The Federal Communications Commission plan to send “researchers” into newsrooms in order to observe how stories are selected and reported has sparked fears of government intimidation and censorship. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, said “the mere presence of agents of the government may exert a subtle pressure to slant reporting in a way that deters critical coverage of Administration policies.”
Ajit Pai, one of the FCC’s Commissioners, voiced his concern that “this claimed ‘information gathering effort’ to ascertain the ‘philosophy’ behind how those in the news media do their jobs could stifle dissent. It strikes me as beyond the scope of the Commission’s legitimate authority.”
Representative Fred Upton (R-Mich), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce argued that “The FCC was created to ensure that broadcast media is competitive and is not monopolized by any one business entity or point of view. Sending personnel from the FCC into newsrooms to ask about their ‘philosophy’ and demanding to know who chooses which stories to report isn’t a necessary or appropriate method for carrying out the agency’s legally authorized responsibilities. It has the heavy-handed appearance of a tactic aimed at influencing how the news is reported.”
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler characterized these apprehensions as “the typical overreactions of those who are out-of-step with President Obama’s agenda for transforming this country. Our goal at this stage of the process is to obtain information on who is doing what. Media outlets that are doing a good job of covering essential information and meeting the needs of under-served populations can avoid duplicating the fate of Jay Leno whose excessive and inappropriate mockery of the President necessitated his involuntary exit from his cherished gig as host of the Tonight Show.”
FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn defended the initiative saying that “we must emphatically insist that we leave no American behind when it comes to receiving the news that the Administration has determined is essential for them to hear. Finding out who is adequately doing this job and who is not must be the first step in any plan to reform how information is transmitted by media outlets entrusted with this public responsibility.”
First Lady Says Obamacare Needed to “Save Young People from Their Own Stupidity”
In an interview on the Tonight Show, Michelle Obama unveiled the latest effort of the Administration to induce young and healthy adults to sign up for health insurance by pointing out how stupid this target cohort is.
“If you look at how young people behave it’s clear that the vast majority of them are knuckleheads,” she asserted. “They can’t be trusted to do this simplest tasks—like making a sandwich—without hurting themselves. Their choices for leisure activities are typically dangerous and irresponsible—you know, smoking dope, getting drunk and then getting behind the steering wheel of a car. We’re trying to get the message to these youngsters that they need the insurance the Affordable Care Act requires them to buy.”
Michelle admitted that “the low enrollment rates for this group are a cause for concern. In hindsight, our expectation that these folks could be compelled to sign up of their own volition under threat of a penalty was probably overly optimistic. Educating them about their responsibility is a difficult and likely hopeless undertaking. We really need to find some way of making the sign-ups and the extraction of fees automatic.”
Perhaps, though, these young adults aren’t as clueless as the Administration thinks. True enough, they voted overwhelmingly for Obama. On the other hand, in a recent study, researchers from the Stanford University of Medicine found that among those suffering traumatic injuries, uninsured patients get better care than those who are insured. It seems that those with insurance are routed to hospitals on their plan while those without insurance are taken to the nearest trauma center.
This Week’s New Executive Orders
True to his word, President Obama bypassed Congress this week with a trifecta of new Executive Orders.
Concerned that trucking firms are “needlessly wasting money on gas-guzzling semi-trucks,” the President ordered haulers to “improve their MPGs.” As Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx explained, “no one cares more about this country and its well-being that President Obama. These truckers may be satisfied to fritter away costly fuel, but the President is not. Unless they clean up their act we will shut them down.”
In a bid to end the debate over global warming, President Obama issued an Executive Order declaring that “the science proving global warming is irrefutable.” Because the consequences of denying global warming are “severe” the Order bars any firm or individual that contests this irrefutable climate science from bidding on, or participating in, any work funded by the federal government.
On Wednesday President Obama corrected an omission from President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1941 State-of-the-Union speech by adding “freedom to enjoy sodomy” to FDR’s famous “four freedoms.” Previously, the four freedoms included freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. “Even though Americans’ right to pursue happiness could be construed to include this right—as it could be construed to include FDR’s list—for similar reasons it is clear to me that a more explicit enumeration is required to ensure that this right will never be abridged by those who refuse to participate under the guise of feigned religious objections by the practitioners and purveyors of intolerance.”
Administration Insists that Increase in Minimum Wage Will Increase Employment
The Obama Administration battled back against the Congressional Budget Office finding that boosting the minimum wage would cost the economy about 500,000 jobs.
In a “tweet” sent out to his followers, the President wrote “The notion that raising the price of labor will cause employers to purchase less of it is an out-dated misconception. Our research shows it will create 140,000 jobs.”
Jason Furman, Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers explained that “the biggest disincentive for getting a job is low wages. Right now with the minimum wage at only $7.25 per hour it makes more sense for people to go on welfare than go to work. We estimate that raising the minimum to $10.10 will inspire as many as 140,000 of these so-called ‘slackers’ to accept jobs they previously scorned.”
“With additional 140,000 persons receiving these higher wages we will pump over $30 billion into the economy, thus making the increase self-financing,” Furman contended. “Better paid workers will buy more stuff. This will lead to higher sales and profits for businesses. It’s a win-win situation for everyone.”
Asked why businesses would have to be compelled to pay higher wages if his theories are correct, Furman suggested that “the people running businesses may not be sophisticated enough to grasp the big picture. From their short-sighted and self-centered perspective, they think that holding down costs is prudent and efficient. They can’t comprehend the seemingly nonsensical reality that paying more for something is the path to greater efficiency at the collective level. Thus, we must force them to do what’s best for themselves and everyone else.”
William Dunkelberg, small business, entrepreneurship and consumer behavior specialist for Forbes magazine, called the President’s and Furman’s contentions “ludicrous and utterly inane. If it is to survive a business must hold its costs below its revenues. If we raise the cost of labor it creates a need for businesses to reduce their use of this input. The inevitable outcome is that fewer jobs will be offered.”
White House Puts Lid on Drone Killing Info
Complaining that “the release of information on the Administration’s use of drones to kill its enemies has led to unforeseen consequences,” Presidential Press Secretary Jay Carney said “there will be no further information forthcoming about any aspect of this program.”
“The thinking was that the Administration’s aggressive use of this technology to counter threats to national security would be met with a greater sense of appreciation,” Carney opined. “Unfortunately, it has not. Instead it has resulted in a spiral of annoying questions from the media wanting to know too many details.”
“Some opponents of the President are raising accusations that these killings violate due process,” Carney said. “Others worry about the collateral damage to nearby innocent parties from using missiles to take out the intended target. These kind of distractions are impeding the President’s latitude to carry out actions he deems appropriate. It has become clear that a greater degree of secrecy would better serve our interests.”
Retiring NSA Snoop Says Eavesdropping Is Not Indiscriminate
General Keith Alexander, who is leaving his post as the Director of the Nation Security Agency next month, denied that the agency is spying on everyone. “We have not been indiscriminate in our selection of who to monitor,” Alexander maintained. “The Government pretty much knows who its enemies are.”
The General justified the huge volume of data being collected by alleging that “the dangerous persons we feel must be kept under surveillance easily exceeds tens of millions of individuals in this country alone. Sixty million people voted against President Obama in 2012. There are an estimated 270 million firearms in the hands of private citizens in the United States—obviously, many of these weapons are in the hands of the President’s opponents. Under such circumstances, it is prudent that we remain as alert and watchful as we can.”
Attention, aspiring young left-stream media/undocumented “journalists”! Yes, you!
Follow your career dreams at Channel 12/NBC in Phoenix.
No fussy editing to deal with. No editors at all!
Apply your talents to the left-wing cause of your heart’s desire — every single day!
I.e “fair and balanced news” for homosexual activists!
Work with left-wing activists Lin Sue Cooney, Brahm Resnik and Joe Dana. Learn from the best left-stream media/undocumented “journalists” going! Advocate for your pet left-wing cause to your heart’s content!
They’ll show you the ropes. How to devote 20 minutes of free advocacy for the homosexual agenda. How to trash religious freedom bills. And of course the obligatory, token 3-second and 5-second sound-bytes for hateful conservative lawmakers. How to dredge up Mormons for same-sex “marriage”! How to make up phony “statistics” about job-killing religious freedom bills. How to overlook the Christians who’ve lost their jobs because activist judges elevated local “nondiscrimination laws” over the First Amendment. How to tie the 2015 Super Bowl and homosexual NFL-bound football players into gratuitous mentions about religious freedom bills in Arizona. Lin will show you how to do the adoring interview of lesbian activists suing to overturn the will of hundreds of thousands of Arizona voters who passed the state marriage amendment.
Channel 12 is the positively best place to use your slanted skills! Agenda journalism is at its best at Channel 12.
We’ve mastered the art of trashing family policy counsel presidents … and completely gate keeping the other side of the story out of the story! We’re the pros! We set the standard.
Apply today! Remember, absolutely no editing is done to your work! No pesky editors demanding fairness. Only left-wing activists setting your agenda, writing your scripts, serving as props for your reports!
In fact, until Senate Bill 1062 awaits Governor Jan Brewer’s decision, no interviews are even required! Report for work first thing tomorrow morning! You’ll love our team atmosphere, comrade!
By Bethany Monk, CitizenLink
The Arizona Senate passed a bill on Wednesday that would allow people to live and work according to their faith.
But, that’s not what you’re hearing from mainstream media outlets.
“The attacks are simply outrageous,” said Josh Kredit, legal counsel for the Center for Arizona Policy. “There is a purposeful effort to distract from the true meaning of this bill, which would protect religious freedom.”
The chamber passed the legislation 17-13. The House began debating the issue today.
Arizona Democrats claim the measure is a way to legalize discrimination against homosexuals. They sponsored eight hostile amendments in efforts to silence the bill, but Senate Republicans rejected all of them.
News outlets are referring to the legislation as the “service refusal bill,” or the “religious-based discrimination” legislation. One called it the “Turn Gays Away” bill.
But a more proper name might be: the “Keep Christians Outta Jail Bill.”
Arizona Sen. Steve Yarbrough, one of the bill’s sponsors, said it was the New Mexico photographer case that prompted SB 1062. The state Supreme Court ruled last year that a Christian couple must compromise their beliefs and photograph same-sex ceremonies “as the price of citizenship.”
“This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith,” Yarbrough said.
Sen. President Andy Biggs, a Republican from Gilbert, said the Democrats’ rhetoric was “misplaced.”
“Sometimes people’s rhetoric tends to inflame instead of explain,” Biggs told Fox News. “And I would suggest if there is going to be a backlash because of 1062, it won’t be because someone has read the content of this bill and recognizes that it is indeed tailored after Supreme Court cases dealing with First Amendment religious rights, it will because of the inaccurate rhetoric. That is my personal opinion.”
Kredit said those who oppose it are trying to minimize people of faith to the “four walls of their church.”
“It’s frightening to me,” he said. “Opponents need to answer why they are so hostile to religion. Do they want less freedom?”
Call Governor Brewer immediately to support religious freedom in Arizona!
Fred DuVal, a candidate for governor from the Party of Control, just issued a news release opposing this bill:
“If I were governor, I wouldn’t have waited for this bill to get to my desk. I would have stopped it before it passed. I would have made it very clear to the legislature that they shouldn’t bother sending me this legislation. This bill won’t solve any of the problems facing Arizona families; it won’t create jobs or improve education. In fact, it will be a job killer. It’s going to hurt our businesses and hurt our state’s reputation across the country — it’s just plain wrong.”
DuVal has it backwards. If this bill is NOT passed, it will be a job killer. People will lose their jobs if punished for opposing same-sex “marriage” — which the voters of Arizona already overwhelmingly opposed in the 2008 election. DuVal and the Party of Control are on the wrong side of history, marriage, and the economy. The people have already rejected the radical demands of the Party of Control for same-sex “marriage.”
John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
“The biggest problems we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch, and not go through Congress at all,” the then 2008 presidential candidate Obama said. “That’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.”
The sharp contrast of this earlier sentiment with his current “have pen, will rule” stance was brushed aside as “a phony issue” by President Obama. “The crucial point is the ends to which the power is used. Executive orders that thwart social justice and progressive policies are clearly abusive. However, when it is clear that those wielding legislative authority refuse to support these goals it is incumbent on the president to shoulder the burden. So, I’d have to say that given the differing circumstances there is no contradiction.”
“In fact, as well-informed observers have pointed out, my post enactment amendments to the Affordable Care Act are both ‘wise and courageous,’” the president added. “As MSNBC’s Chris Matthews put it, ‘we have in President Obama a bold leader willing to break free of the chains of stale legalistic formalism and blaze a new path of governance.’ Why shouldn’t I use every means I can to ensure that the best policies are implemented?”
NSA’s Revenue Generating Potential Being Explored
The Obama Administration is reportedly evaluating the possibility of using data gathered by the National Security Agency (NSA) to help fund the government.
NSA Deputy Director Richard Ledgett says that “for too long we’ve been overlooking the commercial opportunities of this vast surveillance project. We know what web sites people have been visiting. We know who they’ve been calling on their cell phones. And in many instances we’ve been reading their emails. There has got to be a lot of businesses that would pay substantial sums to have a peek at this information.”
Ledgett speculated that “the obvious customers for purchasing this information would appear to be corporations seeking probable buyers of their products or services. But on the flip side we believe that there may be a market amongst persons wanting us to withhold release of data that might be inconvenient or embarrassing. We haven’t yet developed a refined plan for realizing the full revenue potential, but we are seriously exploring options.”
Jason Furman, chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, sees the revenue potential as “a heretofore untapped resource. As changing lifestyles diminish the traditional methods of funding the government, as more people choose subsidized leisure over gainful employment, the idea that we can support the public sector by simply taxing productive effort is becoming out-dated. In our so-called ‘information age’ it seems fitting that we exploit the information the government has gone to such great lengths to acquire in order to help finance the government’s needs.”
Campaign Finance Law Enables IRS Harassment of Conservatives
The impetus behind the passage of federal laws to regulate contributions to political campaigns was the idea that this would prevent the surreptitious influence of big money in elections. By requiring donors identities to be disclosed to the Federal Elections Commission voters would be able to find out who was backing a candidate or a cause. That the government might use this information to punish dissent was overlooked.
Anonymity has long been a method by which persons critical of the government have protected themselves from retaliation. Pamphleteers of the American Revolutionary Era often used pseudonyms for this purpose. The failure of proponents of the campaign finance laws to consider why this was done has had pernicious effects.
Cleta Mitchell, member of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Election Law, says that “many donors to conservative causes and candidates are showing up as targets of IRS audits. The increased frequency of this type of thing is disturbing. The message that is going to be taken from this is that daring to assist an opponent of the Democratic Party is an invitation to increased harassment.”
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen rebuffed GOP complaints saying that “there is nothing in the statutes that guarantees an equal distribution of audits among persons of various political leanings. If these GOP donors have done nothing wrong they have nothing to worry about.”
Mitchell wasn’t reassured, however. “An IRS audit is a grueling ordeal even when the taxpayer has totally complied with the complex tax code,” she observed. “By itself an audit is viewed as a punishment by the person undergoing the scrutiny. In the absence of probable cause one would hope that the selection of audit targets would be done in a random manner. That political factors might be used is abusive and tyrannical.”
President Urges Congressional Allies to Ignore Political Cost of Supporting His Agenda
With polls showing plunging support for his policies and programs, President Obama attempted to soothe the fears of Democrats facing reelection battles in November.
“The Democratic agenda is more important than whether any specific member of our Party wins in November,” Obama declared. “I’d even go so far as to say that whether we have a majority in either House after November is largely irrelevant. My executive authority is sufficient for the implementation of our agenda.”
Obama reassured that “those of you who are retired against your will by the voters of your state or district can count on me to find you a comfortable post within the executive branch.”
The president discounted the risk that “even should the Republicans gain a nominal majority in Congress I doubt we have much to fear. Many of the GOP leaders have privately assured me that we are on the same page with where we want to take the country. In some ways, allowing them to take over the Legislative branch could be optimal. I could still rule by executive order while they could futilely rant against my usurpation of their authority. Effective opposition would be totally neutralized.”
Not all Democrats were mollified by Obama’s reassurances. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich) urged the President “to deploy the IRS to crack down on right wing political organizations in the months running up to the November elections. Short of secret arrests and assassinations, the IRS is the most potent weapon in the government’s arsenal. If we want to ensure that the champions of progressive policies can continue to hold onto the reins of power we need to use this weapon.”
Statistics from the 2012 election cycle appear to bear out Senator Levin’s perspective on the importance of the effective use of the IRS. During that cycle 100 percent of the political organizations subjected to IRS audit were conservative or “right-leaning” in their politics. While these right-leaning groups were otherwise preoccupied with fending off IRS harassment, President Obama sailed to reelection for a second term.
US Falls to 46th in Global Press Freedom Rankings
The annual report of Reporters without Borders rates the amount of “freedom of the press” that exists in each nation. In this year’s rankings the United States fell to 46th–meaning that 45 countries have a greater degree of freedom of the press than the U.S.
Included among the countries ranking as more free than the U.S. are former Communist nations (Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Latvia, and Romania) and third world nations (Jamaica, Costa Rica, Namibia, Cape Verde, Uruguay, Ghana, Belize, Suriname, Antigua and Barbuda, El Salvador, Samoa, Botswana, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, and Papua New Guinea).
Press Secretary Jay Carney said “the Administration has mixed feelings about these results. On the one hand, we are very happy with the kind of relationship we have with this country’s media. On the other hand, this ranking does give a negative impression, but at least we are ahead of Russia and China.”
Russia ranked 148th and China 175th in the report. Finland ranked 1st.
Homosexual Athlete as “Courageous as a Combat Soldier”
The public announcement of Missouri football player Michael Sam that he is homosexual was lauded as “courageous as a combat soldier” by Paulette Aniskoff, deputy assistant to the president and director of the Office of Public Engagement this past week.
“I’m not saying that our troops aren’t brave,” Aniskoff explained. “Sure, they could get shot or blown up, but this happens out of view in some far off land. Michael Sam’s homosexuality is on full public display right here in America. There’s no way for him to escape into anonymity.”
Ironically, “anonymity” regarding Sam’s sexual orientation is what he sacrificed by his unsolicited announcement. “That’s what makes his announcement so heroic,” Aniskoff insisted. “He gave up his privacy in a way that helps advance the president’s push to normalize homosexuality. Boys look to athletes as role models. If a high-profile player is homosexuality then it signals to every young man that being homosexual is okay, even admirable. In the grand scheme of things this accomplishes more than any soldier can achieve just by doing his job, even if he might be killed or wounded in the process.”
A Satirical Look at Recent News
John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire column for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties that our nation’s Founding Fathers tried to protect.
Please do us a favor. If you use material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit, and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.
By Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy
Governor Jan Brewer
Representative Debbie Lesko
Senator Nancy Barto
Senator Kimberly Yee
What do all these people have in common?
They’re passionately pro-life and – to Planned Parenthood’s great frustration – they’re women!
What’s more, these women represent only a small portion of the female pro-life leaders in Arizona.
It’s what is so special about the pro-life movement in our state. These pro-life champions care just as much about the woman walking into an abortion clinic as they do about the reborn child. It’s why our state has passed so many common sense health and safety standards for abortion clinics.
Sadly at every step along the way, the abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood, has tried to block even the most basic rules.
Case in point: consider yesterday’s hearing in the House Reform and Human Services committee. Up for debate was the CAP-supported HB 2284, the Women’s Health Protection Act, sponsored by Rep. Lesko. I consider it a privilege to be able to have testified in support of this critically needed legislation.
Among other things, this bill would ensure abortion clinics are subject to the same inspections as every other medical facility in the state. Specifically, this would grant the epartment of Health the ability to inspect complaints at abortion clinics without being required to first warn the clinic.
Most people would be shocked to know that abortion clinics have a special carve out like this – especially when abortion providers have such a terrible track record of harming women and preborn children (see: Dr. Kermit Gosnell).
What I found most nonsensical about yesterday’s hearing for HB 2284 was the double-speak.
In one breath the president of Planned Parenthood testified that their organization cared for women. Yet in the very next breath, he stood opposed to protecting women from abusive practices at negligent abortion clinics.
Make no mistake about it – Dr. Kermit Gosnell was allowed to practice in Pennsylvania for so long precisely because the state did not properly inspect abortion clinics due to pro-abortion politics.
It’s imperative that we learn from this tragedy, and not allow hypocritical and dangerous politics to get in the way of our government fulfilling its most basic duty: protecting life.
The sad reality is that as Arizona law stands today, our state values the safety of women at an abortion clinic less than the safety of men and women at every other health care institution.
Thankfully, the Women’s Health Protection Act passed out of committee. There is still a long road ahead for this bill – and at some point, we may need your help by contacting your legislators in support of HB 2284. You can track the progress of this legislation using our Bill Tracker, and by “Liking” CAP on Facebook. Later today, we’ll post my testimony on our Facebook page.
Arizona Senator Bob Worsley (R-Mesa) — the man who called Arizona a “police state” — is now boiling over because someone has the gaul to run against him in the Republican Primary later this year. That opponent is Dr. Ralph Heap, a Mesa doctor, and a conservative who spoke at the East Valley Tea Party meeting Feb. 10th. It appears that anyone opposing Worsley is now labeled an “extremist” by the senator, who said:
Some of you may know that I will be facing an opponent in the upcoming Republican primary election for the Arizona State Senate in Legislative District 25 – Mesa. This individual was recruited to challenge me, and will fight to return extreme policies to our State. It was these policies that compelled me to run for office in the first place. I ran on a platform promising to “elevate” Mesa and the dialogue at the State Capitol. I’m proud to announce that we have made great progress!
As we have reminded Worsley before, if he wants to identify “extreme policies,” he should look at the Democrats’ side of the aisle.
The strident Worsley is a freshman senator and amnesty advocate. He denounced his 2012 primary opponent, Russell Pearce, who is an advocate of the rule of law and border enforcement. And because Arizona’s legislature has acted to protect the southern border, Worsley called Arizona a “police state.” Worsley’s money, influence, and negative campaigning felled the long-time patriot Russell in the 2012 primary. And Mesa misses Pearce’s solid representation.
But there is more Worsley news. The multi-, multi-millionaire is hitting up his Mesa constituents to support him, a multi-millionaire, in his re-election campaign. When in fact the cost of running for legislature is pocket change for a man of Worsley’s immense wealth. Worsley made his fortune on SkyMall, the in-flight catalog, and numerous other investments. He owns a mansion in Mesa and a huge cabin in the White Mountains, with logs trucked in from British Columbia.
By Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy
Planned Parenthood has a long and terrible track record in our state.
Not only is the abortion giant responsible for performing the most abortions in Arizona each year, they’ve gone out of their way to block even the most common sense health and safety standards and regulations on the abortion industry.
They’ve objected to things like:
- Ensuring parents provide notarized parental consent before their child has an abortion.
- Guaranteeing a woman has the right to not just have an ultrasound before an abortion, but be offered the opportunity to view the image of her preborn child before making a decision.
- Assuring the dangerous and deadly abortion pill is dispensed in line with the Food and Drug Administration protocol.
It should come as no surprise then that families in Tempe erupted when they discovered that a Planned Parenthood Arizona employee was consulted to help the Tempe Union High School District choose its sexual education curriculum.
Thanks to our pro-life friends across the state, like Arizona Right to Life, 1st Way Pregnancy Center, and Alliance Defending Freedom, the District’s meetings
have been packed with parents and community members objecting to Planned Parenthood’s influence in their schools.
Make no mistake though: Tempe is not the only district on their radar.
From the top down, Planned Parenthood has not hidden their agenda. A recent blog post from the National Planned Parenthood Action Fund said across the country, our nation’s largest purveyor of abortion would be “going on the offensive.”
Locally, Planned Parenthood has hired a new policy director to “work with communities to advocate for reproductive health and rights, and will collaborate with Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona to reach out to voters and legislators to advance a vision of greater access to comprehensive sexuality education, family-planning services, and abortion care.”
In essence, Planned Parenthood has seen all that Gov. Jan Brewer, our legislative leaders, Center for Arizona Policy and our statewide allies have been able to accomplish in recent years, and they want to undermine every bit of it.
And they’re going to start through “community organizing.”