Meet Our Candidates: Marcus Ferrell for State Representative, LD 24

The time to fight back — and fight forward — for reproductive justice is fast approaching. The stakes are high in this year’s state election, with candidates for governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and other races on the ballot. The Arizona primary election will be held August 28, 2018, and early voting began on August 2. Voters need to have been registered by July 30 to cast their ballots. Reproductive health has been under attack, both nationally and statewide, but Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona has endorsed candidates who put our health and our rights first. Get to know them now in our series of “Meet Our Candidates” interviews, and make your voice heard in 2018!

Marcus Ferrell is a pragmatic yet fearless House of Representatives candidate from Legislative District 24, which encompasses the core of Central Phoenix. The majority of the district is located between 7th Avenue and 7th Street, with additional pockets of voters outside of the historic districts.

LD 24 is home to tremendous diversity, which generally produces many candidates. This cycle is no different, with seven candidates running for two seats. Although these candidates are impressive, and the district would benefit from any of them, one hopeful stood out from the pack: Marcus Ferrell.


“We must stand up to anyone who wants to roll back a woman’s right to choose.”


Marcus Ferrell is a driven candidate with an exciting campaign. Mr. Ferrell, a political strategist by trade, has taken ideas that have been successful for his winning clients and is applying them to his own campaign. It was while working on the Stacey Abrams campaign for governor of Georgia that he felt compelled to run for his home district here in Arizona.

Pushing a progressive and intersectional agenda, he’s long been an advocate for women. As one of the few candidates to have worked at an abortion clinic in his early days, Mr. Ferrell has first-hand knowledge of what our health care staff goes through every day. He has witnessed the harassment our patients face just getting to the door of our health centers, whether from protesters with bullhorns or politicians enacting burdensome laws.

With the primary on the horizon — and with early voting already underway — Mr. Ferrell was kind enough to offer his vision for Arizona to us on July 30, 2018. Continue reading

For Women’s Equality Day, A Call to Use Your Right to Vote

On August 18, 1920, Congress ratified the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and on August 26, 1920, it was certified: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

It had taken 72 years: In 1848, when Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott convened the first women’s rights convention in U.S. history at Seneca Falls, this resolution was passed: “Resolved, That it is the duty of the women of this country to secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective franchise.”


People in power would not be trying so hard to keep us from voting if our votes weren’t powerful. We must not give up that power.


Of 12 resolutions, it was the only one that was not passed unanimously. Although leaders such as Sojourner Truth, Mary McClintock, Susan B. Anthony, and Frederick Douglass supported a resolution demanding women’s right to vote, many other attendees thought such a resolution might be a bridge too far. But by 1920, after women had marched, rallied, and faced abuse and arrest, several states had already adopted women’s suffrage.

In 1971, the newly elected Rep. Bella Abzug proposed observing August 26 as Women’s Equality Day to commemorate women’s suffrage, and a joint resolution of Congress made it so. But getting the right to vote cannot be considered a victory if we do not exercise that right. In the 2016 election, only 58 percent of registered voters actually cast a ballot. Although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes, she trailed President Obama’s 2008 votes by 3.4 million. Continue reading

Pro-Choice Friday News Rundown

Remember the bill the 45th President signed last month giving states the right to withhold federal Title X funds for family planning services from clinics that also provide abortions? Well, that wasn’t going to affect the state of Arizona because our state does not directly distribute funds to health-care providers. Title X funds have long been distributed by the Arizona Family Health Partnership and they never discriminated based on whether or not a provider performed abortions.

WELP, GUESS WHAT? The despicable, forced-birth advocates in our Legislature (the House and the Senate — NOT A COINCIDENCE but a coordinated attack!) launched bills last week seeking to change who controls the distribution of Title X finds. They want that money now to be distributed by the Arizona Department of Health Services — a state-run entity that is prohibited from contracting with health-care providers who perform abortions.

Again, the timing of this is not a coincidence and this is a GOP-coordinated attack on Planned Parenthood and clinics that provide abortions.

  • Now that No. 45 has given other states the right to withhold those funds from us, Arizona wants in. (Phoenix New Times)
  • Obviously poor women and women in rural areas are going to suffer as a result if these harmful bills pass. (AZ Central)
  • By nominating Charmaine Yoest to be assistant secretary for public affairs of the Department of Health and Human Services, No. 45 continues his administration’s coordinated effort to destroy reproductive health care. Ms. Yoest has personally had a hand in harmful legislation nationwide to restrict women’s access to abortion. She has publicized the lie that abortion raises the risk of breast cancer. This is not rooted in science. She is a dangerous zealot and fear-monger hoping to scare women out of making a medically sound decision about their bodies. This is scary. (Rewire)
  • To all my friends in Blue states: If Trumpcare passes, it’s going to jack up your lives, too! (Slate)
  • Why does the GOP want to make women pay more for health insurance? I’m sure misogyny has nothing to do with it! (NY Mag)
  • Are Republicans accidentally paving the way for single-payer health care? Let’s hope so. (WaPo)
  • Bernie Sanders and Tom Perez, the de facto “leaders” of the Democratic party, threw women under the bus. (NY Mag)
  • Alabama Governor Signs Law Allowing Faith-Based Adoption Agencies to Bar Gay Couples From Adopting. I could find no evidence that he himself has adopted any children. Apparently his concern for them is limited to keeping them out of potentially loving homes based on whom their parents have consensual sex with. Seems legit. #NOT (Slate)
  • From the looks of HB 3859, Texas is on board with this practice as well. This terrible bill would allow state contractors who provide child welfare services to discriminate against qualified same-sex couples who want to adopt. (HRC)
  • Actually, it’s even worse than that. While Texas foster kids — including LGBTQ foster kids who got kicked out of their homes of origin — are being “protected” from same-sex foster parents, they’re also being “protected” from vaccinations. (The Stranger)
  • Nancy Pelosi says abortion is “fading” as an issue for Democrats. The opposite is true for conservatives. (WaPo)
  • Trump’s Annual Child-Care Tax Break Would Give Average American Families Less Than $20. Try not to spend it all in one place! (Slate)
  • A piece of good news … A bill that could ban conversion therapy nationwide could be passed. YES! (WaPo)
  • In the United States, black women are three to four times more likely than white women to die from pregnancy-related causes. It’s worse in places like New York City, where black women are 12 times more likely than white women to die from pregnancy-related causes. Rewire asks, “Could Increasing the Number of Black Health-Care Providers Fix Our Maternal Health Problem?” (Rewire)

Reproductive Justice?

President Bill Clinton stands by as Ruth Bader Ginsburg is sworn in as associate Supreme Court Justice in 1993

President Bill Clinton stands by as Ruth Bader Ginsburg is sworn in as associate Supreme Court justice in 1993

When Justice Antonin Scalia died on February 13, 2016, it was the death of more than just one man. For the first time in 20 years, the fairly reliable conservative tilt of the Supreme Court vanished. Now there were four generally liberal justices, three remaining consistently conservative justices, and Anthony Kennedy, a moderate who, though usually conservative, could move to the left, especially on social issues, as we saw in his eloquent opinion in support of same-sex marriage. If Kennedy voted with the conservatives, it would result in a tie, not a 5-4 decision. In case of a tied vote on the Supreme Court, the lower court ruling holds, and if there are conflicting rulings in different circuits, we continue with different law in different parts of the country.

Or the court could order a rehearing of a case once a new justice is seated.


The makeup of the Supreme Court is a glaring example of how much is at stake in presidential elections.


The political wheels started turning immediately. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell almost immediately announced that Scalia’s seat should be filled after “the American people” weigh in during the presidential election — Republicans always seem to forget that the American people have already weighed in twice by making Barack Obama president. This categorical rejection of any Obama nominee, no matter who, is unprecedented. Scalia’s seat was apparently sacred, and could only fairly be filled by a Republican appointee. McConnell does not seem to consider that the next president might also be a Democrat.

The change in the balance of the court was apparent in the first of two cases concerning reproductive health that were scheduled to be heard this month. (The second case, Zubik v. Burwell, will be argued on March 23.) At SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston analyzed the oral arguments in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. It was always clear that the outcome would hinge on Justice Kennedy, and, before Scalia’s death, that in all likelihood the Texas law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, and abortion clinics to meet ambulatory surgical clinic requirements, would be upheld. Continue reading