Posts tagged with: Arizona

media-biasWould you be surprised to hear that the mainstream media hasn’t been telling you the whole story? Probably not. The failings of the media has been a perennial story since 131 BC when the first newspaper, Acta Diurna, was published in Rome.

But sometimes the media’s biases lead them to make claims that are especially egregious and harmful to the common good. Such is the case on the reporting of an amendment relating to the free exercise of religion in Arizona. Critics of the bill described it as an anti-gay bill and claimed it would be used to deny access to public accommodations for homosexuals. As the Christian Post noted, almost every media organization in the country, including the more conservative Fox News, have taken the side of the critics by describing S.B. 1062 as a “gay discrimination” bill.

Because of this biased (bordering on fraudulent) reporting, the media was able to sway public opinion on the issue, which pressured Gov. Jan Brewer to veto the amendment.

Fortunately, we live in an age when the mainstream media is losing its stranglehold on the public’s attention. Several outlets have explained the true substance of the amendment and exposed the mendacity of the media. If you want to learn the truth, here are a few places to start:

(more…)

On February 16th, Acton Institute President Rev. Robert A. Sirico spoke to an audience in Phoenix, Arizona, delivering an address entitled “The Moral Adventure of the Free Society.” We’re pleased to bring you the audio of that address via the audio player below:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Our Sunday Visitor, the Catholic newspaper, interviewed Acton Research Fellow Kevin Schmiesing for a story about the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that threw out a lawsuit against an Arizona tax-credit program that helps private schools.

Here’s some commentary from Kevin (the full story is now behind the OSV paywall).

Kevin E. Schmiesing, a Catholic historian and research fellow at the Acton Institute, a free-market think tank, agreed that the Supreme Court ruling is a hopeful sign for school choice advocates, even considering the unresolved questions about individual state courts.

“Presumably, this will encourage and embolden them,” said Schmiesing, adding that the court’s ruling demonstrated a growing willingness to accept voucher programs.

“It’s a confirmation of a trend that has been in place for some time now. Given the way the Supreme Court is made up right now, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them overturn a state court ruling against these type of programs.”

Whether the Arizona system becomes a model for the schoolchoice movement remains to be seen.

[... ]

… Schmiesing said he personally favors the Arizona model. “Tax credits are better than vouchers in some ways,” he said.

“It creates a little bit of a buffer between government funding and the schools. The money never goes through a government entity. I think it is more politically viable for many reasons, and there seems to be a lot of support for it.”

[...]

… Schmiesing … says many Catholic school systems, which have struggled with declining enrollments in many parts of the country, stand to benefit if the school-choice movement gains added traction. But there’s a “but.”

“For some, this will be a shot in the arm,” he said. “But this is not a magic bullet, given that Catholic schools face many different challenges in different parts of the country, that include the loss of Catholic identity in some circumstances.”

Read the Supreme Court ruling: Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn et al.

The escalating legal battle over the recent health care legislation has spilled out of the federal judiciary into state governments. An August 14 story from the New York Times reports:

Faced with the need to review insurance rates and enforce a panoply of new rights granted to consumers, states are scrambling to make sure they have the necessary legal authority to carry out the responsibilities being placed on them by President Obama’s health care law.

Insurance commissioners in about half the states say they do not have clear authority to enforce consumer protection standards that take effect next month.

Federal and state officials are searching for ways to plug the gap. Otherwise, they say, the ability of consumers to secure the benefits of the new law could vary widely, depending on where they live.

But Arizona, meanwhile, has adopted a course of action that comes rather close to employing some kind of state nullification:

Arizona said it was unlikely to pass legislation authorizing any state agency to enforce federal insurance standards, in view of its participation in a lawsuit challenging the federal law. Moreover, it said, Gov. Jan Brewer has “instituted an indefinite rule-making moratorium, so we have no plans to adopt rules related to enforcement” of the law.

Gov. Brewer, despite causing controversy on the national scene due to Arizona’s immigration law, nevertheless enjoys very promising poll numbers. In the likely event that she wins reelection, Arizona will most certainly become a key state worth watching in the states’ struggle against the federal government.