Arizona Internet Censorship Bill On Hold

Phoenix New Times: Arizona’s House Bill 2549, which was labeled by one critic as a “bill to censor electronic speech,” has been stopped, according to one of the bill’s sponsors.

As we’ve already mentioned twice before, the bill was never transferred to the governor, contrary to the numerous media reports saying it has. The bill was amended before it passed the Senate, meaning it was returned to the House — where it’s apparently been stopped.

State Representative Vic Williams tells New Times that legislators have received quite a bit of “legitimate concerns” — and illegitimate concerns — about the bill, and Representative Ted Vogt has stopped the bill from moving forward so everyone can figure it out.”

Arizona Bill Reintroduced – Auto-glass Bill May Change The Direction Insureds Can Be “Steered”

A game-changing auto-glass bill under consideration by the Arizona Legislature is re-igniting a fresh wave of debate in that industry.  HB 2197 has been re-introduced to a new wave of resistance from Arizona’s largest auto glass repair and services provider.  HB 2197 was re-introduced because:

Abex.com: Currently, if motorists need auto-glass repair, they call their insurance companies and, depending on the insurer, may be referred to Safelite where a third-party administrator will send out an inspector. The vehicle owner then has a choice of shops to do the repair.

The Arizona bill would create a rotating list of repair shops, and the consumer would be given a choice of three providers to use. If the bill becomes law, Arizona would be the only state with a rotating list.

(for the full article, see the Arizona Builders Exchange)

One aspect of this development for consumers is that Chandler, which houses 600 Safelite employees, may see one of its major local business sources downsized.  While 600 is a large number, Arizona is sustaining an economic recovery despite a recent similarly-sized General Dynamics layoff and a number of other such reductions in force recently in Arizona.  Proponents of HB 2197 include the Arizona Auto Glass Association and say it would preserve consumer choice, level the playing field and increase competition in the state’s industry.  Safelite contends that the bill amounts to industry meddling.

Read more about the debate in the Arizona auto-glass industry here.

 

Text of Arizona HB 2549 – the Internet Censorship Bill

HOUSE BILL 2549
an Act

amending sections 13-2916 and 13-2923, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to electronic or digital devices.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Section 13-2916, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

13-2916. Use of an electronic or digital device to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend; classification; definition

A. It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use a telephone any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person. It is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous telephone calls electronic or digital communications the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the telephone call or calls communications were received.

B. Any offense committed by use of a telephone an electronic or digital device as set forth in this section is deemed to have been committed at either the place where the telephone call or calls communications originated or at the place where the telephone call or calls communications were received.

C. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.

D. For the purposes of this section, “electronic or digital device” includes any wired or wireless communication device and multimedia storage device.

Sec. 2. Section 13-2923, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

13-2923. Stalking; classification; definitions

A. A person commits stalking if the person intentionally or knowingly engages in a course of conduct that is directed toward another person and if that conduct either:

1. Would cause a reasonable person to fear for the person’s safety or the safety of that person’s immediate family member and that person in fact fears for their the person’s safety or the safety of that person’s immediate family member.

2. Would cause a reasonable person to fear death of that person or that person’s immediate family member and that person in fact fears death of that person or that person’s immediate family member.

B. Stalking under subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section is a class 5 felony. Stalking under subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section is a class 3 felony.

C. For the purposes of this section:

1. “Course of conduct”:

(a) Means any of the following:

(i) Maintaining visual or physical proximity to a specific person or directing verbal, written or other threats, whether express or implied, to a specific person on two or more occasions over a period of time, however short, but

(ii) Using any electronic, digital or global positioning system device to surveil a specific person or a specific person’s internet or wireless activity continuously for twelve hours or more or on two or more occasions over a period of time, however short.

(b) Does not include constitutionally protected activity or other activity authorized by law, the other person, the other person’s authorized representative or if the other person is a minor, the minor’s parent or guardian.

2. “Immediate family member” means a spouse, parent, child or sibling or any other person who regularly resides in a person’s household or resided in a person’s household within the past six months.

Arizona Legislature Passes Broad Internet Censorship Bill

Today the Arizona state legislature passed House Bill 2549 making it illegal to use or post “offensive” language online.  Although passed under the guise of being an anti-bullying bill, House Bill 2549, if signed by Governor Brewer, would effectively amount to censorship of any content state officials deem “offensive”.  This censorship would apply to any and all electronic communications including articles, editorials, blog comments, illustrations, cartoons, and even Facebook wall posts and status updates.  The censorship likely also extends to emails and text messages, based on the broad language of the bill.   The pertinent part of House Bill 2549 reads as follows:

Use of an electronic or digital device to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, classification; definition

A. It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use a telephone any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person. It is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous telephone calls electronic or digital communications the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the telephone call or calls communications were received.

B. Any offense committed by use of a telephone an electronic or digital device as set forth in this section is deemed to have been committed at either the place where the telephone call or calls communications originated or at the place where the telephone call or calls communications were received.

C. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.

D. For the purposes of this section, “electronic or digital device” includes any wired or wireless communication device and multimedia storage device.

Under House Bill 2549, it would be a crime to communicate via electronic means with the intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend another.  It would also be a crime to use electronic means to communicate obscene, lewd or profane language or to suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.   Even worse is that Arizona does not define many of the terms identified in the bill, meaning that state officials could define “offensive” as anything they don’t like.  As a result, this law could effectively be used to censor any statement that government officials disagree with.

Further, the bill is not limited to one on one conversation between two individuals.  The speech does not even need to be unwanted, just “offensive”.  The recipient of the communication does not actually need to feel offended, nor must the communication be intended to annoy or offend the reader, the subject of the communication, or any other specific person.  As a result, a substantial amount of everyday communication could be deemed “offensive” and censored.

Under the legislation, Rush Limbaugh could have been censored and prosecuted for his recent statements against a Georgetown law student if he intended that his comments were offensive.  Many late night talk show hosts could be held criminally responsible for using racy, lewd or otherwise offensive language.  Ann Coulter’s books criticising the left could be censored, as could the entire cast of Glee for making statements against the right.   The works of any novelist such as Stephen King, J.K. Rowling, or Dan Brown could be censored if their text were found to be “annoying” or “offensive”.  All romance novels would definitely be censored for using lewd and lascivious language.  All movies with “offensive” language would be censored, as well as electronically stored music, comedy acts, and images.  Many political blogs would be censored, along with some media organizations.  In short, there is little that this legislation would not cover.

This legislation is yet another move by the government to intrude into and control its citizens everyday lives.  Since the legislature conveniently failed to define such ambiguous terms such as “offensive” or “annoying”, it would essentially give the government carte blanche to censor whatever speech the government didn’t like.  Not only that, but you could be charged with a CRIME for saying something that big brother doesn’t agree with.  Pretty scary.

Whatever happened to “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…” ?

Arizona Governor Vetoed Electronic Billboard Law – HB 2757

The following is the text of a letter from Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to the Speaker of the Arizona House dated March 28, 2012″

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Andy Tobin
Speaker of the House
Arizona House of Representatives
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Re: House Bill 2757 (billboards; changing message; authorization)

Dear Speaker Tobin,

Today, I vetoed House Bill 2757. This bill allows electronic billboards capable of changing messages to be placed in public rights-of-way along state highways, and sets standards for display transition times.

The Legislature and outdoor advertising companies seek to make existing electronic billboards lawful under Arizona Revised Statutes. There is a legitimate need to update Arizona’s outdoor advertising laws in order to reduce confusion and accommodate advancements in technology and business development.

I am also mindful, however, of Arizona’s unique position as a national leader in astronomy and stargazing, thanks to our dark skies. Arizona is fortunate to be home to important astronomy installations across the state, including Lowell Observatory, in Flagstaff, Kitt Peak National Observatory, outside Tucson, and Mount Graham International Observatory, near Safford and managed by the University of Arizona. The astronomy industry has invested $1.2 billion in Arizona, represents more than 3,300 jobs and has an estimated economic impact of $250 million each year.

I simply refuse to place all of this in jeopardy.

I am confident a balance can be achieved that benefits both industries. For this reason, I have vetoed House Bill 2757 with the assurance that the sponsor will complete the work necessary to draft legislation that allows outdoor advertising companies to remain viable while identifying standards – governing aspects such as illumination, timing and buffer areas – in order to protect the astronomy community. The Arizona Department of Transportation will play a key role in these standards, filling the gap where county and city ordinances may be silent. To this end, I have tasked Director John Halikowski with updating antiquated rules related to outdoor advertising.

This is a valuable opportunity in which the State of Arizona can both preserve its astronomy industry and update state law to accommodate new technology. I ask that members of both communities – astronomy and outdoor advertising work in good faith in order to reach a mutually-agreeable compromise that advances our state.

This session or next, I expect to receive legislation governing this issue that I can sign into law.

Sincerely,

Janice K. Brewer
Governor

Arizona Governor Critizes California for Filing Brief Opposing SB 1070

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer issued the following press release on March 29, 2012, about the amicus brief filed by the State of California and ten other states in opposition to Arizona’s anti-illegal  immigration law known as SB 1070:

“This legal filing is pure politics and takes tortured logic and rank hypocrisy to new levels. The brief filed by California and 10 other states opposing SB 1070 begins by noting that they each ‘have a wide variety of laws affecting all persons within their borders’ and ‘seek to preserve their authority to enact and enforce such laws, even as applied to immigrants.’

“In other words, California and its fellow petitioners would like to maintain the ability to establish laws for the betterment and protection of their citizens. They’d just like to deny Arizona the right to do the same.

“A major objection raised by California and its cohorts is that ‘SB 1070’s effect is to deter immigrants’ – illegal immigrants, to be clear – ‘from living in Arizona.’ Their apparent concern is that SB 1070 would result in illegal aliens seeking safe haven in more accommodating locales elsewhere. Why the objection? Given their complaints about SB 1070, I would think these states would welcome those present illegally with open arms.

“Ironically, it is the federal government’s very focus on securing the border in California and, to a lesser extent, Texas that funneled the bulk of illegal cross-border traffic into my state. Now, Arizona bears the brunt of the crime and costs associated with illegal immigration.

“This amicus brief contains more misstatements and misrepresentations than I care to respond to here. As with many state laws, SB 1070 is written to mirror – rather than supplant – existing federal immigration law. Deportation efforts remain the sole purview of the federal government.

“I look forward to SB 1070 being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in April so that states like mine may finally receive guidance on this critical issue. States joining California in opposing Arizona in this fight may think they have little at stake. They are buffered from the troubles along our nation’s southern border by geography or, in the case of Hawaii, an entire ocean. But this debate is not just about illegal immigration. It is about every state’s authority and obligation to act in the best interest and welfare of its citizens.

“Today, the issue is SB 1070 and border security. Tomorrow, it may be a matter of the federal government standing between New York, Massachusetts or even California and the safety and welfare of their citizens. What will they say then?”

Arizona Bills Target Landlord Tenant Laws

Arizona Republic:  “The Arizona Legislature this year is changing laws regulating landlords.  Gov. Jan Brewer signed one of the bills into law this week. The Legislature is expected to pass two others in coming weeks. Supporters say the measures are intended to fix problems with the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. Opponents say they benefit landlords and hurt tenants. . . . Brewer signed HB 2129 into law Tuesday. It says that if a tenant has notified a landlord of needed repairs and for some reason the landlord has to come back to the unit a second time”

Arizona House Bill 2129

CHAPTER 91
HOUSE BILL 2129
an Act

 Amending Section 33-1343, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.  Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

 Section 1. Section 33-1343, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

33-1343. Access

 A. The tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to the landlord to enter into the dwelling unit in order to inspect the premises, make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workmen or contractors.

 B. If the tenant notifies the landlord of a service request or a request for maintenance as prescribed in section 33‑1341, paragraph 8, the notice from the tenant constitutes permission from the tenant for the landlord to enter the dwelling unit pursuant to subsection D of this section for the sole purpose of acting on the service or maintenance request and the tenant waives receipt of any separate or additional access notice that may be required pursuant to subsection D of this section.

C. The landlord may enter the dwelling unit without consent of the tenant in case of emergency.

D. The landlord shall not abuse the right to access or use it to harass the tenant. Except in case of emergency or if it is impracticable to do so, the landlord shall give the tenant at least two days’ notice of the landlord’s intent to enter and enter only at reasonable times.

E. The landlord has no other right of access except by court order and as permitted by sections 33‑1369 and 33‑1370, or if the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises.

Approved by the Governor March 27, 2012.

Filed in the Office of the Secretary of State March 27, 2012.

Text of Arizona House Bill 2625 – the Contraception Bill

House Bill 2625
an Act

Amending sections 20‑826, 20‑1057.08, 20‑1402, 20‑1404 and 20‑2329, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to health insurance.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Section 20-826, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

20-826. Subscription contracts; definitions

A. A contract between a corporation and its subscribers shall not be issued unless the form of such contract is approved in writing by the director.

B. Each contract shall plainly state the services to which the subscriber is entitled and those to which the subscriber is not entitled under the plan, and shall constitute a direct obligation of the providers of services with which the corporation has contracted for hospital, medical, dental or optometric services.

C. Each contract, except for dental services or optometric services, shall be so written that the corporation shall pay benefits for each of the following:

1. Performance of any surgical service that is covered by the terms of such contract, regardless of the place of service.

2. Any home health services that are performed by a licensed home health agency and that a physician has prescribed in lieu of hospital services, as defined by the director, providing the hospital services would have been covered.

3. Any diagnostic service that a physician has performed outside a hospital in lieu of inpatient service, providing the inpatient service would have been covered.

4. Any service performed in a hospital’s outpatient department or in a freestanding surgical facility, if such service would have been covered if performed as an inpatient service.

D. Each contract for dental or optometric services shall be so written that the corporation shall pay benefits for contracted dental or optometric services provided by dentists or optometrists.

E. Any contract, except accidental death and dismemberment, applied for that provides family coverage, as to such coverage of family members, shall also provide that the benefits applicable for children shall be payable with respect to a newly born child of the insured from the instant of such child’s birth, to a child adopted by the insured, regardless of the age at which the child was adopted, and to a child who has been placed for adoption with the insured and for whom the application and approval procedures for adoption pursuant to section 8‑105 or 8‑108 have been completed to the same extent that such coverage applies to other members of the family. The coverage for newly born or adopted children or children placed for adoption shall include coverage of injury or sickness, including necessary care and treatment of medically diagnosed congenital defects and birth abnormalities. If payment of a specific premium is required to provide coverage for a child, the contract may require that notification of birth, adoption or adoption placement of the child and payment of the required premium must be furnished to the insurer within thirty‑one days after the date of birth, adoption or adoption placement in order to have the coverage continue beyond the thirty‑one day period.

F. Each contract that is delivered or issued for delivery in this state after December 25, 1977 and that provides that coverage of a dependent child shall terminate on attainment of the limiting age for dependent children specified in the contract shall also provide in substance that attainment of such limiting age shall not operate to terminate the coverage of such child while the child is and continues to be both incapable of self‑sustaining employment by reason of intellectual disability or physical handicap and chiefly dependent on the subscriber for support and maintenance. Proof of such incapacity and dependency shall be furnished to the corporation by the subscriber within thirty‑one days of the child’s attainment of the limiting age and subsequently as may be required by the corporation, but not more frequently than annually after the two‑year period following the child’s attainment of the limiting age.

G. No corporation may cancel or refuse to renew any subscriber’s contract without giving notice of such cancellation or nonrenewal to the subscriber under such contract. A notice by the corporation to the subscriber of cancellation or nonrenewal of a subscription contract shall be mailed to the named subscriber at least forty‑five days before the effective date of such cancellation or nonrenewal. The notice shall include or be accompanied by a statement in writing of the reasons for such action by the corporation.� Failure of the corporation to comply with this subsection shall invalidate any cancellation or nonrenewal except a cancellation or nonrenewal for nonpayment of premium.

H. A contract that provides coverage for surgical services for a mastectomy shall also provide coverage incidental to the patient’s covered mastectomy for surgical services for reconstruction of the breast on which the mastectomy was performed, surgery and reconstruction of the other breast to produce a symmetrical appearance, prostheses, treatment of physical complications for all stages of the mastectomy, including lymphedemas, and at least two external postoperative prostheses subject to all of the terms and conditions of the policy.

I. A contract that provides coverage for surgical services for a mastectomy shall also provide coverage for mammography screening performed on dedicated equipment for diagnostic purposes on referral by a patient’s physician, subject to all of the terms and conditions of the policy and according to the following guidelines:

1. A baseline mammogram for a woman from age thirty‑five to thirty‑nine.

2. A mammogram for a woman from age forty to forty‑nine every two years or more frequently based on the recommendation of the woman’s physician.

3. A mammogram every year for a woman fifty years of age and over.

J. Any contract that is issued to the insured and that provides coverage for maternity benefits shall also provide that the maternity benefits apply to the costs of the birth of any child legally adopted by the insured if all of the following are true:

1. The child is adopted within one year of birth.

2. The insured is legally obligated to pay the costs of birth.

3. All preexisting conditions and other limitations have been met by the insured.

4. The insured has notified the insurer of the insured’s acceptability to adopt children pursuant to section 8‑105, within sixty days after such approval or within sixty days after a change in insurance policies, plans or companies.

K. The coverage prescribed by subsection J of this section is excess to any other coverage the natural mother may have for maternity benefits except coverage made available to persons pursuant to title 36, chapter 29 but not including coverage made available to persons defined as eligible under section 36‑2901, paragraph 6, subdivisions (b), (c), (d) and (e).� If such other coverage exists, the agency, attorney or individual arranging the adoption shall make arrangements for the insurance to pay those costs that may be covered under that policy and shall advise the adopting parent in writing of the existence and extent of the coverage without disclosing any confidential information such as the identity of the natural parent.� The insured adopting parents shall notify their insurer of the existence and extent of the other coverage.

L. The director may disapprove any contract if the benefits provided in the form of such contract are unreasonable in relation to the premium charged.

M. The director shall adopt emergency rules applicable to persons who are leaving active service in the armed forces of the United States and returning to civilian status including:

1. Conditions of eligibility.

2. Coverage of dependents.

3. Preexisting conditions.

4. Termination of insurance.

5. Probationary periods.

6. Limitations.

7. Exceptions.

8. Reductions.

9. Elimination periods.

10. Requirements for replacement.

11. Any other condition of subscription contracts.

N. Any contract that provides maternity benefits shall not restrict benefits for any hospital length of stay in connection with childbirth for the mother or the newborn child to less than forty‑eight hours following a normal vaginal delivery or ninety‑six hours following a cesarean section.� The contract shall not require the provider to obtain authorization from the corporation for prescribing the minimum length of stay required by this subsection. The contract may provide that an attending provider in consultation with the mother may discharge the mother or the newborn child before the expiration of the minimum length of stay required by this subsection. The corporation shall not:

1. Deny the mother or the newborn child eligibility or continued eligibility to enroll or to renew coverage under the terms of the contract solely for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of this subsection.

2. Provide monetary payments or rebates to mothers to encourage those mothers to accept less than the minimum protections available pursuant to this subsection.

3. Penalize or otherwise reduce or limit the reimbursement of an attending provider because that provider provided care to any insured under the contract in accordance with this subsection.

4. Provide monetary or other incentives to an attending provider to induce that provider to provide care to an insured under the contract in a manner that is inconsistent with this subsection.

5. Except as described in subsection O of this section, restrict benefits for any portion of a period within the minimum length of stay in a manner that is less favorable than the benefits provided for any preceding portion of that stay.

O. Nothing in subsection N of this section:

1. Requires a mother to give birth in a hospital or to stay in the hospital for a fixed period of time following the birth of the child.

2. Prevents a corporation from imposing deductibles, coinsurance or other cost sharing in relation to benefits for hospital lengths of stay in connection with childbirth for a mother or a newborn child under the contract, except that any coinsurance or other cost sharing for any portion of a period within a hospital length of stay required pursuant to subsection N of this section shall not be greater than the coinsurance or cost sharing for any preceding portion of that stay.

3. Prevents a corporation from negotiating the level and type of reimbursement with a provider for care provided in accordance with subsection N of this section.

P. Any contract that provides coverage for diabetes shall also provide coverage for equipment and supplies that are medically necessary and that are prescribed by a health care provider, including:

1. Blood glucose monitors.

2. Blood glucose monitors for the legally blind.

3. Test strips for glucose monitors and visual reading and urine testing strips.

4. Insulin preparations and glucagon.

5. Insulin cartridges.

6. Drawing up devices and monitors for the visually impaired.

7. Injection aids.

8. Insulin cartridges for the legally blind.

9. Syringes and lancets, including automatic lancing devices.

10. Prescribed oral agents for controlling blood sugar that are included on the plan formulary.

11. To the extent coverage is required under medicare, podiatric appliances for prevention of complications associated with diabetes.

12. Any other device, medication, equipment or supply for which coverage is required under medicare from and after January 1, 1999. The coverage required in this paragraph is effective six months after the coverage is required under medicare.

Q. Nothing in subsection P of this section prohibits a medical service corporation, a hospital service corporation or a hospital, medical, dental and optometric service corporation from imposing deductibles, coinsurance or other cost sharing in relation to benefits for equipment or supplies for the treatment of diabetes.

R. Any hospital or medical service contract that provides coverage for prescription drugs shall not limit or exclude coverage for any prescription drug prescribed for the treatment of cancer on the basis that the prescription drug has not been approved by the United States food and drug administration for the treatment of the specific type of cancer for which the prescription drug has been prescribed, if the prescription drug has been recognized as safe and effective for treatment of that specific type of cancer in one or more of the standard medical reference compendia prescribed in subsection S of this section or medical literature that meets the criteria prescribed in subsection S of this section.� The coverage required under this subsection includes covered medically necessary services associated with the administration of the prescription drug.� This subsection does not:

1. Require coverage of any prescription drug used in the treatment of a type of cancer if the United States food and drug administration has determined that the prescription drug is contraindicated for that type of cancer.

2. Require coverage for any experimental prescription drug that is not approved for any indication by the United States food and drug administration.

3. Alter any law with regard to provisions that limit the coverage of prescription drugs that have not been approved by the United States food and drug administration.

4. Notwithstanding section 20‑841.05, require reimbursement or coverage for any prescription drug that is not included in the drug formulary or list of covered prescription drugs specified in the contract.

5. Notwithstanding section 20‑841.05, prohibit a contract from limiting or excluding coverage of a prescription drug, if the decision to limit or exclude coverage of the prescription drug is not based primarily on the coverage of prescription drugs required by this section.

6. Prohibit the use of deductibles, coinsurance, copayments or other cost sharing in relation to drug benefits and related medical benefits offered.

(more…)

Arizona Senate Rejects Contraception Bill

AZCentral:  The Arizona Senate on Wednesday voted down a controversial bill to allow employers and insurance companies to opt out of covering contraception for religious reasons. 

The bill failed in the Senate on a 13-17 vote, but House Bill 2625 is not dead. Sen. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix, who championed the measure in that chamber, said she will bring it back for a revote this session. 

The bill has drawn nationwide attention in recent weeks, and the measure has spawned much confusion over what it actually would do. An amended version considered Wednesday by the Senate aimed to clear up some of the confusion.

Continue reading Arizona Senate rejects contraception bill.

Go to Top