But just as they are doing with Medicaid expansion, Tea Party Republicans, in the name of principle, are set to deal a major blow to our economy and crush one of this state’s thriving industries.

In January the Arizona Corporation Commission ended tax credits for businesses that install rooftop solar panels, which has effectively ended the incentive for businesses to go green.

Though some may believe solar subsidies are government hand outs, I’m wondering how it differs from the other energy subsidies we give away. What makes fossil fuel and nuclear power subsides okay but clean energy subsidies bad? If we’re going to offer energy subsidies, doesn’t it make sense to subside an energy that’s renewable?

Ending corporate tax breaks may be just the beginning of solar’s demise in Arizona. The biggest and most contentious fight, the possible end of “net metering,” is just around the corner.

Net metering deals exclusively with Arizona’s residential customers, specifically those 25,000 Arizonans that have installed solar photovoltaic (PV) panels on their roofs. Many of these solar roofs exist in the very conservative suburb of Sun City and make Arizona second only to California in numbers of rooftop solar installations.

Residents with rooftop solar are allowed to “bank” the excess power they produce and use it during those times when the panels are not producing or under-producing the energy needed by that household.

Of course, the power isn’t actually banked but rather put back on the grid for other customers to use. Often times, the excess power coming back onto the grid is used during peak hours (noon-7pm), when electricity is most expensive. If a customer has put enough power back on the grid that he/she has an abundance of banked electricity, APS will rebate the customer at the end of the year.

APS, like most energy monopolies around the country, isn’t a fan of net metering because it cuts into their profits. They are encouraging the Corporation Commission to end net metering and effectively end Arizona’s rise as the solar capitol.

The newly elected, all Republican Commission has been very complacent when dealing with APS, which is somewhat surprising considering it was a Republican commission that first implemented Arizona’s renewable energy standards. But the party has changed, and many politicos believe they will now grant the utility’s wishes and put an end to net metering.

The impact of that stretches beyond the many thousands of residents who currently benefit from rooftop solar. Without net metering the incentive to install a costly technology goes away. It also harms a growing Arizona industry, not to mention the damage done to our environment by an overreliance on fossil fuels.

It is widely expected that if net metering ends, many of our solar installation companies will leave business-friendly Arizona and move to California, taking with them thousands of jobs, and Arizona’s growing dominance in solar will come to a screeching halt.

But it’s all in the name of principle. Principles that put fossil fuels over solar and monopolies over customers.

But what about life after birth? Does concern for a living, breathing individual end when that individual is no longer attached to his or her mother by an umbilical cord?

If we look at how we treat children post-delivery, one has to question whether or not our lawmakers and many who advocate for “pro-life” legislation consider life valuable beyond the womb.

Consider the Governor’s proposal to expand Medicaid. She made the statement that she has always been a “pro-life” governor and that expanding Medicaid is also pro-life. Kudos to Governor Brewer for making that connection, but sadly, those most opposed to the expansion are active members of the pro-life community.

Cathi Herrod, President of the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), a pro-life advocacy group, has been curiously absent from the debate at the Capitol. She wanted the Governor to include an amendment that would exempt Planned Parenthood from any Medicaid funding, a move the Governor already tried in previous legislation only to have it struck down by the courts. Federal law already prohibits Medicaid funding for abortion.

Still, Herrod is using abortion scare tactics to try and justify her unwillingness to back the Governor and give cover to other CAP legislators who have no desire to extend funding to the very babies and children and mothers they supposedly support.

And it isn’t just Medicaid expansion they oppose. How about basic child safety?

We’ve long known that CPS and Arizona’s Department of Economic Security, the state agency charged with protecting children and providing basic safety nets, is understaffed and woefully financed. So what have our pro-life legislators done to help this agency? They’ve made massive cuts in funding for programs that serve our most at-risk children.

Child care subsidies for the working poor are critical for families who need to work but also need a safe place for their children and babies. According to Michael Wisehart, Deputy Assistant Director at DES, approximately 50,000 Arizona children are in need of this service, yet the legislature has only appropriated enough funds for half that amount.

Not surprisingly, calls to CPS have skyrocketed in the last few years with the majority of calls related to neglect.

What do working parents do when they cannot afford safe, quality childcare? The answer is that they take risks and often place them in the care of friends or family who are neither qualified nor equipped to care for small children, or they leave them at home alone.

Surely Cathi Herrod, a woman who claims to care so deeply about children, would be knocking down legislators’ doors, demanding funds for at-risk kids and bringing attention to the needless deaths of children that could have been prevented if only CPS was properly funded.

One would think so, but one would be wrong.

Instead, Herrod is working to ensure transgender people are denied access to bathrooms because exposure to a transgender adult could harm a child, though probably not near as much as exposure to a drug-addicted caretaker who uses the child as a prostitute for drug money.

Pro-life activists also work to ensure that absolutely no funding is given to women to help prevent unwanted pregnancies. Though preventing unwanted pregnancies would go a long way in preventing abortion, these activists are intent on denying the relationship between the two. Better to demonize the woman seeking contraception as a slut than praise her for making a wise and responsible choice that will prevent a more difficult choice in the future.

Most of the lawmakers and activists who insist women abstain from sex and carry to term are the same individuals who turn around and condemn these women for making the “choice” to have a baby without having adequate financial or emotional support.

It’s a no-win situation for these women. They’re either murderers or government leaches.

If one really believes in the value of life, he/she would not turn a blind eye to the preventable and needless suffering of living, breathing children. As a former minister of mine used to say, “Budgets are moral documents. They appropriate money to those items we consider most important and most valuable in life.”

Arizona’s budget is a stark example of the lack of consideration for our most vulnerable kids. It is not a “pro-life” budget, unless one believes life ends at birth.

Imagine how many lives could have been improved, even saved with a $95 million contribution to charities in need.

I don’t think any of us are delusional enough to believe that a donation of that scope and size isn’t given without an expectation of something in return. Money buys power, and in politics, power means influence and influence means votes. Wealthy donors on both sides of the aisle are buying votes. It’s that simple.

In Arizona, our legislators are looking to lap up some of that money. With guidance from Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery and the Goldwater Institute, Republican J.D. Mesnard sponsored a bill to increase individual contributions to legislators more than ten-fold. That’s TEN times the previous donation limit.

HB2593, signed into law by the Governor last week, does several things to ensure wealthy constituents and powerful PACs (Political Action Committees) have the power to buy legislators.

The revised law allows individuals to give $2500 to candidates for a primary election and another $2500 for the general election. The prior limit was $488 total. There was no distinction between primary and general.

Put another way, if it takes $50,000 to run a successful state legislative race, candidates need only appeal to 10 individual donors. In reality, that number could be even less because the bill also changes the limits on PAC money.

Before, PACs had a $2,000 limit. It was raised to $5,000.

But what’s even more insidious is that PACs no longer have a limit on the total number of dollars they can give in an election year. In other words, instead of being able to influence a handful of races, powerful PACs can now influence as many races as they want.

Limits on the total amounts given by individuals have also been eliminated, meaning an individual can give $5,000 to as many candidates he/she wants as well as many thousands of dollars to PACs, political parties and independent expenditures.

The Republicans who support this legislation say it’s a way to combat “dark money.” Please. Do they really think voters are gullible enough to believe that? This bill does nothing to shed light on the donors behind “dark money,” nothing to end the money laundering that occurred in the last election.

What the bill does is thwart the will of Arizonans who voted to make it more difficult for a handful of wealthy individuals to buy elections. Arizonans approved Clean Elections to try and remove money as the deciding factor in a race. Regardless of whether or not the bill is deemed constitutional, it is clearly NOT written in the interest of furthering the will of a voter-approved initiative.

This bill isn’t about the will of the voters. It’s about making life easier for legislators. They don’t need to appeal to a wide majority of citizens, just a small minority of wealthy donors with an agenda.

It’s a win-win for legislators and special interest groups and a lose-lose for representative democracy.

Compare that message to the one given by the Center for Arizona Policy, the organization run by Cathi Herrod. On hearing about Bisbee’s ordinance to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples, CAP threatened to bankrupt the small community by bringing litigation against them.

Herrod and team do not believe in the love shared by same-sex partners, often referring to it as “abnormal” and “against God’s law.”

But who’s God is Herrod referring to? There are many Christians and several Christian churches across this country that vehemently disagree with Herrod. They embrace not only LGBT members and civil unions but also gay marriage.

And if churches and congregations are open and willing to perform these marriage ceremonies, what right does the government have to deny them recognition under the law? What right does the state of Arizona have to deny a city the right to recognize civil unions within that city’s boundaries?

Take a moment to consider what the ordinance does. It allows same-sex couples the same rights as married individuals when dealing with certain issues related to inheritance, joint property, guardianship, and adoption.

In other words, in the eyes of the residents of Bisbee, Arizona, same-sex parents and their children are not seen as a “problem” but rather as a valuable part of their community with the same legal rights as other families. They want their families — all of them — to succeed.

Cathi Herrod and the Arizona legislators who bow to her authority want these families outlawed and ostracized.

Bisbee’s ordinance does not change state law. Arizona has no law on civil unions, meaning it neither allows nor denies them, and Bisbee’s ordinance does not force other cities or the state to recognize the civil unions granted within the town’s borders.

But maybe, if we’re lucky, other cities will follow Bisbee’s example and civil unions will spread throughout the state. It’s only a matter of time before gay marriage is not only legalized but also normalized. Younger generations have already embraced it.

It’s only a matter of time until bans on gay marriage seem as antiquated as bans on interracial marriage. God willing, that time will come sooner rather than later.

Until then, Bisbee stands alone but on the right side of history, the law and love.

Though the Mayor is getting a lot of flack for a broken campaign promise, the reality is we were misled by many politicians as well as the media. Though it may not have been intentional, good news of a recovering economy seems to have clouded the fact that we are nowhere near the level of revenues we had prior to the recession.

Yes, the economy is growing again, and yes, housing prices are finally starting to climb. But take a moment to remember how far we fell just a few short years ago.

In 2010, the city was facing a $277 million budget shortfall. We needed the food tax. Residents had no desire to fire cops or close libraries.

Repealing the tax should not have been central to any mayoral or city council candidate’s campaign, and the media should have seriously questioned the reality of finding hundreds of millions of dollars in savings without substantial cuts to necessary services.

The Mayor is eating crow, and that’s not a bad thing. He needs to start an honest conversation with residents, letting them know we are not out of the woods yet. Not even close.

Sales taxes may be increasing, but property taxes are still woefully low as is state shared revenue (the money cities receive from the state). The city has yet to reinstate many of the services they cut as well as compensation levels for police, which were reduced by 3.2 percent.

This year’s proposed budget, with the food tax in place, only restores 1.6 percent of pay concessions and continues to cut other city employee positions. The real question here isn’t whether or not we need to keep the food tax through 2015. The real question is, what will happen after 2015?

Make no mistake about it, Phoenix has a pending public safety crisis. I’ve written about the city’s loss of police officers, the length of time it takes to replace those officers, and the fact that the city still has no definitive plans to begin recruiting or hiring.

Keeping the food tax two more years won’t result in additional police officers. The tax is filling a huge revenue hole, not creating room for growth. The fact is, if the city doesn’t drastically restructure its budget, the food tax won’t be going away in 2015 and will likely become permanent.

Residents should be asking the city manager and council some tough questions right now, like how the city will respond to public safety needs in the future if it cannot operate efficiently enough in the here and now, even with an additional revenue source in place.

Do those in the city manager’s office or on the council believe revenues will improve so dramatically after 2014 that the city will be able to both reinstate lost services and pay cuts AND hire additional officers?

Considering the city is currently dealing with a revenue projection shortfall of almost $20 million, I’m skeptical.

Phoenicians need to know how much services cost and more importantly, what they deliver. How do the city’s expenditures and revenues compare with other large cities nationwide? What services, if any, are residents willing to do without? And if we find we cannot or do not want to live without these services, are we willing to find additional revenue sources?

These are the tough questions that we have punted on for far too long. Though the city has made great progress in creating a smaller and more efficient government, economic realities have ensured we will not have the type of revenue streams we had in the past for a very long time to come.

Phoenix can rise from the ashes but only if we stop depending on mythical outcomes and start dealing in actuality.

“While the legislature’s leadership ignores efforts to target pimps who sell children for sex, Kavanagh is worried about bathroom etiquette.”

This was a quote on my Facebook page from retired Mesa police officer Bill Richardson after I expressed my dismay over Representative John Kavanagh’s bill, SB1432, which would criminalize using the wrong bathroom.

Kavanagh is attempting to undo the City of Phoenix’s anti-discrimination ordinance that was recently expanded to include protections for the LGBT and disabled communities. Richardson speaks about the ridiculousness of Kavanagh’s bill while noting that the legislature has chosen to ignore valid public safety measures that would actually help children.

He speaks about one measure in detail in his column this week for the East Valley Tribune, saying:

Sex crimes captivate the audience, but why not the Arizona legislature? I find it interesting the number of Arizona folks who are captivated and fascinated with sex crimes. It’s like they can’t get enough of it.

I hear constant talk about the media-created, soap-opera-like atmosphere surrounding the Jodi Arias murder trial. People are fascinated with the sex talk and titillating tales of what Arias and Travis Alexander did before she admittedly murdered him.

No doubt the media loves it. Sex sells and — media-driven voyeurism sells really big in Arizona!

In an opinion piece in last Saturday’s Arizona Republic, Cindy McCain – wife to Sen. John McCain and a highly successful business executive and known global humanitarian — stated that “Phoenix is a major hub for this activity and is often listed as one of the top spots in the U.S. for child sex trafficking.”

Imagine that, Arizona as a top spot for child sex trafficking.

When you consider Arizona’s continued lack of a strategic statewide plan and effective state agency to take on the organized crime elements that sell kids for sex, Arizona is a great spot trafficking in children.

I wrote in my March 5 Tribune column (“Recent Valley freeway snarls only part of the issue with DPS”) that “Without a centralized and coordinated effort like was once the case with DPS taking the lead in organized crime investigations, the public suffers and the criminal’s profit. No wonder organized crime loves Arizona.”

While the public’s anti-crime focus is kept on the border and billions and billions of dollars are spent to intercept illegal aliens and drugs — to questionable success — organized criminal activities continue to flourish on our city streets. Human trafficking whether it is for sweatshops or the sex trade has always been a major profit center for organized crime.

In Arizona, it’s no secret among law enforcement officials that the streets are controlled by gangs with ties to the Mexican mafia prison gang and Mexico based organized crime groups.

For whatever reasons, Arizona’s policy and lawmakers continue to ignore the threat these groups present to Arizona’s sustainability and quality of life. The legislature’s neglect of statewide law enforcement efforts is legendary.

When you look at its recent performance, it’s easy to see how Arizona went from being one of the best in attacking organized crime to being a state that’s a major destination and transshipment hub in organized crime’s North American supply chain.

McCain pointed out in her op-ed piece the legislature’s latest gift to crime and criminals was House Judiciary Chairman Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, refusing to schedule a hearing for a bill to help law enforcement target the growing problem of child prostitution. House Bill 2569 would have created “higher penalties for pimps and traffickers than for johns when the victim is 15, 16 or 17.

“This bill is relatively simple and straightforward, and just the start of legislation needed to address the larger problem of human trafficking in Arizona,” she added.

Kiddie pimps would be looking at up to 37 years in prison had this bill moved forward and become law.

McCain pointed out “Sex traffickers target children because of their vulnerability and gullibility, as well as the market ‘demand’ for young victims. Studies show pimps prey on victims as young as 12.”

Farnsworth’s refusal to hold a hearing killed anti-organized crime legislation that would help police and prosecutors attack Arizona’s flesh mongers.

But what else would you expect from our legislature’s leadership — a group that has made ignoring Arizona’s crime problems its usual way of doing business?

McCain is known for her courage. She’s not afraid to get her hands dirty doing what’s right. It’s too bad our legislature doesn’t have the same commitment and courage to protect Arizona’s children and communities from organized crime and sexual predators.

People in Arizona need to understand that by prioritizing “bathroom ID” laws over things like child sex trafficking, our legislators are putting sensationalism above public safety. And it’s our children who pay the price for these legislators’ theatrics.

The ‘performance funding’ as it’s called, is based on two factors: overall test scores and school improvement (i.e. improving from a D to a C).

Many critics, particularly Democrats, are skeptical. They fear the plan will hurt students in poorer districts, particularly those districts with a high percentage of English Language Learners (ELL) and low-income students. These are the students most in need of a great education. Decreasing funding (if the schools fail to improve) seems counter to the needs of these students.

And yet, as a parent who has two school-aged children, I cannot subscribe to the same old argument that funding is the solution to our education crisis. Yes, funding is important, but there are many other factors that need to be taken into account as well, and parents with students at schools with D and F rankings understandably want better results and greater accountability.

As other countries continue to make strides in education, the United States remains stagnant. We are losing because we refuse to change. We seem attached to a system that may have worked fine many decades ago but is clearly not working so great anymore. And as a mom and someone who values education, I don’t want to wait around anymore for the system to magically repair itself. It won’t.

Performance funding is one just idea, and while this alone will not fix our schools, it will force them to think outside the box. And that, I believe, is exactly what we need if we’re going to reform education. Bold ideas! Continuing the status quo should not be an option.

While I would prefer the majority of the performance funding be based on yearly academic improvement instead of a split between improvement and test scores, the bill is at least a good start in the accountability conversation. A conversation that was, by the way, spearheaded by the Arizona Ready Education Council, which includes education professionals as well as business leaders.

Another bill working its way through the legislature is HB2488, which would provide an 8 percent increase in funding for schools who switch to a 200-day calendar. This is the type of targeted, increased funding that makes sense, but like all education bills, this one has its enemies as well.

Tea partiers in the House have voted against this, saying it would result in the state raising children, which I believe is code for “we don’t want to spend money on education even if it’s targeted funding.”

A 200-day calendar would be most beneficial for low-income students. These are the very students who do not have the means to afford summer enrichment programs and tend to be most at risk for “summer brain drain.” This is one way to help bridge the achievement gap between low and high-income students. The bill passed the House (with 14 nays) and is now with the Senate Education Committee. It needs to pass.

Another bill receiving all kinds of negative attention is HB2047, which would make the transition from AIMS to Common Core. Many of the same legislators who were opposed to funding a 200-day calendar are also opposed to this bill but for a very curious reason. They believe it supports the Agenda 21 conspiracy theory.

Not familiar with that one? Basically, it’s the belief that Agenda 21, which is a NON-BINDING plan created by the United Nations to help governments implement sustainable development, is actually a plan to create a one-world government. It was signed by the first President Bush and has since helped many local governments, those run by both Republicans and Democrats, devise ways to conserve natural resources.

The conspiracy folks even have a list of key words they deem are traceable to the Agenda 21 takeover. These words include: sustainable, international baccalaureate, affordable housing, walkable communities, and Common Core Curriculum (to name just a few – click here for a complete link).

Apparently, if we hold our students to a higher standard or do anything that promotes sustainability (the biggest swear word), we will be subjecting ourselves to a takeover by the United Nations.

While that sounds incredibly silly to most of us, it is a huge part of the tea party’s philosophy, and a huge part of what makes our legislature the object of ridicule. It is also an unfortunate reason many good bills fail to see the light of day, even when those bills have Republican sponsors.

School accountability can and should happen in conjunction with a hand up for those students most in need of support. But it won’t happen if we keep electing legislators who quash education reform because of some asinine idea that “outcome based education” (naughty key word) will result in a UN takeover. Nor will it happen if we continue to cling to an outdated system that has failed many of our students and put us in a race to the bottom.

In the race for Arizona’s Attorney General, will Terry Goddard challenge Felecia Rotellini in the Democratic primary? Will anyone in the Republican party challenge Tom Horne?

LGBT Ordinance… good or bad for Phoenix?

The roundtable makes political predictions.

These days, the line between reporter and commentator is murky, at best. The advent of cable news and social media has confused viewers (and apparently journalists) about these differing roles.

I’ve been criticized by readers of this blog for expressing my opinion or not giving enough attention to the other side of the story. Except, just like an editorial, the purpose of a blog is not to simply report the news but rather to influence opinion and persuade one’s audience.

The purpose of a newscast, however, is strictly about objectivity and giving coverage to both sides of an issue. That doesn’t or shouldn’t mean that reporters fail to call out their experts when they misquote a source or give inaccurate information. It doesn’t mean a reporter shouldn’t ask difficult questions or investigate government agencies. Indeed, I believe holding our elected officials accountable is one of the most important functions of the press.

But when a reporter or news anchor takes a controversial issue and seemingly takes a side on the controversy, all under the guise of starting a conversation, I find myself more than a little annoyed.

This week there was an incident on Facebook that demonstrated how easy it is for a reporter to cross the line from information to persuasion. On a public Facebook page, a Valley anchor posed a question to his audience about Phoenix’s proposal to expand its anti-discrimination protections to LGBT and disabled individuals. He referred to it as the “Bathroom Bill” (which was enough to inflame many readers), then stated, “If passed, transgendered men would be able to use the womens bathroom in public places like restaurants, churches and clubs.”

That statement wouldn’t be controversial if it was true, but it is woefully inaccurate. First off, the ordinance doesn’t even address bathroom use, which means an assumption was used to sound like a fact. Secondly, the ordinance contained a religious exemption, which was clearly stated and made public in the draft copy.

I’m not sure how this reporter could have misinterpreted the religious exemption had he read the proposed ordinance. I do know that there were several groups who were also using inaccuracies such as these to generate support against the ordinance.

What I find offensive, however, are some of the additional comments made by the anchor further down in the post, especially this one: “…the other side of the coin is how the bathroom part of this bill would make OTHERS feel. What seems to get lost in this debate is not only the rights of LGBT community, but also the rights of the straight community. I agree that Phoenix should move ahead in making our city a welcoming, accepting and tolerant community. However, the feelings of EVERYONE should be taken into account.”

Again, there is not and never was a “bathroom part” of the ordinance. And if this anchor is wishing to play devil’s advocate, then express the concerns of both sides of the issue. Or better yet, keep your personal opinion out of the debate, and let your readers hash it out.

Still, I’m curious to know what “rights” the straight community is giving up by outlawing the legal discrimination against LGBT and disabled individuals. Based on this post, it seems the reporter is suggesting that we have a right not to feel uncomfortable around people we don’t like.

Hmm. I seem to have heard this argument before. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe many Southerners were up in arms about similar protections offered to individuals on the basis of race. They even argued about the effect of allowing mixed races to use the same bathrooms. It made them uncomfortable to share a bathroom or drinking fountain with someone they deemed “unhygienic.” All kinds of bad things were sure to happen if the races mixed.

The LGBT and disabled communities are not asking us to embrace them or feel comfortable around them. Feeling comfortable isn’t a right. Having access to housing, however, should be a right. Being able to provide for your family, having a chance at gainful employment, a right.

Civil rights laws aren’t about soothing the majority’s feelings. They are intended to protect individuals who are routinely discriminated against and treated as second-class citizens.

The majority of Southerners didn’t like or feel comfortable around black people. But today, the majority of Americans would find discrimination based solely on race despicable. Times have changed, but discrimination against others deemed “abnormal” or “less-than” has not.

Opining on behalf of straight people would be a-ok (ethically) for a columnist or a reporter’s personal Facebook page but not on a public page associated with one’s professional job as a news anchor. And though this anchor qualifies his statements by saying the intent of his Facebook page is to “engage in a conversation with our viewers that I can’t have when I am reading the news,” this doesn’t negate the fact that a conversation with a journalist should still be anchored by accurate statements, not offensive opinions.

I get that it’s tough remaining objective in today’s media world, one where reporters are required to do much more than just put together a story for the evening newscast. Now they must tweet and blog and post status updates and be witty and personable all at the same time.

It’s a lot to ask. But it’s what the job demands. It’s what journalistic ethics demands.

I don’t wish to demonize this anchor because I don’t believe he was acting maliciously when he made his post, and he is certainly not alone among anchors in finding a controversial subject and putting a personal spin on it. Unfortunately for him, I just happened to see his post and take offense with the inaccuracies, the position and the ethics behind it.

I’m not a reporter, and I don’t mind if people disagree with my opinions. But as a blogger, I intend to call out journalists when I see them acting like editorialists. It’s a matter of professionalism, and it’s too important to simply sit back and say nothing.

Also known as the LGBT Ordinance, this proposal would amend Phoenix’s civil rights policy to include sexual orientation, gender identity or expression and disability in its list of unlawful discrimination. In other words businesses would not be allowed to discriminate against someone based on gender identity just as they currently cannot discriminate against someone based on race or age or religious affiliation, among other things.

Herrod and DiCiccio like to refer to it as the ‘Bathroom Bill’ because it’s politically savvy to pretend their objections are about bathroom concerns instead of civil protections for LGBT individuals. They argue that little kids might end up using a restroom with a member of the opposite sex.

Herrod also erroneously claims on her website that churches will not be exempt from the ordinance and will be forced to hire homosexuals or transgender individuals, which is flat-out wrong. The religious exemption that was part of the original ordinance remains.

But Herrod doesn’t stop there. She has gone so far as to say this ordinance will lead to child predators pretending to be transgender just so they can gain access to a child through a restroom.

Her scare tactic is quite imaginative, especially since the ordinance doesn’t even address bathroom use, nor does it change criminal penalties for child predators. And though this may come as a shock to some, transgender individuals already use bathrooms in public places.

The argument also strikes me as somewhat, no make that incredibly ridiculous because little kids use bathrooms of the opposite sex all the time. When my boys were young, I always took them into the women’s restroom with me just as I know plenty of dads who took their daughters into the men’s room with them.

If Cathi Herrod is really concerned about this issue, perhaps she should be pushing businesses for the addition of family restrooms or single stall, unisex bathrooms.

You may recall Herrod is the same individual who was credited with single-handedly killing an anti-bullying bill during last year’s legislative session. Until Herrod got involved, the bill was set to pass with plenty of bipartisan support as well as the enthusiastic support of teachers and schools.

Herrod, however, claimed the bill was propaganda for gay rights to push a secret agenda even though the bill never mentioned sexual orientation. No doubt she believes she can successfully kill this ordinance with the same type of scare tactics she used to kill the anti-bullying bill.

While Herrod focuses on bathrooms and churches, DiCiccio is panning the ‘bathroom bill’ as harmful to small businesses, saying the language is so broad “the floodgates of litigation against businesses will be opened.”

Interestingly enough, this ordinance doesn’t change any of the existing non-discrimination penalties against businesses. In fact, mediation, not criminal prosecution, is always the first step after a complaint is filed, and to date, no “floodgate of litigation” or anything close to that has ensued within the city.

Phoenix is behind, way behind, other major cities when it comes to extending civil protections for the LGBT community. 166 other cities, including Tucson, have already passed these ordinances, and it has not disrupted the business community or led to frivolous lawsuits.

The Council is set to vote on the ordinance next week Tuesday, February 26. Councilman DiCiccio has pledged he will vote against it, and it’s believed that Councilman Jim Waring will vote no as well. If you’re a Phoenix resident who does not wish to continue to legalize the discrimination of the LGBT community (because without these protections, discrimination against LGBT individuals IS perfectly legal), then I suggest you call or email your councilman/woman and voice your support for the revised ordinance. Don’t let the scare tactics of a few flush away years of progress by many.