victory over Nancy Barto by less than 1,200 votes for the right to represent the citizens of Legislative District 4.
The Democrat legislator has been a fierce opponent of her state’s efforts to increase school choice opportunities for Arizona families. In January 2017, Marsh co-authored an op-ed in the Arizona Republic, entitled “Expanding vouchers is dangerous for Arizona.” She wrote, “Those of us who care deeply about public education and the future of our state must work together to focus on what impacts 80 percent of students in our state – stopping the expansion of vouchers and School Tuition Organizations.”
On June 24, 2022, Marsh voted against the historic legislation to expand Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts program, joining nine of her colleagues.
The following year, Marsh penned another op-ed for the Arizona Republic, stating that “Anti-public-school Republicans have chosen a path apt to cut safety and services, and sacrifice Arizona’s next generation’s chance to succeed. It’s time our state scrapped the universal private school voucher expansion before our public school system and, more importantly, your neighborhood public school is shuttered.”
Marsh has proven to be a reliable Democrat vote during her time in office, joining her caucus on a number of controversial issues that haven’t always reflected the sentiments of her district. Many of her votes throughout her tenure in the Arizona Legislature defy one of her posted priorities on her campaign website, which reads that “we need more balance at the Capitol in order to force negotiation and compromise.”
In 2022, Marsh cosponsored SB 1281, which would have repealed the preemption on cities from banning plastic bags. That same year, she voted against bills that would have prohibited minors from having irreversible sex change surgeries, banned taxpayer money from going to lobbyists, stopped government from forcing children to mask up without parental consent, and prohibited one single politician from unilaterally shutting down businesses in a self-declared state of emergency.
That same year, when Marsh voted against a proposal requiring accommodations for students who do not want to use a bathroom with a student of the opposite sex, she said that the schools can just get shower curtains.
Earlier this year, Marsh voted against a bill “requiring students in grades 7 to 12 to be taught about the Holocaust and other genocides” – even though fellow Democrat, Governor Katie Hobbs, signed the legislation into state law.
She joined Democrats in voting “NO on a bill requiring public schools to teach Arizona students about the victims of communism.”
Marsh also “voted NO on tougher punishments for public school and public library employees who expose our children to wildly disgusting pornographic books and images.”
She voted against a bill “prohibiting the court from ending probation early for criminals who are in our country illegally and are being deported.”
At the end of the 2024 legislative session, Marsh opposed legislation “classifying Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations.”
In June, she also voted against a bill “allowing Arizona kids to have lemonade stands without a license and without having to pay taxes.”
In another major action for the just completed legislative session, Marsh voted no on HCR 2060, which referred several border-related policies to the ballot in November for Arizona voters to empower local law enforcement with more tools to protect communities from the historic effects of the border crisis.
Additionally, Marsh voted against “a child safety bill cracking down on companies that don’t perform reasonable age verification before allowing access to the websites they manage with content considered harmful for children.”
Senator Marsh has also been an advocate for legislation seeking to mitigate the liberty provided by the Second Amendment, boasting about Democrats’ efforts to pass universal background checks.”
On her website, Marsh lists several endorsements from interest groups, including left-leaning Arizona List, Moms Demand Action, and the Sierra Club.
Marsh is running unopposed for the Democrat nomination for state senator in the July primary election. Republicans Kenneth R. Bowers, Jr. and Carine Werner are vying for the Republican nomination to face the Democrat incumbent in the November General Election.
According to the Arizona Legislative District 4 Democrat Party, Republicans control 38% of the district’s voter registration, compared to 27% Democrats and 35% Other. In 2022, LD 4 had a higher voter turnout than both Maricopa County and the State of Arizona at 76%.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Cathi Herrod | May 16, 2023 | Opinion
By Cathi Herrod |
What does abortion have to do with the transgender movement? Nothing. But leftist activists are trying to convince us that abortion includes so-called “gender-affirming care.” Planned Parenthood and others have been pushing the message over social media and elsewhere in an effort to get people used to the idea. Why? One reason is that Planned Parenthood admits it is the second largest provider of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in the country. Read their own documentation here. And read these two reports that reveal the lucrative connection between the abortion giant and the transgender movement.
But it is also building their culture of death and destruction. I’m not saying they all see it that way, but pushing for abortion up to birth and the physical and psychological destruction of teens and even pre-teens in the name of “equality” is evil.
Polls show a large percentage of Americans do not support transitioning children with hormones or surgeries. So, leftists are hiding it in ballot measures and writing it into laws. In Ohio (potentially on the 2023 ballot) and Michigan (passed in 2022), the abortion ballot measures are so deceitfully written, it takes an attorney to figure out that both measures would allow abortion up to birth and include sex changes for children without parental consent. Read them here and here.
I will use italics below to indicate the language they use to underhandedly include sex changes, even for minors.
Ohio’s measure uses the term individual to covertly include children, and “reproductive decisions… not limited to … abortion” to covertly include sex-changes. If this was an abortion measure, it would just say that, and it wouldn’t include this kind of language that other states are defining as so-called “gender-affirming care” and courts will look to for direction.
Michigan’s constitutional amendment calls reproductive freedom a right and includes sterilization but is not limited to abortion. It, too, uses the term individual instead of woman or adult to ensure even children can get abortions or sex changes without parental consent.
Ohio’s and Michigan’s measures read a bit like Oregon’s proposed law and Colorado’s recently signed laws. Read here and here to see how the news media are using the Left’s language, and how the definition of reproductive freedom/decisions are being defined to include so-called “gender-affirming care.”
In very progressive states like New York, the abortion industry can get away with spelling it out in plain language, “… rights to an individual based on their ‘pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” It includes ethnicity, disability, age, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” The key words here say it all and will be used to set a standard for defining “reproductive healthcare/freedom” or “reproductive decision” throughout the country.
Maryland, same thing. The measure uses “reproductive freedom” instead of abortion, not just to make it sound better to voters, but so they can include sex changes. It calls “reproductive freedom” a fundamental right and says that right includes ending a pregnancy but is not limited to abortion. It goes on to ensure individuals (not just adults) have a right to reproductive liberty. So, although Maryland didn’t write it out as blatantly as New York, the language it did use allows the same thing: abortion to birth and sex changes, even for children.
Also, in states that are moderate or conservative, the abortion industry includes a limitation to abortion, but then takes it all back with near universal exemptions. More on that below.
- So, when you see “reproductive healthcare/freedom/liberty,” “autonomy,” “reproductive decisions,” or “not limited to…” think sex-change drugs and surgeries. Because that’s how the courts will read it.
- If the language uses “individual” or “person,” think no age limit; it includes children at any age for both abortion and sex changes.
- If the abortion language sets a limit at viability or some other gestational age, check the exceptions! These ballot measures include exceptions for the “health of the mother.” Courts have interpreted that phrase to include emotional or mental health, and thereby allow abortions at any stage if the woman simply feels distressed. This has always been understood to mean no limits up to birth if the woman wants it, and the abortionist (self-servingly) signs off.
It’s there, but it takes a skilled attorney to connect the dots. The abortion industry knows most Americans do not support sex-change surgeries in state law, especially for children. And most Americans also do not support abortion up to birth. The industry knows these facts—that is exactly why they use crafty language to hide such extreme policies under vague wording and then redefine that language elsewhere.
One more thing: They will always cloak the measure in the nicest title:
- “The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety”
- “Equal Protection of Law Amendment”
- “Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment”
Cathi Herrod is the president of Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), a nonprofit advocacy organization committed to promoting and defending the foundational principles of life, marriage and family, and religious freedom.
by Corinne Murdock | Apr 5, 2021 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
According to Mayor Brigette Peterson, the Gilbert Town Council should reconsider offering $75,000 of taxpayer money annually for employee sex changes. The motion failed in a council meeting last week. After the vote, Peterson indicated that the sex change surgery – referred to as ‘gender-affirming surgery’ – would return to committee for review in the future.
Currently, the town benefits cover therapy and hormone treatments.
Councilmember Aimee Yentes spoke up first on the issue. She said she supported the 3 percent premium increases, but not the sex change surgery.
“I think those are policies that deviate from other positions we’ve taken as a community that delve more into social policy rather than strictly providing medical[ly] necessary benefits to our employees,” said Yentes.
Vice Mayor Yung Koprowski only spoke up to mention she’d vote for adding sex change surgery coverage only to align with Affordable Care Act (ACA) industry standard.
Councilmember Scott September said he concurred with Yentes’ assessment.
The question of necessity for such coverage came into play. Councilmember Laurin Hendrix asked the human resources representative, Deputy Chief People Officer Kristen Drew, if any applicants within the past 5 years had refused to apply for or accept employment because the town didn’t offer sex change surgery coverage.
Drew said there hadn’t been any such applicants.
Despite this history, the mayor claimed that not offering this surgery would be a deal breaker for employees in the future. She also urged the council to be more open-minded, to set aside their own values.
“At some point, it might become an issue and we’ll show that this community is forward-thinking, and there are times that we need to make the tough decisions that may not always align with our own thought process when it comes to our personal choices or our political choices or our religious choices, even but we put Gilbert in a position that provides for whatever the future may hold[,]” said Peterson. “I’m going to encourage our council members to be open-minded in this benefit and look to this community moving forward where we can be strong and handle situations like this that come forward and we’re faced with.”
In an interview with AZ Free News, Hendrix raised several points of contention about the added coverage and the mayor’s perspective. He stated that a sex change surgery is cosmetic – not a true health need.
“I see health insurance for health needs. And I don’t see this as a health need. It’s a cosmetic surgery by choice. I don’t see any reason that taxpayers should have to pay for that,” said Hendrix. “They were comparing it to autism syndrome at the meeting. You don’t wake up in the morning and think [you have autism]. That’s not something where you have a choice. The two are not similar.”
Hendrix said he doesn’t have an issue with people having the surgery. Rather, Hendrix said he doesn’t want taxpayers to have to foot the bill for it.
Further, Hendrix assessed that this benefit could be an incentive for people to take an underemployed job just for the surgery – and then leave after they got it.
It was Peterson’s request to council before the vote that stuck out to Hendrix the most.
“The mayor’s comments at the end were shocking. We have to ‘get past’ our moral values, our standards? But what else would I base my vote on, if I’m going to put aside my family values, my moral values, religious values, or personal standards? What’s my vote based on? What’s left? I gotta base my vote on something,” said Hendrix. “I hope she bases her vote on something other than who paid into her campaign.”
Councilmembers voted unanimously for the 3 percent premium increases, but the motion to add sex change surgery coverage failed 4-3. Yentes, September, Hendrix, and Scott Anderson voted against the measure. The Vice Mayor, Mayor, and Councilmember Kathy Tilque voted for it.
