Prop. 107 opposition trots out false argument that Prop. 107 will eliminate domestic violence shelters and breast cancer screening

The Prop. 107 opposition is up to last minute tricks to try and defeat the initiative through more scare tactics. This time the left wing  Blog for Arizona is claiming that domestic violence shelters and breast cancer screening programs for women could possibly be eliminated. 


First of all, the language only bans government preferences in hiring, contracting and higher education. Domestic violence shelters and breast cancer screening programs do not fall within those areas. 


Secondly, any program in risk of being eliminated just has to open its services up to men. 


The article relies upon two lawsuits in California where some men's rights activists filed complaints against domestic violence shelters that only offered services to women. Both complainants lost, and there was never any finding by the courts that California's equivalent Prop. 209 had endangered them. Not very compelling evidence that these services will be in jeopardy in Arizona.


Even IF there were lawsuits against women-only domestic violence shelters in Arizona, and IF they were successful, all the shelters would need to do would be to admit men like other domestic violence shelters. 


Same goes for breast cancer screening programs, and those would probably have even more likelihood of being permitted to remain as women-only, since they likely constitute a bona fide sex difference between men and women. 


Would it be unfortunate if some men's rights groups filed lawsuits to attempt to stop these kinds of services from operating? It might not even cost taxpayers any money, since a judge could choose to require the men's groups when they inevitably lose to pay costs and fees, based on them losing in the past in California. The men's groups may file lawsuits like this anyway, with or without Prop. 107 being in existence, citing other parts of the Constitution, as they did in the California lawsuits. 


This is just another Chicken Little "sky is falling" attempt to come up with the absolute worst possible case scenario, which isn't going to happen based on prior history in states where this initiative has passed.