About: Publications

5 Minutes for Families

  1. Happy Independence Day! Info AZ Policy 03-Jul-2015
  2. We stand together Info AZ Policy 26-Jun-2015
  3. Marriage primer: The 5 things you should know before the court rules Info AZ Policy 19-Jun-2015
  4. Front page news Info AZ Policy 12-Jun-2015
  5. The right to know Info AZ Policy 05-Jun-2015

Action Alerts

  1. Arizona Churches Need Your Voice! Emily Charles 03-Mar-2015
  2. It's Time to Vote! Emily Charles 04-Nov-2014
  3. Mail in your early ballot TODAY! Emily Charles 29-Oct-2014
  4. It's Time to Vote! Emily Charles 26-Aug-2014
  5. ACTION ALERT: Mail in your early ballot TODAY! Emily Charles 19-Aug-2014

Breaking News

  1. Históricamente Trágico: La Corte Suprema Dice que las Mamás y los Papás No Son Necesarios Info AZ Policy 26-Jun-2015
  2. Historically Tragic: Supreme Court says moms and dads are unnecessary Info AZ Policy 26-Jun-2015
  3. Governor Ducey Signs Pro-Life Legislation! Aaron Baer 30-Mar-2015
  4. Governor Ducey signs legislation to help churches Aaron Baer 23-Mar-2015
  5. Poll Finds Majority Support for Religious Freedom and Voter-Approved Definition of Marriage Emily Charles 26-Feb-2015

Happy Independence Day!

Friday, July 03, 2015

We stand together

Friday, June 26, 2015

Forty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court thought they gave the final word on abortion when they mandated abortion on all 50 states.

Yet today, the pro-life movement is stronger than ever, and we continue to make progress to protect life.

Just like with abortion, today’s Supreme Court decision will not be the final word. Five unelected justices cannot change millennia of history and the longstanding truth that marriage between a man and a woman is what’s best for our culture.

As Justice Roberts said, “There is no transformation without representation.” This wasn’t a decision by the people. It wasn’t even from an elected body. Our efforts to build up the family and marriage carry on.

The question our nation faces today is what is to become of the millions of people that hold to the historical and longstanding view of marriage as between a man and a woman?

Will the government force people and organizations to comply with this ruling, or be punished?

What is certain is that Center for Arizona Policy is not going anywhere. We will continue to stand for marriage and religious freedom. This work has never been done alone though – we need your prayers, your partnership, and your support.

Stand with us today by making a donation.This work is only going to get harder going forward, but I still have great hope for our families, our state, and our nation.

If you’d like to read CAP’s statement on today’s decision, click here.

Históricamente Trágico: La Corte Suprema Dice que las Mamás y los Papás No Son Necesarios

Friday, June 26, 2015

Declaración de Center for Arizona Policy

PHOENIX - "La decisión de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos de hoy es históricamente trágica. La Corte Suprema ha hecho caso omiso del proceso democrático al quitarnos a todos los estadounidenses la habilidad de debatir y decidir sobre el matrimonio.

Lo que es más, por anular la definición probada por el tiempo que el matrimonio es únicamente la unión de un hombre y una mujer, la Corte ha dicho que los niños no se merecen la mejor oportunidad de ser criados por sus padres biológicos.

Esta no es la primera vez que la Corte Suprema se ha excedido en sus funciones, y al igual que antes, esta no va a ser la última palabra sobre el tema. La Constitución de Estados Unidos no dice nada sobre la definición del matrimonio, lo que hace que sea aún más atroz que 5 jueces hagan a un lado los votos de decenas de millones de votantes en todo el país.

La Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos nunca puede cambiar la verdad fundamental de que la unión para toda la vida entre un hombre y una mujer es el fundamento de un estado y una nación fuerte. Center for Arizona Policy se ha comprometido a velar para que esta unión esencial sea fortalecida y reafirmada para asegurar un mejor futuro para las generaciones venideras."

Historically Tragic: Supreme Court says moms and dads are unnecessary

Friday, June 26, 2015

Statement from Center for Arizona Policy Vice President of Policy and General Counsel, Josh Kredit

PHOENIX – “Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision is historically tragic. The High Court has disregarded the democratic process by stripping all Americans of their ability to debate and decide marriage policy.

What’s more, by throwing out the time-tested definition of marriage as only the union of one man and one woman, the Court has said that children don’t deserve the best opportunity to be raised by their mom and dad.

This isn’t the first time the Supreme Court has overstepped its role, and just like before, this will not be the final word on this issue. The U.S. Constitution is absolutely silent on the definition of marriage which makes it all the more egregious for five justices to brush aside the votes of tens of millions of voters throughout the country.

The U.S. Supreme Court can never change the fundamental truth that the lifelong union of one man and one woman is at the foundation of a strong state and nation. Center for Arizona Policy is committed to seeing this essential union strengthened and reaffirmed to secure a better future for generations to come.”

For more information, contact Aaron Baer, 330.219.1792 or abaer@azpolicy.org.

Center for Arizona Policy promotes and defends the foundational values of life, marriage and family, and religious freedom. For more information, visit azpolicy.org.


Marriage primer: The 5 things you should know before the court rules

Friday, June 19, 2015

Within the next two weeks we will be getting a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on whether the voters have the right to set marriage policy for their state. No matter the outcome, this decision will have broad implications for the future of families in our state and nation.

As we prepare for the Court’s decision, here are a few things you should know:

1) Nothing in the U.S. Constitution mandates the redefinition of marriage. In fact, the Constitution is completely silent on this issue. This means that this is a question for the states to decide. 

2) Nine unelected justices have no more insight into marriage than the voters. What proponents of same-sex marriage are asking the court to do is settle a policy debate going on in the states, schools, and households throughout the nation. This debate centers on the meaning and purpose of marriage. Does it matter for kids to have a mom and a dad? Does the state have an interest in providing benefits to couples based on their affections for each other?

These are important questions, but not questions that the nine unelected justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are any more qualified to answer than the tens of millions of voters that said marriage should be between only one man and one woman.

3) The Supreme Court historically has done a poor job of settling cultural debates. In 1973, the Supreme Court thought it was putting an end to the abortion debate when it mandated legal abortion for any reason, at any stage of a pregnancy in all 50 states. Yet more than 40 years later, this is still one of the most controversial issues of our day.

4) How they rule is almost as important as what they rule. Depending how they rule, the Court’s decision could dramatically impact the religious freedom of all Americans. If they say that all 50 states must redefine marriage, it is crucial they do not force people of faith to participate or celebrate same-sex marriage through their ruling.

5) This will not be the final word on marriage. Center for Arizona Policy will not stop advocating for strong families and the essential lifelong union of one man and one woman. Even if we win at the court and same-sex marriage is not mandated for America, there is still much work to be done to create a stronger marriage culture in our state and nation. 

The Latest from AZPolicyPages.com

  • Free speech wins at the Supreme Court! Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a Gilbert Church won a crucial free speech case this week. 

  • State agrees to temporary pause on Abortion Pill Reversal law. Arizona has agreed to put a temporary hold on the implementation of the CAP-supported law that requires women considering an abortion to be informed about the Abortion Pill Reversal. This will allow the state to present a better defense against Planned Parenthood’s frivolous lawsuit. 

Front page news

Friday, June 12, 2015

You may have missed it this week, but across the country there were a number of great developments worthy of front page news for life and religious freedom:

Michigan protects faith-based adoption agencies

Like Arizona, Michigan has a number of faith-based adoption agencies that help thousands of children in the foster care and adoption system find a forever home. These adoption agencies are driven to love their neighbor and community out of their love for Christ.

As the U.S. Supreme Court considers forcing the redefinition of marriage upon all 50 states, it’s essential that the government does not force faith-based ministries to surrender their religious beliefs about marriage. 

That’s why this week, Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan signed a law that said the state cannot discriminate against or penalize a faith-based adoption agency for declining to place children in same-sex households because of its religious convictions.

As Gov. Snyder said “The state has made significant progress in finding more forever homes for Michigan kids in recent years and that wouldn't be possible without the public-private partnerships that facilitate the adoption process."

Life wins in Court in Texas
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Texas law that resembles Arizona’s Mother’s Health and Safety Act, passed in 2012.

The law requires abortion facilities to meet the same safety standards of other Ambulatory Surgical Centers in the state, ensures that abortionists have admitting privileges at a local hospital, and bans painful late abortions on fully formed babies.

Sens. McCain and Flake Co-Sponsor 20 Week Prohibition on Abortion
Both of Arizona’s U.S. Senators signed onto the Federal Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks. This bill passed out of the House in May by a vote of 242-184.

Not “Junk Science,” but New Science
Dr. George Delgado, the physician who developed the life-saving Abortion Pill Reversal protocol, visited Phoenix this week to train medical professionals on this procedure. In a powerful display of the impact of the Abortion Pill Reversal, one young woman attended the event with her baby that is with us today because of this protocol.

Click the link above to see a life that has been spared thanks to Dr. Delgado’s work, proving that Abortion Pill Reversal isn’t “junk science” like Planned Parenthood says, it’s simply new science. 

The right to know

Friday, June 05, 2015

Once again Arizona is witnessing pro-abortion advocates standing in between women and life-saving facts.

Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Center for Reproductive Rights have filed a lawsuit in federal court to block the CAP-supported provision within SB 1318 that requires doctors to inform women that the abortion pill may be reversible, but time is of the essence.

Sadly, this isn’t the first time the abortion industry has tried to block the state from ensuring women considering abortion are provided with critical and relevant information about the dangerous and deadly procedure.

In 2009, Planned Parenthood sued the state to block the Abortion Consent Act from taking effect. Thankfully, the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected Planned Parenthood’s claims about that important legislation, and I fully expect another victory for common sense in this case.

My confidence in this case comes from the simple fact that we have seen the Abortion Pill Reversal save lives throughout the country – and right here in Arizona!

Dr. Allan Sawyer shared his experience reversing the effects of a chemical abortion before a House Legislative Committee earlier this year. His powerful testimony shows that hope that can be provided to women in a potentially devastating circumstance.

The Latest from AZPolicyPages.com

A good and balanced law

Friday, May 29, 2015

A good and balanced law

Many of you likely watched the scene unfold in Indiana last month where supporters of religious freedom sought to pass a fairly simple law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The scene was eerily similar to what played out here in Arizona with the CAP-supported SB 1062. Ignoring the facts, opponents of religious freedom falsely claimed that the bill would allow individuals to have a license to do pretty much anything, all in the name of their free exercise of religion. Or in other words, they wrongly tried to say religious freedom would become the equivalent of Monopoly’s “Get Out of Jail Free Card.”

Yet what was lost in the debate, both here in Arizona and in Indiana is the reality of how these laws actually operate in a court-setting and in real life. They don’t provide a license to do whatever illegal activity somebody wants to do. Rather, they provide the court with a well-established and longstanding legal balancing test for analyzing competing interests.

To provide some background, Arizona has had a state-version of RFRA since 1999, and a nearly identical federal law has been in place since 1993. More than 20 states also have state RFRAs.

In a nutshell, RFRA ensures the government cannot force someone to violate their religious convictions unless the government meets a strict legal test. For the strict legal test, the government must show it has a really good reason for the law and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that objective. If the government does that, then the RFRA defense fails and the government law or action stands.

Although Indiana’s original version of RFRA was heavily amended after big business bullied the governor and legislature, the remaining law is still set to take effect on July 1, 2015.

This brings us to a recent story out of Indiana and a perfect example of how RFRA works. Calling his newly formed church the First Church of Cannabis, founder Bill Levin plans to break the law and openly smoke marijuana. If he is cited or arrested, he says he will claim Indiana’s RFRA for protection.

Unfortunately for Mr. Levin, this same ploy was attempted in Arizona already, and Arizona’s RFRA operated just like it’s supposed to.

In 2005, Danny Hardesty was arrested for possession of marijuana, and in court he claimed that the use of marijuana was a sacrament of his church, the Church of Cognizance. This case reached the Arizona Supreme Court in 2009, and in a unanimous ruling the Court ruled against Hardesty.

Even assuming Hardesty had a truly sincere religious belief to smoke marijuana, the Court found that the government has a good reason to prohibit marijuana use (the fact that it poses a real threat to individual health and social welfare, in addition to the public safety concern posed by unlimited use, particularly by those driving motor vehicles), and that “no less restrictive alternative [ ] would serve the State’s compelling public safety interests and still excuse the conduct for which Hardesty was tried and convicted.”

So there you go, RFRA is not a “Get Out of Jail Free Card,” and it does not provide a license to do whatever illegal activity someone wants. Rather, it is a time-tested and just law that allows for courts to acknowledge when the government overreaches and burdens someone’s free exercise of religion, and to balance that against the reasons for the government action.

Please watch for the launch of the 3rd edition of The Policy Pages later this fall, which will include a brief devoted solely to explaining how laws like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act work.

The Latest from AZPolicyPages.com

  • Intern with CAP. Calling all college students – if you’d like to intern with CAP this summer, now’s your chance to apply. College credit may be available!
  • Marriage and Equal Protection. Robert George discusses the unconstitutional steps the Supreme Court must take in order to redefine marriage.


This is what progress looks like

Friday, May 15, 2015

The country took a significant step forward yesterday when the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 36 – the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. On a 242-184 vote, the House approved legislation sponsored by Arizona’s Rep. Trent Franks that would prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Following the vote, CAP’s General Counsel & Vice President of Policy spoke with the Arizona Republic about this historic vote:

"‘Allowing abortions at that stage is inhumane,’ said Josh Kredit, vice president of policy for Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative social-issues group that supported the bill.

'This is a great day for America and Arizonans,' he said, noting a report from the Arizona Department of Health Services that 137 abortions were performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy in Arizona in 2013. 'This law will literally save lives.’"

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibits abortion after 20 weeks because of the overwhelming evidence that preborn children can feel pain at this age. What’s more, abortion at this stage of a pregnancy presents serious risks to the health and safety of women.

The bill now heads to the Senate, where it faces stiff opposition. No matter what happens though, the significance of this bill passing out of the House cannot be overstated. The pro-life movement is making great progress in D.C. and in states throughout the country.

I want to thank all of you who took action and contacted your representative in support of this bill. Below is how Arizona’s delegation voted on this bill. If your representative voted for HR 36, please send them a note thanking them. If they voted no, I encourage you to send them a message letting them know you support life and this common sense legislation.

Voted Yes on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Rep. Martha McSally (District 2)
Rep. Paul Gosar (District 4)
Rep. Matt Salmon (District 5)
Rep. David Schweikert (District 6)
Rep. Trent Franks (District 8) HR 36 Sponsor

Voted No on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (District 1)
Rep. Raul Grijalva (District 3)
Rep. Ruben Gallego (District 7)
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (District 9)

Don’t know your representative? Click here to find out.

The Latest from AZPolicyPages.com

  • The 17,000 – Come hear CAP’s VP of Communications Aaron Baer share how the faith community is working to find forever homes for the 17,000 in foster care at Christian Family Care’s Governor’s Breakfast. Register online for this event on Wednesday, May 20 here.
  • The Numbers Speak for Themselves: Christians are often criticized for focusing “too much” on issues like marriage and abortion. But the numbers tell a different story.
  • Voting Records are here! Find out how your legislators voted in the 2015 legislative session on issues impacting life, marriage and family, and religious freedom.
  • Intern with CAP. Calling all college students – if you’d like to intern with CAP this summer, now’s your chance to apply. College credit may be available!


“Me today… you tomorrow”

Friday, May 01, 2015

This was Barronelle Stutzman’s message at the Center for Arizona Policy Family Dinner on Saturday night.

Barronelle is the 70-year-old grandmother who owns Arlene's Flowers in Washington. Barronelle faces the loss of her home, retirement, and business after referring her long-time friend and customer to another florist because her faith prevented her from using her creative skills to design custom arrangements and offering support services for a same-sex ceremony. 

I interviewed her and Alliance Defending Freedom’s Senior Legal Counsel and Senior Vice President Kristen Waggoner at the dinner. Barronelle’s message was powerful, and it held an ominous warning for all of us:


As the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over whether same-sex marriage should be forced upon all 50 states, it is important to remember that more is on the line than just the timeless and proven definition of marriage. (If you’d like to read a recap of Tuesday’s oral arguments, I recommend reading what Ryan T. Anderson wrote over at The Public Discourse blog.)

We must stand and pray for marriage not only because we care about protecting this timeless union, but because its redefinition will inevitably place those who hold to God’s Word at risk of losing their basic freedoms for opposing an unjust government mandate.

As Barronelle said, “It’s not just about my freedom. It’s about all of our freedoms. And it’s me today but it’s going to be you tomorrow. You have to take a stand – you have to wake up.”

The Latest from AZPolicyPages.com

  • Voting Records are here! Find out how your legislators voted on issues impacting life, marriage and family, and religious freedom.
  • Tickets are going fast! There is still time to get your tickets to see U.S. Senator Marco Rubio next Wednesday on May 6 with Center for Arizona Policy! CAP is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) and does not support or oppose candidates for public office. This nonpartisan event is not an endorsement by CAP of Senator Rubio, who is appearing solely as special guest speaker. All donations for this event will support CAP’s mission.
  • More on marriage at the Supreme Court. If you’d like to read the transcript from the oral arguments on marriage, you can read part 1 here, and part 2 here.
  • Intern with CAP. Calling all college students – if you’d like to intern with CAP this summer, now’s your chance to apply. College credit may be available!


Back to Top Back to Top