How to Vote on Arizona Judges

As Election Day draws near, many conservatives are seeking information on how to vote for the judges. We’ve compiled a brief list of resources that will help prepare you in this important vote.

The first place to start is the Center for Arizona Policy website “AZVoterGuide.com.” This is a compilation of lists of the various judges up for retention along with links to their surveys. You will find everything from the Arizona Supreme Court Justices to the Superior Court Judges in Maricopa, Pima and Pinal Couties. It is quite an extensive list so plan on spending a little time reviewing the judges’ surveys.

Here’s a link to the AZVoterGuide.com site: http://azvoterguide.com/candidates/2014/judges/az/

We also receive recommendations from fellow conservatives like Representative Warren Petersen. Here is his list also making the rounds: (Thanks Rep, Petersen!)

**** My exception to this list is Gerald Porter – PLEASE VOTE FOR GERALD PORTER! ****

Vote YES on these judges:

Bailey, Cynthia J.
Blomo, James T.
Brodman, Roger R.
Crawford, Janice K.
Dunn, Boyd W.
Herrod, Michael J.
Hyatt, Carey S.
Ishikawa, Brian K.
Sinclair, Joan M.
Svoboda, Pamela Hearn
Viola, Danielle J.

Vote NO on these judges:

Aceto, Mark F.
Anderson, Aimee L.
Anderson, Arthur T
Astrowsky, Bradley
Bales, Scott
Barton, Janet R.
Bassett, Edward
Bergin, Dawn M.
Brain, Mark H.
Brotherton, William L.
Brutinel, Robert
Cooper, Katherine M
Cunanan, David O.
Davis, Norman J.
Duncan, Sally S.
Fenzel, Alfred M.
Fink, Dean M.
Foster, Jr., George H.
Gama, J. Richard
Granville, Warren
Hegyl, Hugh E.
Hicks, Bethany G.
Howe, Randall M.
Johnsen, Diane M.
Kreamer, Joseph C.
Martin, David G.
Mroz, Rosa, P.
Myers, Samuel J.
Norris, Benjamin R.
O’Connor, Karen L.
Pineda, Suzanna C.
Polk, Jay
Porter, Gerald J.
Rea, John C.
Reinstein, Peter C.
Ronan, Emmet J.
Talamante, David M.
Thumma, Samuel A.
Warner, Randall H.
Welty, Joseph C.
Willet, Eileen S.

This list also matches a list being circulated by local conservative activist Sandi Bartlett. Thanks Sandi!

AZ Judicial Commission recommends not retaining two judges – but are they right?

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona

Wednesday,  October 29th, 2014

Two judges not recommended due to “temperament,” vague criteria

Disgruntled attorneys who lost cases in front of them likely big part of the reason for poor reviews

Contributed by a reader

 

In the past, the Arizona Judicial Commission has rarely recommended not retaining any judges – which is obviously greatly flawed, considering all the judicial activism and political targeting that goes on. The commission is run by leftist busybodies tied to the State Bar, so this is no surprise. It contains attorneys/judges like Robert Carter Olson, considered one of the crookedest judges in the state.

 

Note that virtually all of the judges receive a unanimous YES from all 29 members of the commission. What does that tell you? They’re not thinking independently; everyone is scared to death of voting against a judge because of the risk of retaliation.

 

Let’s look at the commission’s history. The last time the commission actually recommended not retaining one judge, it was the wrong decision.The full story behind their recommendation not to retain Judge Crane McClennan has been covered by the conservative website azjudgesreview here and here. What it came down to was left-wing criminal defense attorneys didn’t like him.

 

This year, the commission is recommending not retaining Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Norris and Pima County Superior Court Judge Catherine Woods. Let’s look at the evidence. Both judges received poor marks for “temperament” and “communications.” Not even the vague word “ethics.” They are being accused of not having the right personality. Are you kidding??? What about factors like judicial activism, targeting or favoritism, the real things that matter?

 

Let’s look a little closer at their background and qualifications. Woods was appointed by Governor Brewer in 2011 – ok, probably a Republican, that makes sense why she’s on their hit list. She is a juvenile judge. Nothing in her bio jumps out to us as a problem, in fact it’s fairly impressive. The commission lists nothing other than that against her. Tellingly, their opinion is based on the fact that 21 out of 106 attorneys returned scores of 60 to 88% about her temperament, etc. Just TWENTY-ONE attorneys. What you’re not hearing is that of the 7 out of 89 litigant witnesses who returned surveys about her, ALL SEVEN gave her 100% scores. That’s right. Who do you believe, some attorneys who may have represented the losing party in a case in front of her, or witnesses who likely have nothing to gain financially or professionally?

 

It sounds to us like the good ole boys club looking out for the good ole boys club. The busybody attorneys on the commission are looking out for their buddies – Democrat attorneys – who lost their cases in front of this Republican judge.

 

Next, let’s examine the other attorney the commission recommended not to retain. Norris was appointed in 2008 by Napolitano and has been a family law judge. A quick google search reveals that he appears to be biased against fathers in custody cases. The votes against him are worse, 35 out of 93 attorneys returned surveys rating him from 59% to 84% in various areas. 42 out of 398 litigant witnesses returned surveys rating him from 86% to 96%. Four attorneys rated him as unsatisfactory when it came to fairness towards gender.

 

Based on a more objective analysis that takes into account a conservative political perspective, we’d recommend retaining Woods and not retaining Norris. More GOP recommendations on voting for judges can be found here. With such a lack of real information about judges, the system needs to be changed to electing judges, not appointing them with low-information retention elections.

Join Our Mailing List

 

For Marriage Supporters: Grief Yes, Despair No

Statement from Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod

Arizona’s marriage amendment which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been overturned by the courts.

PHOENIX – “I am heartbroken for a country and a state that has had the redefinition of marriage forced upon them by an out of control federal judiciary.

In what amounts to the de-facto Roe v Wade of marriage, voters throughout the nation have watched their voices be silenced, and their votes voided. Now, Arizona’s marriage amendment and our voters are the latest victims. While the United States Supreme Court may still take up the issue of marriage redefinition, for now the courts have settled the issue in our state.

Today, we grieve. We grieve for the children who now have no chance of growing up with a mom and a dad. We mourn the loss of a culture and its ethical foundation. We mourn a culture that continues to turn its back on timeless principles.

But we do not despair. We do not throw in the towel. We do not give up.

Just as we have worked to build a culture of life, we will focus on rebuilding a culture of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

To read the statement online visit: http://www.azpolicy.org/newsroom/for-marriage-supporters-grief-yes-despair-no

Citizens4CleanCourts-AZ.org places billboards against judges this election

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e
Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona
Tuesday, October 14th, 2014
Brand-new organization seeks to reform corruption in the courts

Recommends removing/voting against Bar disciplinary judge, certain AZ Supreme Court Justices and more 

Citizens4CleanCourts-AZ.org is taking Arizona by storm with its tall billboards announcing the worst judges in Arizona today, mostly activist progressives who have abused the system to the advantage of themselves and their friends, at great expense to the innocent people who have had their lives ruined by them. Remember who they when you cast your ballot on November 4th or by early ballot. It is time to start cleaning the corrupt judges out of office, and stop retaining them every year. Visit the website at http://www.citizens4cleancourts-az.org/ for more information.

Join Our Mailing List

Mark Brnovich is Small Business’ Choice for Top Cop

Eighty-nine percent polled favor ex-gaming chief over former top banking regulator

PHOENIX, Ariz., Sept. 10, 2014 – Appreciating that the state’s attorney general is our last line of defense against the overreach of an aggressive federal government, Arizona’s leading small-business association today announced its endorsement of Mark Brnovich for Arizona’s next attorney general.

“Arizona’s job creators trust Mark Brnovich to enforce the law and protect our communities,” said Farrell Quinlan, Arizona state director for the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). “Arizona’s entrepreneurs are confident Mark Brnovich will foster a safe and secure environment and ensure a level playing field so our small businesses can thrive.”

This poll of 379 Arizona small-business owners was conducted by NFIB between August 28 and September 4, 2014.

This poll of 379 Arizona small-business owners was conducted by NFIB/Arizona between August 28 and September 4, 2014.

The Brnovich endorsement is the 7,000-Arizona-member-strong, small-business advocacy group’s first endorsement in the attorney general’s race in more than a decade. The decision to endorse was largely driven by the results of a survey of small-business owners that revealed a decisive favorite. In that survey, former federal prosecutor and ex-Gaming Department chief Mark Brnovich received 89 percent support to former top state banking regulator Felecia Rotellini’s 11 percent in the poll of 379 Arizona small-business owners conducted by NFIB August 28 to September 4, 2014.

“As Arizona’s next attorney general, Mark Brnovich will provide solid legal advice to state regulatory agencies in order to prevent overreach, regulatory bullying of small-business owners and to ensure state agencies aren’t acting on bad or inaccurate legal advice,” Quinlan said.

The formal endorsement of Mark Brnovich was made by the NFIB/Arizona Save America’s Free Enterprise (SAFE) Trust, the political action committee of NFIB members in Arizona.

2014_0910_NFIBAZ_Brnovich_05

Republican Attorney General nominee Mark Brnovich discusses small business issues today at the NFIB/Arizona Small Business Forum in Phoenix. Earlier in the day NFIB/Arizona announced its endorsement of Brnovich and reported that 89% of small business owners polled supported the election of the former federal prosecutor.

For more than 70 years, the National Federation of Independent Business has been the Voice of Small Business, taking the message from Main Street to the halls of Congress and all 50 state legislatures. NFIB annually surveys its members on state and federal issues vital to their survival as America’s economic engine and biggest creator of jobs. NFIB’s educational mission is to remind policymakers that small businesses are not smaller versions of bigger businesses; they have very different challenges and priorities.

Unethical Bar prosecutor who disbarred Andrew Thomas finally exposed, loses job

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona

Wednesday July 23rd, 2014

Attorneys in Colorado and Oregon calling out John Gleason for political targeting

“Abused his authority to selectively prosecute effective advocates of their license without due process of law”

Finally some justice is being done. John Gleason, the slimy Colorado Bar prosecutor the Arizona State Bar brought in to disbar Andrew Thomas, because they knew of his history of successfully politically targeting conservative attorneys, has lost his job over it – AGAIN. Gleason was forced out of the Colorado State Bar after his targeting of Thomas, and could only find a job with the State Bar in Oregon, leaving his family behind. Now, only a year later, he’s out there too.

Here are some excerpts from the article in Oregon Live:

After a short, stormy run that antagonized some lawyers around the state and divided the Oregon State Bar, John Gleason, the bar’s high-profile new disciplinary counsel, quietly left the job and Oregon late last month.

“Gleason came here with a goal to radically change Oregon Bar discipline which he disclosed only to (Bar Executive Director) Sylvia Stevens and I’m glad he’s gone,” said Greg Hendrix, a Bend lawyer and former chair of the bar’s State Professional Responsibility Board.
Here are some excerpts from the comment after the article, written by a successful Colorado attorney who Gleason targeted:
Far from being cause for concern, John Gleason’s premature departure from the post of Disciplinary Counsel should be welcomed by anyone devoted to “Equal Justice Under the Law”. Gleason is third-rate lawyer and under- qualified career bureaucrat with little to no meaningful experience in private practice who, even while his Colorado office routinely ignored or countenanced massive ethical lapses by attorneys for the rich and powerful, complaisantly abused his authority to selectively prosecute and unconstitutionally deprive effective advocates for the little guy of their liberty and property interests in their profession and license without due process of law. I am a Stanford Law School graduate with over 25 years of experience in labor and employment counseling and litigation in the private, public, and corporate sector.
In 2006, I won a $1.22 million ADEA jury verdict against the City and County of Denver on behalf of a long-time firefighter whom it had unlawfully terminated on the pretext of fraudulent shoplifting charges after he turned age 50 (and retirement eligible). In Nov. 2006, the presiding judge, Robert Blackburn, entered judgment in the full amount of the verdict, stating that there was more than enough evidence of willful age discrimination to support the jury’s verdict.
In late September, 2007, however, Blackburn fraudulently, unlawfully, and unconstitutionally granted a new trial in the case on the basis of alleged trivial misconduct by me during trial that was never the subject of a motion for mistrial and was therefore waived, as a matter of law, as grounds for a new trial.
As Alan Prendergast of “Westword” reported soon thereafter, and as the new trial order itself impliedly admitted, there were absolutely no grounds for a new trial. As the jurors Prendergast (and, later, Asst. Attorney Regulation Counsel Kim Ikeler) interviewed attested, the judge’s new trial order was completely unfounded, and they had decided the case in full conformity with the evidence and the law, as instructed:
After interviewing the jurors, Asst. Attorney Regulation Counsel Kim Ikeler told me on Jan. 31, 2008 that he found no clear and convincing evidence of misconduct by me during trial, and would therefore recommend dismissal of the complaint against me.
Nonetheless, at the request of the City of Denver, which has numerous Democrat allies on the Colorado Supreme Court, the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel directed Ikeler to defraud the Attorney Regulation Committee by unlawfully and unethically concealing evidence (the juror’s statements) exculpating me in order to gain permission to prosecute me, then subjected me to a retaliatory and completely unfounded witch hunt and show trial for the purpose of: attempting to force me off the case before retrial; providing a fraudulent veneer of credibility to Judge Blackburn’s blatantly unlawful new trial order; retaliating against me for humiliating the City and its lawless officials so very publicly and gleefully; making an example of me to any other maverick, politically unconnected attorney who might be encouraged to do the same, given the massive corruption and stupidity within the City of Denver’s government; punishing me for my searing criticism of Judge Blackburn and the Colorado Supreme Court.
For the serious crime of winning my client’s case, and vindicating his federally protected rights, against the resistance of a massively powerful, corrupt, and dishonest bureaucracy, another massively powerful, dishonest and corrupt bureaucracy, the Colorado Supreme Court, effectively destroyed my reputation, and ability to ever again practice law, by suspending me for a year and a day for the void-for-vagueness offense of “interfering with the administration of justice” by winning my client’s case through very hard work and skillful lawyering. They exploited local mainstream media to defame me from behind the cover of the fair report doctrine by conspiring with them to portray me in the worst possible light, and refrain from reporting the wealth of evidence exculpating me. Only a few isolated bloggers came close to reporting the truth, and then only after they had parroted false reports I encouraged them to retract, for example:|
My very well-founded appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court was, of course, ignored. I was informed by expert counsel that there was no chance the US Supreme Court would take up my case. Because of overbroad abstention and immunity doctrines, I could not sue in federal court for this blatant violation of my right to due process and deprivation of my liberty and property interests in my career and license.
In short, I was judicially lynched by Mr. Gleason and his colleagues in the Colorado Supreme Court as part of a politically-motivated prosecution that had no foundation in the facts or the law. They did the same thing to me for which Gleason was hired (by Andrew Thomas’ political enemies in Arizona) to disbar Andrew Thomas: abusing prosecutorial powers to punish political enemies.
THAT is the sort of bureaucratic weasel the Oregon Bar hired as its Disciplinary Counsel. Maverick Oregon advocates for the little guy should be relieved by his premature departure under pressure.
Here are some excerpts from another article & comments about the complicit judiciary (sound familiar?):
You have experienced what I believe sadly is the norm of the Colorado Judicial Branch. It has become so flagrant and the “players” so comfortable in their roles that there is no possibility of correcting it. Think about it. What can you or anyone possibly do to overcome the corruption that has become so deeply embedded in every facet of our government. Yes, you can try and fight it, but for what purpose? Unless you resign yourself to the role of bending your knee and bowing your head; life will be very difficult for you as an attorney in Colorado.
It is obvious that this is a political prosecution, and that Gleason, a political reptile who has long abused the power of his office to oppress enemies of those who control the State of Colorado, and protect their friends from scrutiny or prosecution for their routine subversion of justice for fun and profit, was called in to provide the result desired by Thomas’ political enemies.
SunnyFebruary 28, 2014 at 7:07 PM
Very good, Mark. Andrew Thomas’s chief political enemy is Conley Wolfswinkel, a Phoenix developer who is partners with S&L crook Charles Keating, who is a “business partner” of Larry Mizel’s, Mizel being a Colorado homebuilder who–like Keating–is also a big S&L crook. He obtained huge loans from Silverado Savings & Loan which he never paid back. It is zillionaire Larry Mizel who picks the public officials in Colorado, via his criminal campaign-contribution shakedowns. (There’s a classic Denver Post picture of Mizel’s “green light” to John Hickenlooper to run for governor over lunch, for example.) The governor then appoints ALL judges in Colorado, and it was one of these, chief justice Mary Mullarkey–herself appointed by Mizel stooge Roy Romer–who selected John Gleason to head the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. That selection is more than a little curious because Gleason flunked out of college and never practiced law before joining OARC, despite lying about his “prosecutorial” and “extensive private practice” experience on his bios which are online. So we come full circle: my take is Gleason was imported to Arizona because Wolfswinkel wanted to end Thomas’s career, and needed a mob plant with “disciplinary power” to do it. Aside from the fact he is a lawyer impersonator, as mentioned, witchhunts and abuses of power are John Gleason’s trademark.

It bears mentioning that Gleason was advanced early in his career by the sheriff of Arapahoe County, Pat Sullivan, who gave him rave reviews on evaluations. Sullivan was arrested in 2010 for offering to exchange drugs for homosexual sex, an offer he also apparently routinely made to jail inmates in return for letting them bond out, when he was sheriff. Gleason currently runs, on the side, a nonprofit called “Warrior Youth Sports,” which I have been told, by a parent of a child involved in it, is engaging in financial improprieties. I’m wondering if there are worse abuses afoot, a la Jerry Sandusky. Are we concerned yet? 

See “John Gleason–Lawyer Impersonator?” (and follow-up posts) on my blog,therealcolorado.blogspog.com, for documentation supporting what I’ve said about this man. There should be more documents, of course, but Gleason’s personnel file at OARC, including his application, has been unlawfully withheld. This sure looks like they’ve got to hide that application, because it shows the reptile lied to get the job–as well as that he was profoundly unqualified. Complying with the Open Records Law and producing these records would, of course, impair Job #1 at the OARC, which–as Mark and I both know firsthand–is to protect white collar crime.
Join Our Mailing List

Hobby and a Lobby of Glass Houses

By Sam Stone

The liberal angst over the recent Supreme Court decision in favor of Hobby Lobby and other Christian-owned family businesses is rapidly spinning out of control. Critics have accused Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court of everything short of genocide. Comedian and MSNBC contributor John Fugelsang tweeted that the Hobby Lobby ruling “proves once again that Scalia Law is a lot like Sharia Law”, explicitly comparing the atrocities committed in the name of radical Islam to not requiring someone else to pay for the morning-after pill. That’s ridiculous.

It’s ridiculous in light of what Hobby Lobby really is: one of the best examples of corporate humanity and compassion in this country. It’s even more ridiculous when you compare Hobby Lobby to, for example, Staples – a similar retail business run by founder and CEO Tom Stemberg, who was a significant contributor to President Obama’s campaigns.

Hobby Lobby pays a starting wage of $9.50 per hour for part time employees. Full time employees start at $14 an hour. All employees are eligible to enroll in the company-sponsored health care plan (which covers 16 types of birth control). All employees have Sundays off.

Staples employees often start at whatever minimum wage their local jurisdiction has set. Their average wage for associates is $8.55 an hour. Most associates do not qualify for company-sponsored benefits. Staples is open 7 days a week.

And yet, the left is basically claiming that because Hobby Lobby will only pay for 16 of 20 FDA-approved birth control types, they are the Taliban and the Green family are members of ISIS. What on earth does that make Tom Stemberg and Staples? A Staples employee who doesn’t have company health insurance isn’t getting their morning-after pills paid for by the company, either. Or condoms. Or the pill. Or…you get the picture.

I have a ton of liberal friends and family members who pooh-pooh the idea of a War on Christianity. Frankly, I always have as well. The reaction of liberals and their media allies to the Hobby Lobby case is changing my mind. The mainstream media doesn’t so much as bat an eyelash at the Staples of the world, so long as the plutocrats in charge are willing to keep lining the pockets of liberal candidates (and their own networks). But Christian business owners who pay their employees a living wage and provide healthcare benefits are monsters because they won’t pay for a few specific abortifacients?

Nothing in the Supreme Court ruling or Hobby Lobby’s employee handbook prevents employees from going out and purchasing the morning-after pill for themselves. But, apparently, none of this matters so long as liberals can use the ruling to perpetuate a mythological conservative “war on women” that exists mostly in the minds of the Sandra Fluke’s of the world. Perhaps, instead, they should take a look at their own glass houses.

Darryl Jacobson Barnes for Justice of the Peace

Darryl Jacobson Barnes for Justice of the Peace

9th Circuit Court Puts Hold on Arizona Law: Disregards District Court

By Joanne Moudy

There was a time when states had rights and could count on the sovereignty of their own state constitutions and laws.  But with the ever-growing overreach of our tyrannical federal government and liberal judges, that time is long past.  In fact today, as fast as states pass laws to distance themselves from the insanity of unlawful federal mandates and regulations, higher court decisions reverse those efforts.

So it doesn’t come as a huge shock that the 9th Circuit justices issued an injunction against Arizona’s law pertaining to abortion drugs, but it does seem odd that the justices don’t feel obligated to follow federal FDA guidelines on pharmaceutical issues.  I guess all those inconvenient rules are meant to be bent, twisted, and broken as often as necessary to further the socialist agenda.

In 2012, HB 2036 was passed by the Arizona State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer.  The law, which took effect in April, 2014, was an important step in tightening regulations on abortion providers to ensure that the medical care they provide to pregnant women is in compliance with federal guidelines and not based upon what’s best for the clinic’s profit margin.

But no sooner had the law taken effect than Planned Parenthood and the Tucson Women’s Center filed suit seeking an injunction against it on the grounds that it puts an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion.  However, U.S. District Court Judge David Bury refused to grant an injunction and rejected their argument, stating the law was put in place to protect women from “dangerous and potentially deadly ‘off-label’ uses” of abortion drugs.

But even before Judge Bury could rule on the legal issues, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals slammed down their collective heavy-handed gavel on Tuesday and granted a temporary stay.  Apparently they have no respect for the lower court’s legal process or deliberation, because they stepped right in and took the case away from the District Court.

ru4864

image credit: LifeNews

The absurdity is that the portion of the law in question simply mandates that the abortifacient drug, RU-486, Mifeprex, be used only per the guidelines of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  Seems pretty straight forward to most physicians, but Planned Parenthood wants permission to do something no other doctor or hospital in the country can do.  They want to operate outside government rules and collect your tax dollars while doing it.

According to the Center for Arizona Policy, when the FDA approved RU-486, it did so under Subpart H, a much more restrictive section of the FDA’s rules specifically set aside for potentially dangerous drugs.  Out of almost 1800 new drug applications approved by the FDA between 1992 and 2011, only 70 were approved under Subpart H.

The drug itself comes with precise prescribing information, labeled uses, and a lengthy warning list, and the licensing under Subpart H simply reinforced the manufacturer’s intentions.  Clearly, the FDA believed the side effects of using the drug “off-label” – hemorrhage, ruptured uterus, sepsis and/or cardiac arrest – constituted serious threats to the patient.

RU-486 blocks the hormone progesterone, thereby causing the fetus to be starved of all nutrients, die, and detach from the uterine wall.  The manufacturer intended for the drug to be used up until 49 days of gestational age, and not beyond.

“On-label” dosing is for the woman to take 600 milligrams of RU-486 orally at the clinic and then return two days later and take 400 micrograms of Misoprostal in the presence of a licensed healthcare provider.  Misoprostal causes the uterus to contract and expel the dead fetus and any remaining contents.  The idea is that the woman be observed while she expels her uterine contents, on the off chance something goes wrong (other than the obvious).

The FDA also recommends that the woman return to the clinic a third time for a follow-up exam to ensure there are no complications (fragments of the baby still inside, etc.) from the chemical abortion.

As a side note, Arizona State Law requires that all women seeking an abortion must be given a counseling session, followed by a 24-hour waiting period before proceeding with an abortion.  That includes ingesting abortifacient drugs.

But Planned Parenthood wants to skip the initial counseling session and the 24-hour waiting period.  They also want to be able to give the RU-486 up to 63 days gestational age, when the fetus is significantly larger and more difficult to expel.

Planned Parenthood’s normal modus operandi is to do a cursory ‘exam’, convince the woman to swallow the RU-486 and then send her home with instructions to take the second drug at home.  As a matter of fact, they frequently advise their clients to not return to the clinic for a recheck after the abortion and bleeding are finished.

And here’s the rub.  Planned Parenthood dispenses RU-486 in one-third the normal dose (200 milligrams), claiming it’s cheaper and safer for the woman.  Naturally it’s cheaper – it’s one-third the dose.  What Planned Parenthood forgets to mention is that the lower dose also means the baby dies more slowly.

What they also fail to mention is that the dose of the second drug, Misoprostal, – the one the woman will take at home, is double.  So when the uterus starts to violently contract and/or the woman is bleeding heavily, she will be alone, unsupervised and without benefit of medical care.

Since medication abortions now account for 41 percent of all first-trimester abortions performed at Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide, they have a vested interest in making certain they can do as they please, regardless of the risk to the mother.

At least fifteen deaths have been attributed to RU-486 since it was licensed and many more women have had complications serious enough to warrant total hysterectomies.  Regardless of Planned Parenthood’s propaganda, RU-486 is not a benign drug without risk.

Aside from the Court’s reaction, it’s also interesting to see how some of the Arizona candidates from two key races responded.

Chuck Wooten, GOP candidate, U.S. Congress, AZ D-2 said, “Abortion is tragic enough without coupling it with reckless, unsafe “medical” practices.  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling categorically invalidates and marginalizes scientific, FDA precautions that are designed to protect the health of the women involved in ingesting abortifacient drugs.  As Americans have watched for far too long, liberal judges, particularly in the 9th Circuit are legislating from the bench at the peril of women, many of whom are already in a crisis situation.”

According to the Arizona Republic, as of May 27th, his opponent in the primary, Martha McSally, had no comment this issue, and the democratic incumbent, Ron Barber, ardently supports Planned Parenthood and abortion on demand.

Wendy Rogers, GOP Candidate, U.S. Congress, AZ D-9 told the Republic, “I’m 100 percent pro-life, because life is a precious gift from God.  We need to help young women understand they have options beyond abortion.”

Although her GOP primary opponent, Andrew Walter, did not respond to the Arizona Republic, Walter is on record as being Pro-life.  The democratic incumbent Kyrsten Sinema supports abortion on demand, up to full-term.

Considering that the 5th and 6th Circuit Courts of Appeals have already upheld similar laws in states within their jurisdictions, it seems likely that this battle isn’t over.  The tragedy is that one case at a time, the higher federal courts are rendering states impotent to enforce their own laws and stomping on their unique sovereignty.

Maybe, Just Maybe . . . Obamacare is Unconstitutional

By Joanne Moudy

There is no doubt in any sane mind that Obamacare is a travesty on the U.S. Constitution and a terrible fraud perpetrated on America citizens. Yet it seems as though we’re all stuck with it . . . or are we?

On Friday Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ 8th Dist.), led the charge in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, in the case of Steven Hotze, M.D. v. Kathleen Sebelius, ramping up efforts to prove, once and for all, that the entire basis for the ACA bill was bogus in the first place.

Mr. Franks, along with 42 of his colleagues, including Rep(s) Michele Bachmann R-MN D-6), Matt Salmon (R-AZ D-5), David Schweikert (R-AZ D-6), and Steve King (R-IA D-4), banded together in a show of support to overturn Obamacare for violating the Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

According to Mr. Franks’ office, the case began in a Texas federal court and raises the issue of whether or not Obamacare violated the Origination Clause because the entire language of the bill actually originated in the Senate, instead of the House as required for all bills raising revenue.

The question stems from October 2009, when the House passed H.R. 3590, titled at the time as “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009.” H.R. 3590 was supposed to make certain changes to the IRS code, specifically to extend or waive the recapture of a first-time homebuyer credit for certain members of the armed forces.

The obvious question any intelligent person should be asking themselves right now is, ‘What exactly does this bill have to do with health care?’ You’re right – absolutely nothing.

The fairly innocuous bill passed the House and was sent to the Senate. Upon receipt, the Senate promptly stripped everything from the bill – except the all important # 3590, then inserted the language of the Affordable Care Act and subsequently passed it on December 24, 2009. The entirely new H.R. 3590 then went back to the House for final approval.

Yet absolutely nothing remained of the original bill and Rep. Pelosi knew it. As the then Speaker of the House, she rammed H.R. 3590 through on March 21, 2010 as amended by the Senate. Concurrently, the House passed H.R. 4872, entitled the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010,” which made certain amendments to the ACA. President Obama signed H.R. 3590 into law on March 23, 2010 and H.R. 4872 on March 30, 2010.

The Origination Clause in the U.S. Constitution provides that “….all Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representative; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

Since Obamacare contains 17 separate tax provisions raising approximately $500 billion in taxes, it is most assuredly a tax bill, which most assuredly did not originate in the House. Furthermore, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate to purchase health insurance could only be constitutional, if at all, under Congress’s power to tax.

“If the Senate can introduce the largest tax increase in American history,” Mr. Franks said, “by simply peeling off the House number from a six-page unrelated bill, which does not even raise taxes, and pasting it on the ‘Senate Health Care Bill,’ and then claim with a straight face that the resulting bill originated in the House, then the American ‘rule of law’ has become no rule at all.”

In addition to pressing his case in the courts, Congressman Franks is the sponsor of House Resolution 153, with 56 co-sponsors, expressing the sense of the House of Representative that Obamacare violated the Origination Clause. Just last week, Mr. Franks also held a contentious hearing on the topic before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.

The saddest thing is that none of the Arizona congressional leaders with a “D” behind their names supported this amicus brief, presumably because of their support of this illegal method of taxation. Offices of Rep(s) Ron Barber and Kyrsten Sinema were contacted, yet neither had a single comment. Maybe it’s time for a significant change.

Wendy Rogers, the retired U.S. Air Force Pilot who’s running against Sinema in AZ D-9 feels strongly the Obamacare has been an unmitigated disaster. “Most disingenuous of all, is Rep. Sinema,” Rogers said. “She actually helped to write the original tenets of Obamacare before she went to Congress and has consistently been President Obama’s cheerleader for it in Arizona.”

Rogers went on to explain, “In order for Sinema to save face in her district, she voted with Republicans to delay the individual mandate and extend the workweek to 39 hours. She purposely voted this way, knowing it would never pass the Senate or a presidential veto. Sinema isn’t about caring for sick people at affordable prices, she’s about hijacking the Constitution to control one-sixth of the nation’s GDP. Sinema is what’s wrong with Congress.”

Chuck Wooten, who’s running against Barber in AZ D-2 said, “I roundly applaud Congressman Franks and his co-sponsors for forcing the will of the people, through Constitutionality and precedent, to undo the ACA which has been aptly named, “the greatest fraud perpetrated on the American people.”

According to Wooten, it’s no secret the Obama administration and Democrat lawmakers intentionally deceived the citizenry – purely for ideological gain. “The American people, led by Congressman Franks and his co-sponsors have busted those responsible for the fraud and I’m confident justice will prevail and this train wreck will be once and for all vaporized into a bad memory,” Wooten said.

Too bad Rogers and Wooten aren’t already in Congress . . . just think how nice it’d be to have these two names on this amicus brief.

For those of us hoping against hope for a way out of the Obamacare nightmare, this seems like the all important light at the end of the tunnel. Hats off to the elected men and women taking a stand against fraudulent, tyrannical government and lets make sure the right folks make it to Washington in November.

Joanne Moudy is the author of “The Tenth,” a supernatural thriller exploring the very real trauma of abortion in a fictional realm. She proudly served as an officer in the military for nine years, before specializing in emergency nursing until retirement. She’s currently an Ambassador for Alliance Defending Freedom, a member of ASU’s Advisory Board for the Center for Political Thought and Leadership, and regularly speaks about the impact of abortion, liberalism, and secularism on all of humanity. You can follow her on Twitter @composedof1