A Chippewa Falls attorney who is a key player in a movement to take the impossible step of decertifying the 2020 election is running for attorney general on a platform of using the office to prosecute doctors who did not administer the anti-parasite drug ivermectin to dying COVID-19 patients and instead gave them other treatments.
Mueller said in an interview she is launching a campaign in order to investigate six Wisconsin hospitals for their doctors’ decisions to not administer ivermectin to COVID-19 patients. She would not disclose the names of the hospitals or reveal details of her allegations.
Mueller said the CDC and FDA are “liars” and that families have called her “begging for help, trying to figure out what to do because their loved ones were in hospitals and the families believed that those loved ones were basically being murdered. And they had the drugs withheld from them.”
“I am running for attorney general because of potential homicides in hospitals, because of vaccines — so-called vaccines,” she said.
Mueller, who said she took ivermectin last year while infected with COVID-19, said she did not consult a doctor or scientist to analyze whether the deaths or illnesses could have been prevented by the drug that doctors and researchers say has not been proven to be effective against the coronavirus. She said a trial would root out the facts of the situation.
Patrick Remington, director of the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Preventive Medicine Residency Program, said doctors who do not prescribe ivermectin to COVID-19 patients are upholding the Hippocratic oath to do no harm to patients by making decisions according to the consensus of available credible medical research.
“We strive to get it right. We do the best job we can to do no harm, and this is an example that would be unthinkable to me to ask a physician to prescribe a medicine that is at best ineffective and at worst harmful,” Remington said.
“There are valid debates about the best ways to treat serious illnesses and science is iterative, that as we go along we learn by experimentation, we learn by carefully conducted research,” he said.
“Ivermectin has undergone that scrutiny from early anecdotal evidence that it might be effective to well-conducted scientific studies that show that not only is it not effective but it can be harmful, and no credible medical organization or professional organization recommends it,” Remington said.
A large clinical trial published Wednesday involving about 3,500 people infected with COVID-19 showed ivermectin did not lower the incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of COVID-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis.
The study compared about 1,300 people in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo. The rest received a different treatment.
Retail prescriptions for ivermectin surged in late 2020 before vaccines were widely available and after a catastrophic surge of COVID-19 cases. In December 2020, U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson held a Senate hearing in which physician witnesses touted the drug as a COVID treatment and claimed positive research about ivermectin was being ignored.
Pierre Kory, a Wisconsin physician and one of ivermectin’s most vociferous promoters, testified at Johnson’s hearing that if people took the drug they would not get sick. Eight months later, despite taking ivermectin weekly, Kory came down with COVID-19.
Mueller cites Kory’s opinion in her effort to pursue civil penalties, and if elected, criminal charges against doctors who have refused to prescribe the drug in cases where patients died.
“What I would do if I became attorney general is I would open investigations into those deaths and if the facts were substantiated, I would probably bring charges against the people that were responsible for this,” Mueller said.
She said she is working on a civil lawsuit against multiple health care systems with multiple plaintiffs but declined to disclose details.
In October, Mueller represented the family of a Waukesha County man who was infected with COVID-19 in their pursuit of an order forcing Aurora Health Care officials to honor a prescription for ivermectin written by a doctor not authorized to practice medicine at the Aurora hospital where the man was in a drug-induced coma and breathing with a ventilator.
Asked Supreme Court to invalidate the 2020 election
In November 2020, Mueller asked the state Supreme Court to throw out the results of the presidential election because the use of ballot drop boxes were illegal, in her view.
The court rejected the petition from Mueller but in a recent ruling barred the use of drop boxes in the April 5 and subsequent elections because state law is silent on whether they are allowed. A final ruling is pending.
Mueller said she is running because she has not seen enough interest from the other Republican candidates — former state Rep. Adam Jarchow and Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney — in COVID-19 and election issues. She said Attorney General Josh Kaul, the Democratic incumbent, should investigate doctors’ decisions surrounding COVID-19 infections.
Kaul and Toney declined to comment. Jarchow did not respond to a request for comment.
Republican lawmaker tweeted about repealing Reedy Creek act after company denounced ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
Republican lawmaker tweeted about repealing Reedy Creek act after company denounced ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. – The Reedy Creek Improvement District—created by state lawmakers in 1967—acts as Walt Disney World’s own government with two cities and land in Orange and Osceola counties.
“In effect, they’re their own city out there. They can zone the way they want. They can do things the way they want. They can even build a nuclear power plant if they want,” News 6 political analyst Jim Clark said.
Those rights are now being discussed among some Florida lawmakers who are thinking about repealing the Reedy Creek Improvement Act of 1967.
“I think that this is a feud that is escalating into a war between Florida Republicans and the Disney corporation which is the largest single-site employer in Florida,” Clark said.
The law — which has been the subject of controversy, sparking protests around Walt Disney World after the company did not initially publicly condemn it — bans discussions on sexual identity in Florida classrooms in kindergarten through third grade and requires such conversations to be “age-appropriate” in successive grades, though the law does not define “age-appropriate.”
“For Disney to come out and put a statement and say that the bill should have never passed and that they are going to actively work to repeal it, I think, one was fundamentally dishonest but, two I think that crossed the line,” DeSantis said Tuesday.
This response came a day before Florida House Rep. Spencer Roach tweeted that legislators held two meetings in the past week to discuss repealing the 1967 Reedy Creek Improvement Act.
“Disney has been extremely generous with Republican politicians in Florida. They give about $200,000 a year, including $12,000 to the state representative who is stirring this up,” Clark told News 6. “It would be a disaster for Disney. One of the reasons they came here in the mid-60s was the legislature’s promise that they could have self-government.”
Richard Foglesong, a retired Rollins College political science professor and the author of Married to the Mouse, said he believes talks of revoking the act is just a way of the Republican party showing what they stand for, but no real change will come out of those discussions.
“If you ask me whether it’s politically possible to take these privileges away from the Disney company, I don’t think so,” Foglesong said. “I think that cooler minds will prevail and that this is really a shot across the bow to try to bring the Disney company, Mickey Mouse if you will, into line with Governor DeSantis. I thought it was more of March Madness of the political kind, the thought that the Republican Party, which used to be the party of business, would want to take on of their biggest donors.”
News 6 reached out to Reedy Creek Improvement District and its spokesperson responded they have no comment at this time. A request for an interview with Rep. Spencer Roach was forwarded to his office but they have not yet replied.
Is this part of the cancel culture of the libs that the right wing keeps claiming exists. Because it seems to me the ones doing all the canceling of people is the right / Republican thugs.
The anti-parasitic drug ivermectin, which has surged in popularity as an alternative treatment for Covid-19 despite a lack of strong research to back it up, showed no sign of alleviating the disease, according to results of a large clinical trial published on Wednesday.
The study, which compared more than 1,300 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo, effectively ruled out the drug as a treatment for Covid, the study’s authors said.
Ivermectin’s popularity continued to climb in the pandemic’s second year. The podcaster Joe Rogan promoted it repeatedly on his shows. In a single week in August, U.S. insurance companies spent $2.4 million paying for ivermectin treatments
Breaking News: Ivermectin failed as a Covid treatment, a large clinical trial found. The drug surged in popularity despite no strong evidence that it worked. https://t.co/mvTqgZ5DR8
The guys who think everything is a conspiracy theory fell for the dopiest conspiracy theory of the century. Congrats to whoever decided to trick Facebook addicts and Rogan fans into taking recreational horse dewormer. https://t.co/UPDZQ5HNpL
So if a doctor doesn’t want to treat colored folk that would be OK. What about the people with red hair because they are icky folk? When does the right of quality healthcare take a back seat to bigotry? Oh yes when it is Christians needed to discriminate so they demand the right to refuse to help / treat a patient in medical need. God before helping the sick and caring for the needy, was that what old Jesus said? See if they are of the right political party and follow your church doctrines before you give medical aid was a verse I never learned was in the bible.
South Carolina lawmakers on Friday passed a bill allowing medical professionals and insurance companies to deny care based on personal belief. Some say the legislation, which now heads to the state Senate for consideration, would disproportionately impact LGBTQ+ people, women, and people of color.
Under the bill, titled the “Medical Ethics and Diversity Act,” South Carolina law would be altered to excuse medical practitioners, health care institutions and health care payers from providing care that violates their “conscience.”
Dozens of state residents in February testified against the bill, calling it vague and overbroad. They also shared concerns that the legislation would disproportionately impact marginalized communities.
HB 4776 allows healthcare institutions to refuse to provide care, even when it is medically necessary and in the best interest of the patient. Under this legislation, healthcare institutions will be able to refuse to refer, teach, and research any items they deem to be against their beliefs.
These bills will impact access to gender-affirming care, contraceptives, HIV medications, fertility care, end of life care, and mental health services, as well as allow insurance companies and employers to refuse to reimburse, pay, or contract for medically necessary services.
Religious freedom is a fundamental American value that is entirely compatible with providing quality, non-discriminatory healthcare. It is not a license to deprive others of their rights simply because of personal beliefs.
This bill sends the message that those seeking medical care in conflict with their doctor’s non-medical values are not equal members of society entitled to dignity and respect.
The South Carolina House passed a bill that would allow medical professionals, healthcare institutions, and insurers to deny access to gender-affirming care, contraceptives, HIV medications and more.
The North Carolina Republican claimed in a podcast that colleagues were using cocaine and inviting him to orgies.
Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Fla., on Feb. 26, 2021.Octavio Jones / Reuters file
By Zoë Richards
Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., broke his silence Friday after days of GOP uproar over his remarks on a podcast claiming congressional colleagues were using drugs and inviting him to sex parties.
But in a lengthy statement, Cawthorn attempted to distance himself from his own comments by suggesting it was Democrats and the media that made the allegations about cocaine use and orgies.
“My comments on a recent podcast appearance calling out corruption have been used by the left and the media to disparage my Republican colleagues and falsely insinuate their involvement in illicit activities,” he said in statement posted to Twitter.
On the podcast, Cawthorn discussed “the sexual perversion that goes on in Washington” and said some of his older colleagues had invited him to orgies.
“I mean, being kind of a young guy in Washington, where the average age is probably 60 to 70, and I look at all these people, a lot of them that I’ve looked up to through my life — I’ve always paid attention to politics — then all of a sudden you get invited,” Cawthorn said, quoting one such alleged exchange.
“‘Oh, hey, we’re going to have kind of a sexual get-together at one of our homes. You should come.’ I’m like, ‘What did you just ask me to come to?’ Then you realize they’re asking you to come to an orgy,” Cawthorn, 26, said.
The first-term lawmaker also described drug use in his presence. “The fact there are some of the people leading on the movement to try and remove addiction in our country, and then you watch them do a key bump of cocaine right in front of you. And you’re like, ‘This is wild.’”
The GOP outrage over Cawthorn’s remarks was widespread in Washington.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said Wednesday he told Cawthorn that “I lost my trust in him” and that there “could be” consequences as a result, without specifying what those consequences might be.
In Friday’s statement, Cawthorn invoked McCarthy’s name.
“The left and the media want to use my words to divide the GOP. They are terrified of Republicans taking back the House and seeing Leader McCarthy become Speaker McCarthy,” Cawthorn said.
His statement was ridiculed by some Democratic lawmakers. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., tweeted that voters face a choice between “cocaine or competence” in November.
On Thursday, Cawthorn released a 30-second ad targeting Democrats, with an accompanying Twitter post saying “the entire left-wing establishment” was trying to “take him down.” There was no mention of his podcast remarks in the ad.
Cawthorn’s latest controversy came on the heels of other comments that riled his GOP colleagues. After Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a bloody invasion of Ukraine last month, Cawthorn called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a “thug.”
But Cawthorn has a strong political ally in former President Donald Trump, the party’s de facto leader. Cawthorn spoke at the Jan. 6 rally before the riot at the U.S. Capitol, and he is expected to speak at a rally with Trump next week in North Carolina.
‘The anointment of God’: Rep. Boebert’s July 4 rally speech was filled with Christian nationalism
Right-wing QAnon conspiracy theorist and United States Representative Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) on Friday asked the Twitter audience to explain to her why the law does not “require” LGBTQ+ Americans to wait until they are 21 years old to come out.
Boebert, a radically socially conservative high-school dropout who supports unfettered access to firearms, drew absurd parallels between LGBTQ+ identity struggles and established legal limitations on who can buy “alcohol beverages” and cigarettes. She also stated that sexuality is a choice, which it is not.
“We require people to be 21 to purchase alcohol beverages, and 21 to purchase tobacco products. Why is it so unreasonable to require people to reach a certain level of maturity before making life-altering decisions about their sexuality and identity?” Boebert posited.
We require people to be 21 to purchase alcohol beverages, and 21 to purchase tobacco products.
Why is it so unreasonable to require people to reach a certain level of maturity before making life-altering decisions about their sexuality and identity?
The brutal responses that Boebert received were probably the opposite of what she had anticipated. Or maybe she just wanted to stir the pot. If so, mission accomplished.
Users tore into the freshman lawmaker’s disjointed bigotry.
Why is it unreasonable to ask people to wear a mask in public during a pandemic?
— Lara reads banned books in Florida📚🇺🇸 (@MadeInTheUSANJ) April 1, 2022
Interesting! Why is it reasonable that 16/17yr olds can acquire semi automatic weapons that could make them a potential mass shooter or mass murderer. They have not reached a certain level of maturity either (some never will) & that is surely a potential life altering choice! https://t.co/TFxBgtGl8b
• Must be 21 to purchase alcohol beverages • Must be 21 to purchase tobacco products • Must be 21 to decide sexuality and identity BUT⬇️ • Can be ANY age with ANY background and can buy ANY type of gun without question
You married a guy who exposed himself to minors. Your decision-making skills haven't improved since then.
Why is it so unreasonable to require representatives to have a certain level of morality before making society altering decisions about anything at all?
— Frank Wears A Mask (@Frankwearsamask) April 1, 2022
The stream of antiwar letters to a St. Petersburg lawmaker has dried up. Some Russians who had criticized the Kremlin have turned into cheerleaders for the war. Those who publicly oppose it have found the word “traitor” scrawled on their apartment door.
Polls and interviews show that many Russians now accept Mr. Putin’s contention that their country is under siege from the West and had no choice but to attack. The war’s opponents are leaving the country or keeping quiet.
Polls released this week by Russia’s most respected independent pollster, Levada, showed Mr. Putin’s approval rating hitting 83 percent, up from 69 percent in January. Eighty-one percent said they supported the war, describing the need to protect Russian speakers as its primary justification.
Please note what state control of the media can do and how it sways the public perceptions. Fox news, Alex Jones, Newsmax, Breitbart and a couple more are doing that in our country. It is all propaganda at all times. If we don’t get a handle on it soon we will be back 100 years in to the past with a country run by corporations and a starving population desperately trying to make it another day with no rights or protections by the government.
The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is looking into the internationally known televangelist Perry Stone nearly two years after allegations of sexual harassment and assault surfaced against the Cleveland, Tennessee-based faith leader.
The TBI has interviewed at least five people who claim to be victims or who are connected to Stone’s ministry, according to three people who were present for the conversations.
The state’s investigative agency is in possession of a list of at least nine alleged victims as well, according to a recording of a phone conversation obtained by the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
PREVIOUSLY ON JMG: Perry Stone says God personally told him that the COVID pandemic is punishment for the legalization of same-sex marriage. Perry Stone says it’s not a coincidence that God sent the most coronovirus cases to blue states. Perry Stone checks his text messages while speaking in tongues. Perry Stone warns that he will have God strike down those who dare to criticize Trump. Perry Stone declares that the “pro-gay Donkey Party” will bring about the destruction of America.
The TBI has interviewed at least 5 people who claim to be victims or who are connected to Perry Stone's ministry. The state's investigative agency is in possession of a list of at least nine alleged victims as well.https://t.co/vGj3wuQxDQ
The hypocrisy here is painful to see. McConnell has no problem with outright lying and contradicting what he said only a short time ago. He is all about getting, keeping, and increasing the right wing power and control over the Supreme Court. He has admitted that. He said that control of the congress changes frequently back and forth but control of the courts is for decades. He voted for Judge Jackson last year. What has changed? The position she is up for is the top court that right now is approving or disapproving laws based on the outcome they want, not the constitution and legal structure of the US say is correct. Many of the right wingers on the court are getting very old. Thomas was recently in the hospital for an unknown length of time. They don’t want anyone on the court who is not a right wing ideolog.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is putting public and private pressure on Senate Republican colleagues to oppose President Biden’s nominee to the Supreme Court, despite the historic nature of her nomination to be the first Black woman on the court.
McConnell has dug in against Biden’s nominee, arguing the vote isn’t about “race or gender” but about Jackson’s record, which he says is too soft on crime and indicates she’ll likely turn into an activist judge on the bench.
McConnell made an impassioned plea at a recent Senate GOP lunch for his colleagues oppose Biden’s choice, according to senators who attended the meeting.
One Republican senator said McConnell leaned in hard on Jackson’s nomination.
“He sought recognition and said, ‘I just want to thank the members of the Judiciary Committee for the great work they’ve done in exposing this judge’s radical record and in particular her record on child pornography cases are alarmingly extreme,’” the source said, recounting McConnell’s message to the conference.
McConnell talked about Jackson’s record in detail, including her decision to give one offender, Wesley Hawkins, a three-month sentence when federal prosecutors asked for him to be sent to prison for two years.
McConnell said, “I think the Democrats thought this would be an easy process, confirmation but it’s not going to be because she’s a radical nominee and I would hope that every Republican would look seriously at her record, which I think is troubling.”
The message is putting pressure on GOP swing voters such as Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Mitt Romney (Utah) to toe the party line and vote “no.”
Murkowski was present at the meeting where McConnell delivered his comments about the nominee but didn’t say anything. The Alaska Republican who is up for re-election this year and faces a Republican primary challenger also declined to comment about Jackson when asked about it by reporters on Tuesday and Thursday.
Romney says he still has to dig deeper into Jackson’s record before announcing his decision.
He said he “enjoyed” meeting with her Tuesday and said “her dedication to public service and her family are obvious.”
Republican strategists and longtime observers of McConnell’s leadership style say he views a unified Republican vote against Jackson as good politics heading into the midterm election and good for his own standing within the Senate GOP conference, which he plans to lead again in 2023 and 2024.
Scott Jennings, a Kentucky-based GOP strategist who has advised McConnell’s past campaigns, said Biden’s nomination of Jackson “fits into the overall the Democrats are soft on crime and criminals and Republicans aren’t.”
“That is going to be a big narrative in this campaign. You’ve already seen that,” he added. “Any time you can throw another piece of evidence on that, I do think it furthers that narrative.”
Republican aides say Jackson’s record in sentencing child pornography offenders will be a tough one for vulnerable Democrats such as Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) to defend on the campaign trail later this year.
The more Republicans that vote this week for Jackson, the more political cover it gives to Democrats on the campaign trail.
So far, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who represents a state that Biden won by nine points, is the only Republican who has said she will vote to confirm Jackson.
Democrats have pushed back against this criticism. The argue that Republicans have taken Jackson’s sentencing decisions in seven child pornography cases out of context by harping on the fact that she handed out prison terms below what federal prosecutors demanded and below the advisory guidelines.
Democrats say that Jackson is one of many federal judges who view the federal advisory guidelines as out of date and in need of updating since they were established in 2003 with the Protect Act because Internet use became more prevalent.
Al Cross, a professor of journalism at the University of Kentucky and a longtime commentator on Kentucky politics, says McConnell likely sees a good opportunity to stand with some of the rising young conservatives in his conference, such as Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas), with whom he clashed over their efforts to halt the certification of Biden’s election victory on Jan. 6.
“Once Cruz and the others made this a big issue, it gave McConnell and opportunity to practice some solidarity with his caucus,” he said.
“He’s in a difficult position. He’s got to deal with Trumpers, he’s got to keep the caucus together and any time the caucus can find something to essentially agree on, then that’s probably a good thing for his leadership of the caucus,” he added.
Cross noted that McConnell is known to view “the unity of the caucus as a prime directive.”
“I can’t imagine he really believes her judgment in these child porn cases is a disqualifier to be on the Supreme Court but once its been such an issue in conservative media, then it takes on a life of its own,” he said.
McConnell has come out strongly against Jackson in his public statements, as well.
“She has a particularly curious view about certain kinds of criminal behavior, in this particular case, people who distributed child pornography,” McConnell told Fox News’ Shannon Bream. “She’s a judicial activist. She’s very smart, she’s very capable. She’s going to be exactly what President Biden wants: A very liberal Supreme Court justice.
McConnell dismissed the publicly lobbying of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) who has called on his GOP colleagues to recognize “the historic significance of this nomination” and stressed the importance of Abraham Lincoln’s party, “the grand old party” is “on board.”
“The Democrats want to make this confirmation about race or gender. We don’t look at judges that way,” he said. “Most all Republicans believe in what’s called a strict construction, that is judges who make their very best effort as [late] Justice [Antonin] Scalia put it to follow the law.”
Jennings, the GOP strategist who has advised McConnell, said Jackson’s refusal to express her opinion about adding more justices to the Supreme Court was a big red flag for the leader.
“He’s extremely worried about left-wing, progressive attacks on the institution” of the court, he said. “When she would not take the Ginsburg, Breyer line on keeping the Supreme Court at nine, it was as signal to him that she’s pretty beholden to the liberal allies who have been the very people calling for court packing.”
McConnell in recent days has repeatedly raised his concerns about Jackson’s refusal to take the same public stance as late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer against expanding the court.
FILE — Arizona Republican Gov. Doug Ducey gives his state of the state address at the Arizona Capitol, Monday, Jan. 10, 2022, in Phoenix. Governor Ducey signed a series of bills Wednesday, March 30, targeting abortion and transgender rights, joining a growing list of GOP-led states pursuing a conservative social agenda. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File)
FILE — A number of Arizona reproductive health, rights, and justice advocates protest an abortion bill at the Arizona Capitol Monday, April 26, 2021, in Phoenix. Arizona governor Doug Ducey signed a series of bills Wednesday, March 30, targeting abortion and transgender rights, joining a growing list of GOP-led states pursuing a conservative social agenda. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File)
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey refused to say Thursday if transgender people actually exist, twice dodging direct questions on the subject just a day after he signed legislation limiting transgender rights.
The Republican worked instead to defend his signatures on bills that bar transgender girls and women from playing on girls high school and women’s college sports teams and barring gender affirming surgery for anyone under age 18.
When specifically asked if he believed that there “are really transgender people,” the governor paused for several seconds before answering.
“I’m going to ask you to read the legislation and to see that the legislation that we passed was in the spirit of fairness to protect girls sports in competitive situations,” Ducey said, referring to the new law that targets transgender girls who want to play on girls sports teams. “That’s what the legislation is intended to do, and that’s what it does.”
Asked again if he believed there are “actual transgender people,” he again answered slowly and carefully.
“I … am going to respect everyone, and I’m going to respect everyone’s rights. And I’m going to protect female sports. And that’s what the legislation does,” Ducey said.
Ducey’s response was “appalling,” according to the Arizona director of the Human Rights Campaign, a national civil rights group that advocates for equality for LGBTQ people. The organization worked to ensure families and transgender young people came to the Capitol to testify against the bills as the Republican-led House and Senate considered them this session.
“It’s quite shocking that he can’t even address trans people or even say that he thinks they exist,” Bridget Sharpe said.
Wednesday’s signing of the two transgender bills and a third that bars abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy and is currently unconstitutional put Ducey right in the middle of two top issues national Republicans are highlighting in the runup to November’s midterm elections.
Ducey also signed election legislation that minority Democrats said amounted to voter suppression by requiring longtime Arizonans to be thrown off the voter rolls if they did not prove their citizenship and residence location.
The governor leads the Republican Governors Association, which is charged with helping elect GOP chief executives in U.S. states. He in is the last year of his second term as Arizona governor and term limits bar him from seeking reelection.
The top Democrat in the state House, Rep. Reginald Bolding, called Wednesday “probably one of the darkest days we’ve seen in the history of Arizona.”
“With the stroke of a pen, Gov. Ducey has hurled Arizona backwards to its ugliest past,” Bolding said Wednesday. “And today, he put in jeopardy pregnant people, transgender youth in danger and curtailed voting rights for people of color.”
Social conservative groups and the Arizona Republican Party praised Ducey’s action. The Center for Arizona Policy, whose president shepherded the abortion and women’s sports bills through the Legislature, called it a victory.
“Thank you, Governor Ducey, for taking a bold stand for women athletes, vulnerable children, and the unborn by putting your signature on (the bills) in the face of intense opposition from activists,” Center for Arizona Policy president Cathi Herrod said in a news release she posted on Twitter.
She said the legislation protects the unborn, ensures a level playing field for female athletes and shows that “Arizona will do everything it can to protect vulnerable children struggling with gender confusion” by enacting the surgery ban.
Ducey said the surgery ban protects children from irreversible decisions.
“These are permanent surgeries of reassignment that are irreversible, and those discussions can happen once adulthood is reached,” he said.
The American Civil Liberties Association has vowed to sue over the surgery ban. U.S. Supreme Court precedent currently says women have a constitutional right to abortion until about 24 weeks of pregnancy, although it is considering whether to uphold a 15-week ban enacted in Mississippi and may overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision enshrining a woman’s right to choose.
Scottie's Playtime 