Legislation
This legislation, suggested by foster parents themselves, establishes a foster parents bill of rights and passed with near unanimous support in both chambers.
The intent of the bill is to convey the expectation to state agencies and case managers working with foster families, that they deserve respect and specific information and support as they parent some of the neediest children in the State of Arizona. Some of these expectations include:
Ø Treated with respect.
Ø Included as a team member.
Ø Included in the permanency plan.
Ø Informed of all information regarding the child that will impact the foster home or family life during the care of the foster child.
Ø Informed of all agency policies and procedures that relate to the foster parent’s role.
Ø Granted a reasonable plan for respite from the role of foster parent.
Ø Able to keep issues that arise in the foster home confidential.
Ø Free from being discriminated against, per constitutional guidelines.
Foster parents are an invaluable asset to our state and their service so often goes unnoticed and unappreciated.
It has been a privilege to become more aware of the needs of the parents providing caring homes for abused and neglected kids and helping make the system more accountable to and respectful of them.
HB 2652 – Ethical Treatment of Human Embryos Act
This measure, signed into law this session under SB 1307, bans human embryonic stem cell research in Arizona. This means that destroying life in hopes of saving others is against the law.
Destructive embryonic stem cell research has borne no good fruit despite the hype that it would lead to an endless number of cures for the incurable diseases of our day. On the contrary, the results have shown to be negative and tumor causing rather than therapeutic. This is likely why no university research scientists testified against the bill.
Adult stem cells and cord blood cell research, on the other hand, have produced over 70 treatments for human disease!
It makes sense to establish ethical research boundaries that do not destroy innocent human life. That’s what SB 1307 (AKA HB 2652) is all about.
HB 2153 – Homeowners Associations; Public Roadways
If passed, the measure would have clarified that an HOA may not regulate parking on publicly owned streets within their communities.
This bill, as did last year’s HB 2034, passed the House with strong bi-partisan support, but died in the Senate. I plan to bring the issue to the attention of the legislature next session as there will be many new members and a new opportunity to pass the bill.
Unless remedied in law, the issue will not take care of itself – and I continue to hear from more and more homeowners who are adversely affected by HOA board actions regarding parking on public streets.
The problem
Some HOA boards wrongly regulate parking on publicly owned and maintained streets, fining and/or harassing homeowners into compliance.
They claim authority over parking on public streets with in their communities is within their contractual agreement rights homeowners sign onto through their CC&Rs – but there’s one big problem with that. They do not own them - taxpayers own them and municipalities have controlling ordinances over them.
One cannot regulate or control what is not within one’s legal authority to do so. Here are some of the problems homeowners regularly face due to HOA overreaching:
- Homeowners wrongly incur fines when neighbors’ friends or relatives park on the street in front of their home.
- Many homes have four or five bedrooms. When one has two or three children that drive or come to visit, parking fines can be a regular part of life if the HOA does not provide the required guest parking on the streets they mistakenly regulate.
- If there is a real safety issue due to a parking violation, the HOA cannot remove the problem – only the correct jurisdiction may respond.
Will clarifying this law “junk” up HOA communities?
No – for three reasons:
- Gated community streets are private so this law would not apply to them.
- All municipalities have existing laws that regulate on-street parking. They are responsible for deciding the safety and applicability of parking and other regulations concerning them.
- Public streets are already subject to common regulations people are concerned about including:
- On-street storage longer than 48 consecutive hours
- Vehicle maintenance performed on the public street
- Vehicles must be in working condition (i.e. – not on blocks or have flat tires that make it inoperable)
- Parked vehicles must have current license and registration
Until the Legislature clarifies who has lawful authority over public roads, homeowners will continue to be at the mercy of HOA boards wrongly claiming this authority and levying fines.
HCR 2014 – Arizona Health Care Freedom Act – (Prop. 106)
What will the Health Care Freedom Act accomplish?
If passed by voters in November, the AZHCFA will do two things:
- Protect Arizona citizens from being forced into any particular health plan or suffer a penalty.
- Protect their right to purchase health care privately - and have it provided to them – a right Canadians are denied under their single-payer system.
Passed in 2009, the new law clarifies and updates Arizona’s current abortion statutes to remedy real-world problems.
- Gives meaning to Parental Consent laws – protecting a parent’s right to be consulted before someone performs a medical procedure on their daughter while still allowing an option for minors who are in abusive-parental situations.
It is a fact abortion clinics have accepted e-mails and letters claiming to be a minor’s parent only to have it discovered later it was a boyfriend’s or older adult’s signature. Now, a parent’s notarized signature is required and judges have clear standards by which they may grant permission absent that signature.
- Empowers women to make informed decisions about their healthcare. The new law requires a physician to provide information about the abortion – standard practice for every other invasive medical procedure.
Theresa M. Dando, R.N., in a letter to House Committee members, testified to the need for a law ensuring women receive more information about the nature of the abortion procedure, including its risks and the risks and benefits of alternative treatments. It is essential to ensure their federally-mandated privacy rights, under HIPPA, are not violated. Painting the picture, the letter states,
“Yet, group counseling sessions still occur. When this bill is passed, women will no longer be counseled in “groups,” with scripted talking points such as, ‘you can’t really care for this baby, can you?’ Instead, many options will be privately discussed, thereby helping women make truly informed decisions that are in their best interests.” She continues, “This communications process…is both an ethical obligation and a legal requirement spelled out in statutes and case law in all 50 states. So why is this not happening before abortion procedures? Because individualized care requires time. Time is money.”
- Ensures the civil rights of medical professionals are protected. No one should be forced to choose between keeping their job and participating in an abortion.
“Rights of conscience” laws in place since Roe v. Wade needed to be updated to include abortion medication and abortifacients to protect physicians, pharmacists and other medical professionals when it involves taking the life of an unborn child through abortion as these products were not invented at the time ROC provisions were originally drafted.
Each of the provisions in the Abortion Consent Act have been upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court and have been enacted in 30 states.
HB 2400 – Partial Birth Abortion
PBA is a gruesome method of late-term abortion that blurs the lines between abortion and infanticide. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Act in Gonzales v. Carhart. The Court quoted the testimony of a registered nurse in their decision. This testimony comes from registered Nurse Brenda Shafer, who was pro-choice before entering into the abortion field. After witnessing the partial-birth abortion of a 26-week baby boy, she stated:
“Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms – everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus…The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp.”
You may squirm in your chair or feel uncomfortable by this testimony. But one can’t ignore the baby’s squirming, the baby’s kicking, and the baby’s pain. It would be irresponsible for us to realize this gruesome killing, and then do nothing to stop such injustices from happening in Arizona.
Besides the procedure’s gross inhumanity, Partial-Birth Abortion poses a serious health threat to women. The Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT) – a group of over 600 physician-specialists (mostly in obstetrics, perinatology, and related disciplines) – has spoken out to dispute claims that some women need partial-birth abortions to avoid serious physical injury. PHACT said:
“We, and many other doctors across the United States, regularly treat women whose unborn children suffer these and other serious conditions. Never is the partial-birth procedure medically indicated. Rather, such infants are regularly and safely delivered live, vaginally, with no threat to the mother’s health or fertility.”
Furthermore, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other PHACT members said that “partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother’s health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.”
The brutal procedure known as Partial Birth Abortion is illegal in all 50 states currently but without a state law, states have difficulty enforcing the ban.An example of a similar situation includes the Federal law prohibiting human trafficking. Our Arizona human trafficking statute was passed in 2005, allowing both the U.S. Department of Justice and our state Attorney General to investigate and prosecute offenders. There are also concurrent federal and state laws on selling drugs to minors, drug possession, drug selling, business fraud, obscenity laws, racketeering, burglary, money laundering, fraud against a financial institution, and terrorism.This state partial-birth abortion ban would be another one of these many ways that federal and state law enforcement officials cooperate to better protect the safety and welfare of Arizona citizens.A woman’s freedom to choose an abortion is not being limited by this law. But we ARE limiting a doctor’s freedom to perform infanticide.
