7 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/16/15 2:55am)
I’ll never forget the process of applying to ASU. After being inaccurately declared as an out-of-state student, I experienced the misfortune of having to prove my residency to the ASU administration. That alone wouldn’t have been too bad — if there were anyone in the administration that knew how to help me. Instead, I spiraled into a three-month long process of “He’s not at his desk,” “Actually, you need to talk to her,” and “There’s a $25 fee for that.”
(04/02/15 2:17am)
On March 24, the women’s fashion magazine Cosmopolitan published an article about what happens to unborn babies when their mothers are smoking. The piece highlighted 4-D scans of unborn children grimacing and covering their faces in discomfort and how “disturbing” it is for pregnant women to smoke. It’s amazing how scrupulous they think pregnant women should be for the sake of their child when they are one of the most outspoken pro-choice magazines circulating the U.S.
(03/18/15 10:13pm)
On March 12, Gov. Doug Ducey signed Arizona’s Balanced Budget after only 67 days in office. After keeping his campaign promises and getting his budget through the legislature in such a short amount of time, Ducey is on his way to become one of the greatest political leaders Arizona has ever seen.
(03/06/15 2:05am)
March 5th is National Pro-Life Chalk Day, where student groups from college campuses across the U.S. gather to share the right to life message. Here at ASU, the Students for Life club drew out the message with both slogans and artwork across Cady Mall. From Hayden Library to the Social Sciences Building, extensive sketches, quotes and pro-life rhetoric can be seen across the sidewalks. With abortion being so controversial, it can be difficult to have valuable dialogue about the issue. Pro-life Chalk Day is an excellent approach to opening up the conversation about abortion in a gentle way. Students are able to witness a narrative seldom seen on college campuses. Maggie Otlewski, president of ASU Students for Life, firmly believes in compassionate methods of pro-life outreach and participates in the event every year. “It’s a creative way for students to share the pro-life message. Our purpose is twofold. We are aiming for both education and activism," she said. "Tonight we’re creating a fetal development timeline to educate students on the science of embryology. Our other aim is to share resources with students who may be facing an unplanned pregnancy or who are parenting and may be looking for resources available to them on campus.”Otlewski and other members of the club gathered last night, before Chalk Day, in order to avoid the Hayden Lawn traffic. Today their works of art are in eyesight of all the individuals walking to classes and the MU. “We are so excited to share the message that life is beautiful with the thousands of students on the Tempe campus,” Otlewski said. It takes courage to speak out about a hot-button issue, and members of Students for Life are no strangers to the inevitable backlash that comes with controversial activism. Last year their chalk art was vandalized. Water was poured on their display and the pregnancy resource numbers they provided for students were smudged to the point of being illegible.During a briefing before the club began drawing their images and slogans, Otlewski encouraged members not to engage with hecklers or worry about them defacing the club’s art work. “If they smudge your work, that means they saw it,” she pointed out. Club members were also advised to not take comments personally, as this issue is submersed in strong emotion.In spite of the adverse reactions, Students for Life continues to persevere in the cause for human rights for all. Their motto is to lead the ASU pro-life community through thick and thin, and they stick to that pledge. I’m proud to have this organization on our campus. Reach the columnist at Joan.Lebeau@asu.edu or follow @joanlebeau94 on TwitterLike The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
(03/04/15 11:00pm)
We heard it again and again — Obamacare won’t subsidize abortions. President Obama himself said “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion.” Even after this encouragement from our rabidly pro-choice president, pro-life Americans were still incredulous. Nancy Pelosi encouraged us to just wait for the bill to pass so that we could find out what was in it. To no one’s surprise, the majority of the Affordable Care Act’s plans cover abortion on demand. Under the ACA, states have the option to partner with the federal in an exchange, create their own, or opt out. Arizona, not trusting the bureaucratic nightmare that is Obamacare, chose to opt-out. This means that individual Arizonan’s who want to enroll in Obamacare must do so with the federal health care exchange. This poses a problem for pro-lifers when the majority of the ACA’s plan include abortion coverage. To combat this, Arizona passed SB 1305 in 2010. However, the Arizona Department of Insurance chose to interpret this bill to only apply to a state-run exchange, making the language of SB 1305 irrelevant in the federal health care exchange used by Arizonans. The Department of Insurance provided a perfect display of government inefficiency, and highlighted the major problem with the ACA. It’s just too big to work.When Obama swore up and down that we wouldn’t have to fund abortions, he was making a promise that he couldn’t possibly keep. Under the ACA, the process for determining subsidy eligibility alone can take up to 21 steps and filter through at least five different agencies. There is an immeasurable amount of room for government error. The document released by the Department of Health and Human Services explaining how the ACA will be implemented is 644 pages long. The bill itself is 2,700 pages. The regulations associated with the bill total over 20,000 pages. That’s two and a half times longer than the Bible. Does your brain hurt yet?With these facts in mind, it’s easy to understand why there is so much concern about what our taxpayer dollars are funding under the ACA. Additionally, it’s easier for a third-party politician to win an election than it is for Americans to find a plan under the ACA that doesn’t subsidize abortions. To contest the mind-boggling amount of rules and regulations accompanied by Obamacare and the Department of Insurance, Arizona lawmakers have now drafted a second bill to protect against taxpayer funded abortions. SB 1318 will protect Arizona taxpayers from funding abortion regardless of what health care exchange they use. This bill is common sense. Women may have the legal right to have an abortion, but taxpayers certainly shouldn’t have to pay for them to have the procedure. According to a poll carried out by CNN, “Most Americans have never favored using public funds for abortions.” Furthermore, using the taxpayer dollars of individuals who oppose abortion on moral grounds to subsidize the procedure is nothing short of oppressive. Seventeen states have already implemented laws similar to SB 1318.This bill has been highly politicized due to the fact that it concerns abortion. Opponents of the bill claim that it “restricts abortion rights.” This is absurd. Having the legal right to abortion and being able to pay for it are two separate issues. SB 1318 in no way prohibits women from their legal right to have an abortion; it simply won’t force Arizonan’s to pay for them to do so.Arizonans should overlook the politics swirling around this bill and support it. SB 1318 isn’t about restricting rights, it’s about protecting them. It’s about Americans refusing to surrender to a tyrannical government. Reach the columnist at Joan.Lebeau@asu.edu or follow @joanlebeau94 on TwitterLike The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
(02/18/15 1:10am)
The fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects We, the People of the United States against subjective arrests and discretionary searches. The amendment reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…” In this modern day and age, it also serves as the basis for laws against wiretaps and other forms of surveillance. State Sen. Kelli Ward, R-Lake Havasu City, believes that Arizona’s use of photo radar cameras violates this amendment, and she has sponsored Senate Bill 1167 in response.SB 1167 will outlaw the use of red light photo enforcement and speed cameras throughout Arizona if successful. In this legislation, Ward expresses her desire to keep law enforcement “in the hands of trained law enforcement officers” and not at the mercy of digital cameras. Arizonan’s have been subjected to the over-monitoring of public roads via camera traps since the late 1980s, even though the overwhelming majority of Arizona citizens oppose photo radar. Under the disguise of “public safety,” red-light and speed cameras are implemented by private, for-profit entities. Arizona is home to American Traffic Solutions and Redflex Traffic Systems, two of the nation’s largest electronic ticketing companies. Opponents of SB 1167 have cited safety concerns as their reasoning for contending the bill. According to the grassroots organization Red Means Stop, the bill “puts drivers, passengers, cyclists and pedestrians at risk.” That being said, the statistics being used to challenge SB 1167 are debated. Additionally, it’s difficult to trust data that’s provided by cities receiving a financial benefit from electronic tickets. As for the safety of the public, Sen. Ward and the majority of Arizonans aren’t buying it. In a recent interview, Ward stated that “there's actually studies out there that show that some of those cameras make things less safe, more accidents in those intersections where there are cameras.”Contrary to what their websites state, ATS and Redflex are concerned about lining their pockets, not public safety.I’m all for free markets, but the photo radar system in Arizona is a murky collaboration between government and the private sector. In addition, preying on people for financial gain is unethical. ATS and Redflex are nothing more than multi-billion dollar companies making bank off of your lead foot. To make matters worse, ATS and Redflex have both been involved in numerous multi-million dollar lawsuits. ATS was ordered to pay back $4.2 million to New Jersey drivers for sending red-light camera tickets in cities where photo radar is illegal. In 2013, Redflex tried to bribe a Chicago official with $2 million to keep the company’s contract with the city going for a little while longer. The contract Redflex had with the city of Chicago was the company’s largest, raking in over $80 million a year with electronic tickets. In true Chicago style, Redflex administered the bribe out of a deep concern for public safety (just kidding).Concern for the safety of Arizona drivers is legitimate, but photo radar is not the solution. I stand with Sen. Ward in the position that law enforcement officials should administer tickets, not speed cameras. The responsibility of public road safety belongs in the hands of police officers, not digital cameras — and certainly not in the hands of the quota-driven companies who supply them.Reach the columnist at Joan.Lebeau@asu.edu or follow @joanlebeau94 on TwitterLike The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
(02/04/15 11:30pm)
In a stunning turn of events, another politician has changed their stance on an issue. Now serving his 6th term in the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, has switched his platform on abortion from pro-life to pro-choice after “speaking with women.”