Defending the Indefensible

By Debi Vandenboom

I have spent the last fifteen plus years fighting for the cause of life. I have read books and articles from every side of the debate. I’ve watched interviews, documentaries, exposes and undercover investigations. I have spoken with, counseled, and come alongside girls who were pregnant and scared, young mothers trying to find their way, as well as women who deeply regretted their decision to abort. I have spent many hours sitting in legislative proceedings supporting pro-life legislation. And I have diligently prayed for hearts and minds to change.

In all of those years of experience, one of the things which never ceases to amaze me is the depths to which abortion advocates will go to defend the indefensible. They have developed a science out of using carefully crafted talking points, data manipulation and outright lies to defend “women’s health”, aka abortion. I have heard it so often that I can spot the spin within seconds of hearing or reading someone’s words. Abortion advocates fight for the “right” of a woman (or young girl at literally ANY child bearing age) to have access to abortion without notifying her parents if she’s a minor, without informed consent of the procedure or its risks, without meeting the doctor ahead of time, for any reason, at any stage of gestation, using the grisliest procedures, and preferably paid for with taxpayer dollars. If you dare to try to place even the tiniest, most reasonable restriction on abortion, then you clearly must be anti-woman and hate the poor. No exaggeration. I’ve heard it. I’ve seen it. It’s ugly.

But, it doesn’t end there. In order to defend the indefensible, abortion advocates must also take horrific stands on issues that don’t directly relate to women’s access to abortion. One of these is the issue of fetal homicide. This really came to light back in 2003 when Laci Peterson and her unborn son were murdered in California. There was much discussion about whether baby Conner had or had not been born prior to his demise. My question is, why should it matter? Laci Peterson was 8 months pregnant. Whether the baby died in utero, or post birth, he still died. And, his death was clearly, directly connected to his mother’s murder. However, pro-abortion groups like NARAL and NOW advocated to keep Scott Peterson from being charged with two murders. Despite the fact that pro-abortion organizations claim to support the choice of women who carry “wanted” babies, that support only goes so far. They could not risk having such a high profile case bring to light that an unborn baby is in fact alive and can in fact be murdered.

This happens in case after case. Tragically, murder is one of the top causes, sometimes listed as the number one cause, of death for pregnant women. According to WebMd, murder accounts for 20% of the deaths of pregnant women, as compared to 6% of the deaths of nonpregnant women. You might think that pro-abortion groups full of self-proclaimed feminists who supposedly champion women’s rights, would speak out against such atrocities. You would be wrong. If a baby in utero can legally be recognized as a fully alive human being capable of being murdered, it casts a giant shadow on the entire issue of abortion. Therefore, abortion groups are more interested in protecting abortion, and their own profit margin, than they are in actually protecting and advocating for women.

Another area where abortion advocates justify especially reprehensible acts concerns babies who “accidentally” survive an abortion attempt. It happens more often than you might think. When a child survives an abortion procedure at a clinic, he or she may simply be discarded in a bin or left to die on a metal table with no medical attention whatsoever. In Arizona, it has been the law since 1975 for babies who were born alive to receive care, and it has been federal law since the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” of 2002. Yet we continue to hear about babies being left to die with no care at all. For example, recently in Arizona, a baby girl was born alive after an unsuccessful abortion at 22 weeks, and was left to die alone on a steel table with no medical care or assistance. She suffered alone for nearly an hour and a half before finally passing. This is heartbreaking. It only takes a simple Google search to see that this is not an isolated incident. You can find stories across the country of babies surviving abortion.

One would think that signs of life such as a heartbeat, gasps of breath, or umbilical cord pulsation would be enough to cause someone with medical training to jump into action without being forced to do so. Unfortunately it is not. So, at the federal level, legislation was introduced this session which would strengthen protection for abortion survivors. In Arizona, Governor Ducey just signed SB1367 into law which further clarifies the state’s existing born alive law. During and after this bill’s passage, the pro-abortion nonsense abounded in the newspaper, on social media, and in legislative hearings. Among the most incredulous things I personally heard was that it was “inhumane” to provide “intrusive” medical care to a baby who would not survive anyway. Inhumane? As opposed to treating a living baby like discarded medical waste? A baby may be considered too young to survive at a certain gestational age, until one defeats the odds and does survive. I’ve personally met 2 young women who were so tiny and premature at birth that their parents were given no hope of survival. They are now 20 and 21 years old. Life has a tendency to defy all odds. And even if that baby truly cannot survive, she still deserves to be treated as a human being and at least given basic care, rather than being left untreated in a steel medical bin. But, here lies the problem for Planned Parenthood and other radical abortion advocates. Once an abortion has failed and you are dealing with a living breathing infant, then abortion should no longer be relevant. Born alive laws have absolutely nothing to do with abortion access. However, if a baby at 20 weeks, or 22 weeks, is a human being in need of medical care, then what is an in utero fetus at 20 weeks or 22 weeks? In almost every state, including Arizona, abortion is legal up to 24 weeks, and in some states even further. A living breathing abortion survivor throws a giant monkey wrench in to the “clump of cells” sales pitch. So again, in order to protect abortion and to protect their bottom line, abortion advocates will defend the truly indefensible. Abortion, at it’s most fundamental level is inexcusable and horrific. We have literally made an industry out of destroying life at its most vulnerable stages. So, abortion advocates must attempt to justify abortion at its most extreme levels, such as fighting fetal homicide rulings or born alive protections, in order to be able to justify it at all. If they don’t, the whole house of cards will come tumbling down around them. That is why it is important to shine a light on some of the most horrific aspects of the abortion argument. We can’t be squeamish. We must continue to shine light into this darkness, until the last card falls.

New Survey: More Than 60% of Voters Oppose Proposed Border Adjustment Tax

Americans for Affordable Products

Arizona Businesses and Consumers Urge Arizona Delegation to Oppose Tax on Imports

Phoenix, AZ – Americans want tax reform but are deeply opposed to a proposed Border Adjustment Tax (BAT), according to a new national survey released today by Americans for Affordable Products.  A strong majority (63%) of voters oppose the border adjustment tax, including 46% of voters who strongly oppose this proposed tax.  Key constituencies showed particularly strong opposition to the proposal including women (70%) and senior citizens (63%). The Tarrance Group fielded the survey of 800 likely voters from April 2-5, just ahead of the congressional spring recess.

“This is a wake-up call for congress to follow the lead of our two great Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake and oppose the BAT,” said Michelle Ahlmer of the Arizona Retailers Association.  “Americans want our broken tax code fixed, but they are deeply opposed to paying more for everyday necessities just so several large multinational corporations can operate tax free and boost their already deep profits.  As the rest of our delegation returns home for spring recess, they can expect to hear wide opposition to the border tax from Arizona businesses and consumers.”

The survey finds that opposition to the BAT’s 20% tax on goods and products imported in the U.S. sharply increases when voters learned of the potential economic impact it could have on them.  More than 70% are less likely to support the BAT when they learn it could increase costs for food and clothing by $1700, gas by as much as $.50 per gallon, and car payments by $100 per month.  76% are less likely to support the BAT when learning of the increased price in medicine and prescription drugs.  The costs of the BAT to businesses would lead to job losses and unemployment across multiple business sectors.  73% of voters are less likely to support it when they learn that it could increase the unemployment rate.

The reality is setting in for many that the controversial Border Adjustment Tax is a “poison pill” to enacting the pro-growth, comprehensive tax reform that President Donald Trump is calling for, and American consumers and job creators badly need. Opposition to the Border Adjustment Tax is widespread among Senate and House lawmakers, and more importantly among voters.  Fortunately, both Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake have expressed their concerns over the BAT.

Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) recently said the following on the BAT: “Cheaper inputs mean lower production costs for U.S.-based businesses, which in turn allows those companies to expand production and to reduce prices. What will happen if we placed a 20 percent tax on all imports?”  He went to say of tax reform, “We ought to make sure that the middle class isn’t in the losing column.”

To view a summation of the survey data, click here.

To obtain a full list of the AAP coalition, click here.

Americans for Affordable Products is a coalition of job creators, entrepreneurs, business leaders and consumers united against higher prices on everyday necessities. To learn more, please visit: www.KeepAmericaAffordable.com.

BOOM! Arizona lawmakers pass broad ESA expansion

by Matthew Ladner

Arizona lawmakers passed legislation tonight that will phase in near universal eligibility for ESA program. This will start with public school students in kindergarten and 1st grade, 6th grade and 9th grade in 2017-18, and then add grades from the on ramps (K,1,2 and 6,7 and 9-10 in year 2 and the next year K,1,2,3 and 6,7,8,9,10,11). The bill will also increase academic transparency and improve administration of the program.

Governor Doug Ducey’s stalwart support of expanding options proved crucial to this victory. Huge kudos to the bill sponsor Senator Lesko and Rep. Allen as well as the members who took a tough vote in the face of determined opposition. Groups including the American Federation for Children, Americans for Prosperity Arizona, the Arizona Catholic Conference, the Arizona Chamber, the Center for Arizona Policy, Ed Choice, Excel in Ed and the Goldwater Institute all made vital contributions. Senator Worsley also deserves recognition as someone who played the role of honest broker in crafting a compromise that a winning coalition in each chamber supported. We’d all like to live in a world where there was no need to compromise, but that world is not the one we find ourselves in.

The Census Bureau recently announced that Maricopa County (Phoenix metro) as the fastest growing county in the nation-nudging out the Houston area. Enrollment growth is firing up again and the expanded ESA will give parents a broadening array of private educational choices to consider in what is already a robust public choice market. ESAs are an unfolding experiment in liberty, and future legislatures will debate further refinements and improvements, but this is the first big private choice victory of 2017, so…

Trent Franks, Other Arizona Conservatives Need to Keep Healthcare Promises

By Sam Stone

The Trump Administration may be less than two months old, but for conservatives, it may already be D-Day in Washington.

In less than 48 hours, the House of Representatives is set to vote on the curiously named “American Health Care Act” – the current GOP effort being pushed by Speaker Paul Ryan as a repeal and replacement of Obamacare.

This bill is the wrong idea at the wrong time and it does not deserve a “yes” vote. Right now, the count says that it’s too close to call. So every member of Congress counts.

Here’s our question: Will Trent keep his promise to repeal and replace Obamacare in a responsible way?

Let’s step back.

Trent Franks is no rookie when it comes to opposing Obamacare. Look at his record here. Lots of detail and votes against what he consistently calls: “Health care proposals that wrested control of the American health care industry from the hands of private organizations and turn it over to the federal government.”

Right when this year’s Congress began, Franks and Congressman Andy Biggs introduced the Protection from Obamacare Mandates and Congressional Equity Act.

Franks said it contained three bedrock principles:

  • First, it gives every American more coverage options.
  • Second, it would allow Americans to purchase their coverage across state lines, opening up more opportunities for competition that will, in turn, help to lower costs for consumers.
  • Third, our alternative protects the patient-doctor relationship.

Just a month ago, Rep. Franks said: “My concern is [a repeal-replace bill] will give some lackadaisical senator a reason to vote against it. My concern is the entire repeal is in mortal danger … There may be some people who will get weak-kneed.”

These are valid concerns, but they sound like reasons not to vote for the current plan, which has all sorts of problems.

The reliable conservative policy think tank Heritage Action makes the fundamental case that the AHCA falls short:

“Many Americans seeking health insurance on the individual market will notice no significant difference between the Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare) and the American Health Care Act.  That is bad politics and, more importantly, bad policy.

“Rather than accept the flawed premises of Obamacare, congressional Republicans should fully repeal the failed law and begin a genuine effort to deliver on longstanding campaign promises that create a free market health care system that empowers patients and doctors.”

Congressman Franks is a solid conservative leader. Currently, he is listed as “leaning no.” That’s why this is the ideal time to give him the support, encouragement and, well, cautionary warning he may need to stay true to his principles and his promises by not resting until Obamacare is gone – and in its place a true, principled alternative – instead of Obamacare-lite.

House Democrats Oppose Effort to Prohibit Public Money from Going to Political Parties

STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX – The House of Representatives today failed to pass HB 2403, legislation sponsored by Representative Coleman which would prohibit Clean Elections candidates from contributing public funds to political parties.

Doug Coleman

Rep Doug Coleman

While a majority of House members supported HB 2403, it failed to achieve support from three-fourths of the body, which is required to amend statutes created through the initiative process.  Republicans overwhelmingly supported the measure, but Democrats opposed it.

“Clean Elections candidates are supposed to use public money to run for office, not to line the coffers of their political party,” said Representative Coleman.  “This is an abusive manipulation of the Clean Elections system and violates the trust of Arizona voters, yet Democrats would apparently rather protect the interests of their political party than taxpayers.”

Jonathan Lines Announces Support for AG Brnovich Office to Protect 2nd Amendment

 

Candidate for AZGOP Chairman Supports Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s Repeal of Tucson Gun Ordinance

Jonathan Lines

Jonathan Lines

PHOENIX​ — Today, Jonathan Lines, a candidate for the Chairmanship of the Arizona Republican Party announced his support for Arizona’s Attorney General Mark Brnovich and the Attorney General’s Office. This week, Attorney General Brnovich filed a petition to repeal Tucson’s unlawful gun ordinance. State law prohibits the government from destroying firearms, which the City of Tucson instructed its police officers to do upon seizing firearms.

According to SB 1487, if an Attorney General finds a local government violating the constitution or state law, the Attorney General is then required to file a Petition for Special Action. Representative Mark Finchem submitted the request to have an investigation into the City of Tucson’s gun ordinance.

“I wholeheartedly support Attorney General Brnovich’s petition that asks the Arizona Supreme Court to rule on Tucson’s illegal gun ordinance,” said Lines. “As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, I find the City of Tucson’s actions reprehensible and view it as an attack on our constitutionally protected freedom. However, this is a broader issue than an attack on the Second Amendment: this is an encroachment on our personal freedoms by the government. A bloated government — especially one that oversteps its boundaries — is dangerous to any democracy.

“I am thankful that we have strong, principled conservative leaders in our state, like Mark Brnovich, who will stand up to unlawful abuses of power and personal or political agendas.”

###

The election of a new AZGOP Chairman will take place on January 28th at the Statutory Meeting and will be voted on by newly elected State Committeeman from every district or county committee.

For more information about Jonathan Lines, go to www.linesforazgop.com.

Arizona AFP: LAST CALL: RSVP for Friday’s Celebration!

We are excited to celebrate YOU this Friday.

Arizona AFP

This is the last call to attend our Liberty Celebration, this Friday, December 9, to celebrate your legislative and policy victories for 2016. We would love for you to join us.

RSVP as soon as possible for our Liberty Celebration as seats are limited!

Where:  Christ Church Lutheran, Arizona Room
3901 E Indian School Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85018

When: 6:00pm to 8:00pm

Why: Americans for Prosperity Arizona will be honoring our top activists-America’s freedom fighters and our friends! We will also honor legislators and local government officials with the designation of Friend of the Taxpayer of higher on our annual scorecards (Legislative Scorecard and Local Government Scorecard).

Dinner and drinks will be provided.

AFP across the United States contacted 30 million Americans at the phone and the door – that’s 10% of the entire country! All told, AFP advocated against Senate candidates in eight states. All but one of those candidates were defeated. That’s something to celebrate! We will giving each of our top winners a prized jackalope.*

Please RSVP and come celebrate YOUR efforts for promoting liberty and prosperity for all Arizonans!

For Liberty & Prosperity,

Tom Jenney
Arizona Director
Americans for Prosperity Arizona

*Think that jackalopes do not exist? Well, that’s how a lot of taxpayers feel when we tell them that there are pro-taxpayer elected officials and local activists. But they really do exist! And we plan to honor them on Friday, December 9th. Please join us!

Republicans Waging War In LD-28 – Against Fellow Republicans

Plenty of drama continues to unfold in Arizona’s 28th legislative district.

This time, Republican candidate Matt Morales delivers a robodial urging voters to only vote for Republican Mary Hamway.

There are two Republican candidates running against one Democrat in LD-28. Two seats, three candidates, two Republicans, one Democrat.

This should be easy.

But not in LD-28 where warring Republicans are urging a single-shot strategy because they assume a Democrat will win. It’s a complete rollover.

Now Matt Morales is a friend of ours but we cannot understand why he’s wrapped up in this every-woman-for-herself election strategy, especially if he plans to run for

Republicans should be holding tight and voting THE REPUBLICAN TEAM in LD-28 and not assuming the Democrat is going to win. These are real votes when it comes to passing a Republican agenda in the House. Every Republican vote helps.

Our reality is that we’re not big fans of Mary Hamway but when House leadership needs an “R,” they’re not gonna find it in a Kelli Butler.”

Republicans can elect center-right Republican Maria Syms and moderate Republican Mary Hamway in LD-28; Or, they can elect a Republican and a leftist Democrat to those two House seats. The result will be an easier legislative path or a harder legislative path. That’s the end game.

Our recommendation: More Republicans, less drama please.

 

Rep Kelly Townsend Releases Open Email to District PC’s

Sonoran Alliance obtained a copy of an email that is currently circulating among Maricopa County Republican Precinct Committeemen. The email is a personal and heartfelt defense and revelation of the difficulty she has had working with the President of the State Senate, Andy Biggs.

Sonoran Alliance has redacted certain personal information from the email.

================

It is with a heavy heart that I write this email to you this morning.  There is so much I could say to you but I will choose to keep everything to just facts to keep it as short as possible. If there is anything you need clarification on, please send me a message and I can expound on the fact in question.
Last night, Andy Biggs was a guest speaker at the LD meeting. Only a handful of you were there because most were home watching the convention and acceptance speech.  However, there were enough people in attendance that what was said about me by Mr. Biggs, and the chairman’s subsequent reaction, need to be addressed.  I was accused of “threatening Mr. Bigg’s family” and Dennis Brimhall, a supporter of Andy Biggs, refused to allow me to defend myself and threatened to have me forcibly removed.
At issue:
I recently was asked to go on Sunday Square off and describe why I regretted my vote to limit TANF to one year of lifetime eligibility for needy families.  To truly explain it, I would need a two hour show and I only had minutes.  What I did say was that I regret it and last year’s decision was in part because of how I had been “conditioned” by Andy Biggs to not oppose him or I would face the consequences.  Here is why:
  •     In 2013, I went on the radio to discuss the child bride situation in Colorado City, where the police would return a 12 year old runaway to her abuser rather than hold that abuser accountable.  I was asked on radio why people turn a blind eye to the situation, which I answered that although I couldn’t turn a blind I, I pledged to do everything I could to fight pedophilia wherever I could.  I hung up and cried due to the disturbing content of the conversation, and meanwhile the radio host subsequently began to bring up Andy Bigg’s blocking of a Michelle Ugenti bill that would have allowed for sanctioning of that police department. I knew that he might think I was participating in that part of the conversation, so I immediately began to reach out to him to explain I was only talking about child brides.  He didn’t answer so I left a phone message.  After no personal communication, I began asking for a meeting at work.  I sent several emails, as did my assistant, none of which were returned.  The rest of my bills died that session.  I finally asked him if he would speak to me at the end of session, and he agreed and admitted he was angry at me and said I should have never gone on the radio to discuss the issue in the first place.  I told him that I had thick skin and if there was something I did wrong, as Senate President he should sit me down and talk about it, not stonewall me.
  • Although it was very upsetting that Andy Biggs did not allow Rep. Ugenti’s bill to go forward, I had hoped that he would offer an alternative solution to the police scandal in Colorado City.  The following year I saw no such solution.  Instead, all of my bills that went out of the House were not assigned to committee for a great length of time.  I had to call the Speaker-Pro-tem and tell him I was “off the budget” meaning I would vote no on any budget bill until after my bills had been assigned.  I had learned from the previous year that the “stall to kill” tactic could be used to delay the bill from getting through the process in time before the budget was complete and we closed session.  We were in budget negotiations and would close session any day and my bills had yet to be assigned.  I knew at that point I was being punished once again. I wasn’t sure if it was because I spoke out against pedophilia or if this time it was to punish me for my Convention of States bill that he didn’t like.  He claimed last night to only have blocked 5 of my 60 bills.  Although that may be the hard fact, the sad fact is I had to resort to counter tactics each subsequent year to avoid being punished again.  Something I never thought I would have to do within my own party, with someone who was once my #1 political hero.
  • Later that year, his [REDACTED] began sending me Facebook messages asking for money over the course of 6 months, along with asking for advice about a suspected pregnancy.  I am a doula and we were Facebook friends so I suppose [REDACTED] thought I would be helpful.  It was Christmastime and I didn’t have extra funds.  I was asked for food money, for money to keep [REDACTED] phone on, money for various other needs.  I was confused because I thought [REDACTED] had won the publisher’s clearing house, and I also thought he believed that family should help the needy, not the government.  I was dismayed when [REDACTED] told me [REDACTED] had been on food stamps for two years because he wouldn’t help [REDACTED].  Not that I judged [REDACTED] for that, but because he would often scoff at people for “drinking from the public trough” as he always put it.
  • I began to see an incredible level of hypocrisy from a man who was punishing me for wanting to stop pedophiles.  I decided it was time to send him a text and tell him that it was inappropriate for his [REDACTED] to be asking me for money and that it should be he who was taking care of his pregnant [REDACTED]. He returned the email telling me to stay out of it.  Soon thereafter, I received a new message from his [REDACTED] excited that he was buying [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] new [REDACTED] a house.  Relieved, I agreed to see the photo of it.  I was shocked to find a photo of a garden shed with a porch on it.  No running water, one room. [REDACTED] was asking me if it was legal to put it on her mother-in-law’s back yard without a permit and I advised [REDACTED] that as a pregnant mom, she should be in a house with running water.
  • At this point, I was horrified and didn’t know what to think.  I stopped corresponding with [REDACTED] because I knew it would only lead to disaster, which it did.  Shortly thereafter we had to vote on the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).  I was so appalled that there was the argument that families and church should be the ones taking care of their own, not government and all the while I was being asked by this person’s [REDACTED] to support [REDACTED] when he was the millionaire.  It was almost too much to bear at this point.  I took a long time deciding how to vote, and I chose to vote yes on his bill as a Conservative.  But it wasn’t without tears, it wasn’t without feeling horrible and full of questions about rhetoric that really isn’t meaningful when you don’t put your money where your mouth is.  And yes, I partly chose to vote yes because I didn’t want all my hard work going down the drain again next year due to the stall and kill tactic.
There is so much more I could tell you folks, but I will leave it at this to explain to you that I never once threatened his family.  I said that I would bring this to light because it was important for voters to know that things aren’t always as they seem.  As someone who has had to work with hundreds of molested mothers in childbirth and watch the anguish they go through as they deal with their past during that most vulnerable time, as someone who has had this issue strike too close to home, it has become impossible for me to remain quiet about these issues.  I have been told to keep my mouth shut and just take the high road.  Folks, this is too serious.  I was accused of many things last night, and our chairman refused to allow me to defend myself and was threatened.
I am angry.  I am angry at him for allowing the problem in Colorado City to continue, and I am angry that Rep. Ugenti and myself have suffered the consequences ever since for speaking out.  I am about the truth, and at this point, because Mr. Biggs brought it up at the LD meeting and I was not allowed to defend myself, I must send you this most unsavory email.  I have been quiet for four years.  That is long enough.  For the sake of sexually abused men and women everywhere, I tell you the truth this morning, and let the chips fall where they may.
Should you desire confirmation of any of this, I do have the screenshots of the Facebook confirmation. 
Brokenhearted and mad as heck,
Kelly Townsend

State Rep Kelly Townsend: Sen Andy Biggs’ Leadership Style Punitive

Yesterday, State Representative Kelly Townsend revealed a dark side of Senate President Andy Biggs. During a guest opinion on Sunday Square Off, the two-term legislator from Arizona Legislative District 16 disclosed that Biggs’ leadership style was to punish lawmakers who refused to get in line with his political agenda and leadership.

Townsend tied the comments to her 2015 House vote in which the legislature voted to limit Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) – a vote she regrets. Townsend herself, is a widow with children representing a district adjacent to the district represented by Biggs.

In her comments, she stated, “I think it’s important to remember whose bill this was. This was our senate president’s bill. Part of that decision is the fact that [Biggs] has very well trained us. He’s punitive in his nature, and if we didn’t follow along, we would suffer the consequences.”

The interview, which is posted on the 12 News website, also posted the following comments:

When pressed further about her disagreements with Biggs, Townsend accused the 14-year state legislator and current congressional candidate of fostering a culture at the state capitol she described as “a heavy-handed, top down, ramming things through in the middle of the night approach.”

“It is a culture many of us are trying to change,” Townsend said.

The article continues:

Townsend also accused Biggs of refusing to communicate with her and preventing bills she sponsored from progressing through the legislature for two years. Townsend said she believed Biggs’ actions were payback because she gave a radio interview in support of a bill Biggs opposed in 2013.

“[In 2013] He would refuse to meet with me. He didn’t answer any of my calls or texts. He killed all my bills. Finally I cornered him and asked for a conversation, and he said I should have never called into the radio station in the first place to talk about that bill,” Townsend said. “When it comes to leadership, Biggs, I don’t know he knew how to be a leader. Anyone can be punitive and act like that. But in terms of being a leader, it takes more than just being a jerk.”

This revelation draws into question Biggs’ temperament and leadership style as the potential nominee for Arizona’s 5th Congressional District.

Biggs’ spokesman, Adam Deguire, the former Chief of Staff to Congressman Matt Salmon who is now part of the political hand-off arrangement between Salmon and Biggs, acknowledged Biggs’ unpopularity with the mainstream media on issues such as TANF.

Senator Andy Biggs has not made an appearance on Sunday Square Off since February 27, 2011 and failed to show up last week for a debate on KAET’s Horizon.

Here is the video clip from Sunday Square Off: