See 2016 Washington Primary Results Here


Results from Washington State’s primary begin trickling in Tuesday night as votes were cast by mail for dozens of races at the federal, statewide, and district level.

In Washington’s primary system, the top two finishing candidates for each race – regardless of party – move on to the general election in November.

The results below indicate which two of the candidates for each office received the highest percentage returns in the primary election. You can view the most updated numbers at the Washington Secretary of State’s website, here. The final results are not official until certified by the secretary of state, and are subject to change prior to that point. Incumbents are denoted by an asterisk.  

Numbers updated 8/4/16 at 11:00am.

Federal Offices

U.S. Senate – In a race largely seen as a safe Democrat hold in the Senate, incumbent Senator Patty Murray looks to have a safe claim on her seat, scoring well over half of all votes in a crowded field of 17 candidates.

Patty Murray* (D)                            53.30%

Chris Vance (R)                                 27.93%

Congress, District 1

Suzan DelBene* (D)                          53.86%

Robert J. Sutherland (R)                  31.13%

Congress, District 2

Rick Larsen* (D)                                53.00%

Marc Henneman (R)                         31.74%

Congress, District 3

Jaime Herrera Beutler* (R)              54.65%

Jim Moeller (D)                                   25.29%

Congress, District 4

Dan Newhouse* (R)                          46.20%

Clint Didier (R)                                  27.24%

Congress, District 5

Cathy McMorris Rodgers* (R)        41.44%

Joe Pakootas (D)                                32.15%

Congress, District 6

Derek Kilmer* (D)                            59.01%

Todd A. Bloom (R)                           24.35%

Congress, District 7

Pramila Jayapal (D)                          39.06%

Brady Walkinshaw (D)                     21.29%

Congress, District 8

Dave Reichert* (R)                            57.38%

Tony Ventrella (D)                             17.50%

Congress, District 9

Adam Smith* (D)                              56.95%

Doug Basler (R)                                 24.68%

Congress, District 10

Denny Heck* (D)                               46.92%

Jim Postma (R)                                  36.87%


Statewide Offices


Jay Inslee* (D)                                   48.57%

Bill Bryant (R)                                   38.57%

Lieutenant Governor

Cyrus Habib (D)                                20.07%

Marty McClendon (R)                      20.04%

Secretary of State

Kim Wyman* (R)                              48.72%

Tina Podlodowski (D)                      45.45%

State Treasurer

Duane Davidson (R)                         25.52%

Michael Waite (R)                             23.68%

State Auditor

Mark Miloscia (R)                              37.43%

Patrice McCarthy (D)                        30.35%

Attorney General

Bob Ferguson* (D)                            72.61%

Joshua Trumbull (L)                         27.39%

Commissioner of Public Lands

Steve McLaughlin (R)                       38.97%

Hilary Franz (D)                                21.17%

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Erin Jones                                           23.35%

Chris Reykdal                                     21.01%

Insurance Commissioner

Mike Kreidler                                     57.69%

Richard Shrock                                  35.05%


State Senate

District 1

Mindie Wirth (R)                              40.05%

Guy Palumbo (D)                              30.20%

District 2

Randi Becker* (R)                             58.18%

Marilyn Rasmussen (D)                   27.25%

District 3

Andy Billig* (D)                                 74.30%

James R. Apker (L)                            25.70%

District 4

Mike Padden* (R)                             100.00%

Senator Padden ran unopposed.

District 5 –

Mark Mullet* (D)                              50.55%

Chad Magendanz (R)                       49.45%

District 9

Mark G. Schoesler* (R)                   100.00%

Senator Schoesler ran unopposed.

District 10

Barbara Bailey* (R)                          50.81%

Angie Homola (D)                            39.96%

District 11

Bob Hasegawa* (D)                          79.05%

Dennis Price (L)                                20.95%

District 12

Brad Hawkins* (R)                           66.68%

Jon Wyss (R)                                      33.32%

District 14 –

Curtis King* (R)                                69.74%

Amanda Richards (R)                      30.26%

District 16 –

Maureen Walsh (R)                          100.00%

Maureen Walsh ran unopposed.

District 17

Tim Probst (D)                                  50.12%

Lynda Wilson (R)                             49.88%

District 18

Ann Rivers* (R)                                 59.97%

Eric K. Holt (R)                                  40.03%

District 19

Dean Takko* (D)                               58.02%

Sue Kuehl Pederson (R)                  41.98%

District 20

John Braun* (R)                                100.00%

Senator Braun ran unopposed.

District 22

Sam Hunt* (D)                                  55.45%

Steve Owens (I)                                 21.88%

District 23

Christine Rolfes* (D)                       100.00%

Senator Rolfes ran unopposed.

 District 24

Kevin Van De Wege (D)                   61.99%

Danille Turissini (R)                         38.01%

District 25

Hans Zeiger (R)                                 59.02%

Karl Mecklenburg (D)                      40.98%

District 27

Jeannie Darneille* (D)                      62.50%

Greg Taylor (R)                                   26.01%

District 28

Steve O’Ban* (R)                               53.75%

Marisa Peloquin                                46.25%

District 36

Reuven Carlyle* (D)                         100.00%

Senator Carlyle ran unopposed.

District 39

Kirk Pearson* (R)                             100.00%

Senator Pearson ran unopposed.

District 40

Kevin Ranker* (D)                            69.36%

Daniel R. Miller (R)                          30.64%

District 41

Steve Litzow* (R)                              48.76%

Lisa Wellman (D)                              47.64%

District 49

Annette Cleveland* (D)                    57.21%

Lewis Gerhardt (R)                           31.56%


State House of Representatives

Candidates running unopposed are not listed below.

 District 1, Position 1

Derek Stanford* (D)                         50.19%

Neil Thannisch (R)                           23.20%

District 1, Position 2

Jim Langston (R)                              39.50%

Shelley Kloba (D)                              31.54%

District 2, Position 1

Andrew Barkis* (R)                          57.90%

Amy Pivetta Hoffman                      42.10%

District 2, Position 2

J.T. Wilcox* (R)                                65.89%

Derek Maynes (D)                            19.19%

District 3, Position 1

Marcus Riccelli* (D)                          72.55%

Randy McGlenn II (R)                      27.45%

District 3, Position 2

Timm Ormsby* (D)                           63.86%

Laura Carder (R)                               28.34%

District 4, Position 1

Matt Shea* (R)                                  58.98%

Scott V. Stucker (D)                          41.02%

District 5, Position 1

Jay Rodne* (R)                                  55.19%

Jason Ritchie (D)                              44.81%

District 5, Position 2

Paul Graves (R)                                 46.67%

Darcy Burner (D)                              36.50%

District 6, Position 1

Lynnette Vehrs (D)                           43.68%

Mike Volz (R)                                     29.42%

District 6, Position 2

Jeff Holy* (R)                                     57.15%

Shar Lichty (D)                                  42.85%

District 7, Position 2

Joel Kretz* (R)                                   78.08%

Mike Foster (L)                                  21.92%

District 8, Position 1

Brad Klippert* (R)                            54.30%

Rick Jansons (R)                               31.68%

District 8, Position 2

Larry Haler* (R)                                64.09%

Steve Simmons (R)                           35.91%

District 9, Position 1

Mary Dye* (R)                                   57.71%

Jennifer Goulet (D)                           30.15%

District 10, Position 1

Norma Smith* (R)                             73.54%

Michael Scott (L)                               26.46%

District 10, Position 2

Dave Hayes* (R)                                55.24%

Doris Brevoort (D)                            44.76%

District 11, Position 1

Zack Hudgins* (D)                            65.25%

Erin Smith Aboudara (R)                 34.75%

District 12, Position 1

Cary Condotta* (R)                           63.95%

Dan Maher (D)                                  36.05%

District 12, Position 2

Mike Steele (R)                                  36.16%

Jerry Paine (R)                                  26.38%

District 13, Position 2

Matt Manweller* (R)                       71.00%

Jordan Webb (D)                              29.00%

District 14, Position 1

Norm Johnson* (R)                           67.53%

Susan Soto Palmer (D)                     32.47%

District 14, Position 2

Gina McCabe* (R)                             66.61%

John Adams (D)                                33.39%

District 15, Position 2

David V. Taylor* (R)                          38.10%

AJ Cooper (D)                                     31.63%

District 16, Position 1

Rebecca Francik (D)                         29.32%

William Jenkin (R)                           23.20%

District 16, Position 2

Terry Nealey* (R)                             61.86%

Gary Downing (D)                            29.60%

District 17, Position 1

Vicki Kraft (R)                                   33.06%

Sam Kim (D)                                      21.39%

District 17, Position 2

Paul Harris* (R)                                47.45%

Martin Hash (D)                                39.52%

District 18, Position 1

Brandon Vick* (R)                            57.98%

Justin Oberg (D)                               32.32%

District 18, Position 2

Liz Pike* (R)                                       42.19%

Kathy Gillespie (D)                           29.18%

District 19, Position 1

Jim Walsh (R)                                     28.98%

J.D. Rossetti* (D)                               24.29%

District 19, Position 2

Brian E. Blake* (D)                            55.30%

Jimi O’Hagan (R)                               38.76%

District 21, Position 1

Strom Peterson* (D)                         77.97%

Alex Hels (L)                                      22.03%

District 21, Position 2

Lillian Ortiz-Self* (D)                       56.70%

Jeff Scherrer (R)                                32.81%

District 22, Position 1

Laurie Dolan (D)                               30.81%

Donald Austin (R)                             28.70%

District 23, Position 1

Sherry V. Appleton* (D)                  54.64%

Loretta Byrnes (R)                            25.30%

District 24, Position 1

Mike Chapman (D)                           45.65%

George Vrabel (R)                             36.76%

District 24, Position 2

Steve Tharinger* (D)                         61.98%

John D. Alger (R)                               38.02%

District 25, Position 1

Melanie Stambaugh* (R)                 57.78%

Jamie Smith (D)                                42.22%

District 25, Position 2

Joyce McDonald (R)                          56.67%

Michelle Chatterton (D)                   43.33%

District 26, Position 1

Jesse L. Young* (R)                           39.03%

Larry Seaquist (D)                             36.54%

District 26, Position 2

Michelle Caldier* (R)                       56.68%

Randy Spitzer (D)                             43.32%

District 28, Position 1

Richard Muri* (R)                             53.03%

Mari Leavitt (D)                                 39.26%

District 28, Position 2

Christine Kilduff* (D)                       50.91%

Paul Wagemann (R)                          27.61%

District 29, Position 1

David Sawyer* (D)                            40.68%

Rick Thomas (R)                                35.38%

District 29, Position 2

Steve Kirby* (D)                               61.64%

Jessica Garcia (R)                            38.36%

District 30, Position 1

Mike Pellicciotti (D)                          51.86%

Linda Kochmar* (R)                         48.14%

District 30, Position 2

Kristine Reeves (D)                          50.15%

Teri Hickel* (R)                                 49.85%

District 31, Position 1

Drew Stokesbary* (R)                      73.94%

John Frostad (L)                               26.06%

District 31, Position 2

Phil Fortunato (R)                             39.60%

Lane Walthers (D)                             36.75%

District 32, Position 1

Cindy Ryu* (D)                                  74.31%

Alvin Rutledge (R)                            18.49%

District 32, Position 2

Ruth Kagi* (D)                                  65.26%

David Schirle (R)                              22.01%

District 33, Position 1

Tina Orwall* (D)                               68.04%

John Potter (R)                                 27.87%

District 33, Position 2

Mia Gregerson* (D)                          63.56%

Pamela Pollock (R)                            36.44%

District 34, Position 1

Eileen L. Cody* (D)                           71.24%

Matthew Benson (R)                         17.58%

District 34, Position 2

Joe Fitzgibbon* (D)                           79.29%

Andrew Pilloud (R)                           20.71%

District 35, Position 1

Dan Griffey* (R)                                54.35%

Irene Bowling (D)                             45.65%

District 35, Position 2

Drew MacEwen* (R)                         53.91%

Craig Patti (D)                                    46.09%

District 37, Position 1

Sharon Tomiko Santos* (D)             92.28%

John Dickinson (I)                              7.72%

District 37, Position 2

Eric Pettigrew* (D)                           88.92%

Tamra Smilanich (I)                         11.08%

District 38, Position 2

Mike Sells* (D)                                  69.82%

Bert Johnson (I)                                30.18%

District 39, Position 1

Dan Kristiansen* (R)                        58.98%

Linda M. Wright (D)                         41.02%

District 39, Position 2

John Koster (R)                                 56.49%

Ronda Metcalf (D)                            38.88%

District 41, Position 1

Tana Senn* (D)                                 63.56%

John Pass (R)                                    36.44%

District 41, Position 2

Judy Clibborn* (D)                           54.23%

Michael Appleby (R)                         34.73%

District 42, Position 1

Luanne Van Werven* (R)                51.67%

Sharlaine LaClair (D)                       40.59%

District 42, Position 2

Vincent Buys* (R)                             53.96%

Tracy Atwood (D)                             34.65%

District 43, Position 1

Nicole Macri (D)                                49.43%

Dan Shih (D)                                      26.36%

District 44, Position 1

John Lovick (D)                                 51.91%

Janice Huxford (R)                           45.24%

District 44, Position 2

Mark Harmsworth* (R)                    51.67%

Katrina Ondracek (D)                       31.23%

District 45, Position 1

Roger Goodman* (D)                       62.00%

Ramiro Valderrama (R)                   38.00%

District 46, Position 1

Gerry Pollet* (D)                               87.94%

Stephanie Heart Viskovich (L)       12.06%

District 47, Position 1

Mark Hargrove* (R)                          59.01%

Brooke Valentine (D)                        40.99%

District 47, Position 2

Pat Sullivan* (D)                               56.41%

Barry Knowles (R)                            43.59%

District 48, Position 1

Patty Kuderer* (D)                           74.04%

Michelle Darnell (R)                         25.96%

District 48, Position 2

Joan McBride* (D)                           77.68%

Benjamin Judah Phelps (L)            22.32%

District 49, Position 1

Sharon Wylie* (D)                            76.26%

Kaitlyn Beck (D)                               23.74%

District 49, Position 2

Monica Jurado Stonier (D)             37.29%

Alishia Topper (D)                            27.68%







AG Bob Ferguson Defending Obama’s Executive Bathroom Mandates in Court


Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson is making news again. This time, he’s leading a group of twelve states in support of the Obama Administration’s use of executive fiat to prohibit schools and businesses from maintaining sex-separated facilities.

The bathroom directive mandates schools to allow students to use whichever showers, locker rooms, housing, changing facilities, and restrooms are consistent with their internal gender identity, regardless of their biological sex.

In May, officials from eleven states led by Texas filed a lawsuit against the federal government and Obama administration officials after federal officials threatened to withhold federal education funding from states and schools that refused to comply with the new directive.  An additional ten states joined together on a separate lawsuit a few months later in an effort to block the Obama Administration’s executive action, led by Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson.

Attorney General Bob Ferguson, on behalf of Washington State and eleven other states and Washington, D.C., filed an amicus brief today imploring the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to deny Texas’ request for an injunction to block the administration’s directive.

Writing in support of the new federal directive that opponents say undermines federalism and infringes upon states’ rights, Ferguson condescendingly speculated that the only possible reason for the states’ opposition to the bathroom directive is their “negative attitudes, misunderstandings, or misplaced fear about transgender people.”

Ferguson also asserted that “their [the states] allegations of safety risks are unsupported hyperbole.” In fact, according to Ferguson, the federal government’s bathroom directive will “overwhelmingly benefit the public.”

Attorney General Ferguson must be unaware of the rash of numerous unsettling incidents sparked by policy changes allowing anyone into whichever facility they choose. The University of Toronto temporarily suspended its policy allowing students to use the showers that correspond with their gender identity last fall after male students were accused of recording females showering in the women’s locker room.

Earlier this month, police in Idaho arrested a man, who identifies as a transgender woman, after he took pictures of a woman changing in a Target dressing room. Other similar incidents have occurred at Target stores in North Dakota, Massachusetts, Texas, and Ohio.

Join FPIW in our fight to restore sanity to locker rooms in Washington State!

Washington AG Bob Ferguson Joins Effort to Punish Freedoms of Thought, Speech


After months of political posturing, the targeted attack by several attorneys general against the free speech and free association rights of public policy organizations and private companies has ended. But the fight to preserve free speech rights is not over.

In March, attorneys general from fifteen states, including Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, joined with attorneys general from the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands to punish organizations that they claim have spread misinformation about the existence and consequences of global warming.

Known as Attorneys General United For Clean Power, the group is “dedicated to coming up with creative ways to enforce laws being flouted by the fossil fuels industry and their allies in their short-sighted efforts to put profits above the interests of the American people and the integrity of our financial markets,” said New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman at the coalition’s inauguratory press conference, in which the attorneys general were joined by climate change propagandist and former Vice President Al Gore.

The group blames man-caused climate change for more violent storms and receding ice shelves in the Arctic, despite studies from reputable scientists that climate change is not causing extreme weather and that the polar ice caps have not receded since 1979, the first year NASA satellite data was collected.

“We have heard the scientists,” said Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. “There is no dispute [about global warming], but there is confusion – confusion sown by those with an interest in profiting from the confusion and creating misconceptions in the eyes of the American public.”

Shortly after the formation of the coalition, U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude E. Walker served subpoenas on Exxon and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think-tank that does climate research.  It has published studies critical of climate change.

The subpoena demanded ten years of communications, research, and, perhaps most worrisomely, donor information. CEI President Kent Lassman called the subpoena a “baseless fishing expedition” and a “flagrant violation” of the First Amendment.

Thankfully, Attorney General Walker recently withdrew his subpoenas. CEI is seeking court-imposed sanctions against the attorney general.

Many are concerned that the inquisition mounted against certain political ideologies will create a chilling effect on public policy organizations. It is likely that think tanks, academics, and policymakers will think twice before conducting research and publishing studies and policy recommendations that contradict politically correct narratives.

There is little disagreement among legal scholars that research published by think tanks is constitutionally protected speech. The free exchange of ideas that is promoted by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is necessary for a constitutional republic. The use of persuasion in open public discourse allows for the best ideas to supersede bad ideas.

Despite an entire apparatus of schools and media outlets that disseminate global warming propaganda, climate alarmists are losing the debate in the public square. Less than half of Americans believe the government should be doing more to mitigate climate change, and the number of Americans who believe climate change is a serious problem is declining.

Not content with using persuasion to win arguments, Attorneys General United for Clean Power decided to use the force of law to criminalize the viewpoints of their political opponents.

Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson is well-acquainted with using the force of law to subdue those with whom he disagrees. Ferguson has been embroiled in a legal battle with Barronelle Stutzman, a Washington florist who declined to provide her creative services for a same-sex wedding ceremony. He also filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit against an Olympia pharmacy that declined to dispense abortifacients.

“While Ferguson may be sincerely concerned about climate change, the idea of the attorney general filing lawsuits against people who have different perspectives is highly problematic,” said FPIW’s Executive Director Joseph Backholm. “We should all be concerned about the instinct of our elected officials to say there is only one, absolute, infallible position on these issues that is above critique.”

It remains to be seen what will be the next steps of Attorneys General United for Clean Power.  Though Competitive Enterprise Institute and Exxon won the first battle, the attorneys general have now paved the way for using the legal system to silence people with opposing views. That should be concerning to every American who values our fundamental rights.

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear WA Religious Freedom Case


The U.S. Supreme Court has made major news for two consecutive days, and not in a good way.

Stormans’ Pharmacy in Olympia had appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after the state ordered it to dispense Plan B, morning-after, and week-after pills.  The family-owned pharmacy had previously declined to dispense the drugs, citing the owners’ personal and religious convictions, and likening the use of such pills to abortion.

The Supreme Court decided in a 5-3 vote not to hear the case, with Justices Alito, Thomas, and Roberts dissenting.  “If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern,” Justice John Roberts wrote.

Justice Alito’s strong dissent was simple. The government is now prepared, he said, to tell you: “Violate your sincerely held religious beliefs or get out of the pharmacy business.”

The pharmacy had proposed that it would accommodate any customers seeking the drugs by sending them to one of over 30 other pharmacies within a five-mile radius.  But the state rejected this proposal, stating that the pharmacy’s obligation to dispense the drugs was more important than a pharmacist’s religious objections.

The case now heads back to the lower courts for further review.

Follow this story and others by following FPIW on Twitter, @FPIW.


Snohomish School District Adopts Radical Changes to Gender Policy, Parental Rights


Parental rights and student privacy suffered another setback Wednesday night when the Snohomish School District voted 6-0 to change its policy on how its schools manage student gender identity issues.

The school board voted in favor of opening up all locker rooms, showers, changing facilities, and bathrooms to students of any gender or biological sex.  You can read the entire policy change here.

Furthermore, the district will not be notifying students or their parents about other students’ usage of the facilities, in an effort to protect the privacy of those students.  This means that young girls will not be notified that a biological male plans to use the same showers and changing areas as they do, and parents will be left unaware that biological males may be showering or dressing with their daughters.

As it stands now, the policy requires no medical proof for being “transgender,” nor is there a requirement that a student must observe a trans- identity at all times.

Additionally, “The District will provide all students the opportunity to participate in physical education and athletic programs and opportunities in a manner that is consistent with their gender identities,” according to the policy document adopted by the school board.  The decision comes after students in Alaska voiced their frustration after a biological male won third and fifth place in events at the girls’ state track championships.

This policy change also undermines parental rights.  Though the school district’s procedures allow for contacting and involving a gender transitioning student’s parents when the student permits, or when it is legally necessary to do so, parents may be left out of the process altogether.  A student who begins to identify as the other gender will be given “support” by school officials, with or without the involvement of the student’s parents.

Furthermore, school officials will now use the student’s preferred name and gender, regardless of whether parents are notified or what gender is listed on official documents like birth certificates.  The purpose of these changes, according to the district, is “to maximize the student’s social integration and equal opportunity to participate in social, athletic and academic opportunities, ensure the student’s safety, modesty and comfort, and minimize stigmatization.”

What about the safety, modesty, and comfort of females who will now be unwittingly showering and changing with biological males? By changing their policies to ensure the “comfort” of transgender students, the school district is sacrificing the privacy of the vast majority of students who are uncomfortable with the idea of showering and changing with students of the other biological sex.

What happened yesterday at the Snohomish School District meeting should function as a wake up call to parents throughout the state.  It is time to become involved in your child’s school district by attending school board meetings. Find out whether your local school board intends to adopt similar policies, and if so, raise awareness among other parents and share your feelings with your school board.

If this concerns you, or your children, please contact the Snohomish School District immediately and let them know what you think.  Their next meeting is Wednesday, July 27th, at 6:00pm.

Dr. Bill Mester, School Superintendent | 360-563-7280 |

Scott Peacock, Asst. Superintendent of Leadership & Learning | 360-563-7284 |

School Board Members

Jay Hagen
School Board President
Director District #5: Cathcart, Little Cedars, Totem Falls, Glacier Peak
Phone 360-668-4635
E-mail Mr. Hagen

Leah Hughes-Anderson
School Board Vice President
Director District #2: Cascade View, Emerson, Centennial
Phone 425-308-1252
E-mail Ms. Hughes-Anderson

Shaunna Ballas
Board Member, Foundation Representative
Director District #1: Riverview, Seattle Hill, Snohomish High School
Phone 206-715-0283
E-mail Ms. Ballas

David Johnston
Board Member, WIAA Representative
Director District #4: Central, Valley View, AIM High
Phone 360-568-0228
E-mail Mr. Johnston

Josh Seek
Board Member, Legislative Representative
Director District #3: Dutch Hill, Machias
Phone 425-377-2466
E-mail Mr. Seek

Judge Orders Public Hospitals in Washington to Perform Abortions


Judge Raquel Montoya-Lewis, who resides on the Skagit County Superior Court, issued a ruling Tuesday that requires public hospitals that provide maternity services to also perform abortions.

As part of its national campaign to bully hospitals into performing abortions, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the Skagit Regional Health District and its Skagit Valley Hospital on behalf of Kevan Coffey, a nurse practitioner who had been previously employed at the Skagit Valley Hospital.

While working at the hospital, Coffey would refer patients seeking an abortion to Planned Parenthood because the hospital lacked doctors willing to perform the procedure. Washington law currently protects doctors who refuse to perform abortions from being discriminated against in employment.

Judge Montoya-Lewis wrote in her ruling, “If the Hospital District chooses to provide maternity services, it is acting in its capacity as a state entity, and, therefore, must provide those services in an equivalent manner those women who seek voluntary [abortions].”

Washington state law prohibits hospitals from asking prospective employees whether they would be willing to perform abortions. State law guarantees that “no person may be discriminated against in employment or professional privileges because of the person’s participation or refusal to participate in the termination of a pregnancy” (RCW 9.02.150).

How can a hospital be expected to perform abortions if state law prohibits it from seeking to employ doctors willing to perform the procedure? Judge Montoya-Lewis said in her ruling that the hospital has an obligation under Washington’s Reproductive Privacy Act to secure doctors who are willing to perform abortions. However, this would entail the hospital making the doctor’s willingness to perform abortions a condition of employment, which would necessarily discriminate against pro-life doctors, thus violating state law.

Thomas Ahearne, a lawyer for the health district, said the hospital’s board will meet Thursday to decide their next steps. The hospital is considering appealing the judge’s ruling.

Additionally, it is notable that Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief supporting Coffey and the ACLU. He released a statement after the judge’s decision, calling it “a great victory for reproductive rights in Washington.”

The conscience and religious rights of health care providers are increasingly under attack. A U.S. district court in Michigan recently dismissed a lawsuit against a Catholic nonprofit that operates 86 hospitals in 21 states. The ACLU, which filed the lawsuit, wanted to force the hospitals to change its policy that prohibits doctors from performing abortions.

The Illinois Assembly recently passed SB 1564, which amends the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act by removing some conscience protections for physicians and health care providers who hold moral objections to abortion. If signed by Governor Bruce Rauner, the law would force physicians to transfer or refer patients wanting an abortion to another physician willing to perform the procedure. Pro-life doctors and those working at crisis pregnancy centers would also be required to inform pregnant women about the benefits of undergoing an abortion.

FPIW also recently brought attention to Planned Parenthood’s Washington state candidates survey, which attacked the forty percent of Washington’s hospitals that are managed by Catholic health systems. Planned Parenthood claims that these religiously-affiliated health providers “undermine patients’ rights” and “interfere with their ability to obtain a full range of health services” because they refuse to perform abortions.

Opinion: Why Schools Aren’t the Place to Learn About Transgenderism


The state’s new health and physical education standards have provoked a strong backlash from parents and citizens who are outraged that children will be taught about gender expression, gender identity, and sexual orientation in elementary school. For example, children in third grade will now be taught that they can choose their own gender. Their fourth grade peers will learn about the range of sexual orientation.

Astonished by what their children will be taught under the new standards, parents are left wondering whether public schools are the appropriate forum for dialogue about gender identity and sexual orientation – especially in the elementary and middle school.

Parents should be concerned. The latest science supports what we used to regard as commonsense – that teaching young students about gender identity and alternative sexual lifestyles will be a confusing and harmful experience for them.

The American College of Pediatricians warns against parents, doctors, and teachers encouraging children to undergo gender transition.  “Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies, will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to ‘gender clinics’ where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs.” The American College of Pediatricians likens the normalizing of transgenderism among children to “child abuse.”

Despite this, Washington’s public education system stands firmly behind its decision to push gender identity and gender expression on students as young as five years old, despite strong warnings from the medical community.

The vast majority of children who struggle with gender identity will eventually outgrow their confusion and accept their biological sex. According to statistics provided on page 455 of the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5, as many as 98% of boys and 88% of girls who struggle with gender dysphoria as children will no longer identify as the other gender after finishing puberty.

Cross-sex hormones present unsafe health risks for the individual undergoing transition. These hormone treatments increase the risk of high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke, and cancer. When children undergo cross-sex hormone therapy, their growth is often inhibited and their fertility is often irreversibly impaired.  The suicide rate among those who have undergone sex reassignment is twenty times higher than that of the general population.

Teaching gender identity and sexual orientation in schools normalizes the behavior. Once the behavior is normalized and students are told they can choose their own gender, we will undoubtedly see an increase in children pursuing harmful hormone therapies and irreversible gender reassignment surgeries.

If public schools rationalize gender dysphoria to young students, why are we to assume that more children won’t be subjected to the associated risks, as the statement by the pediatricians association suggests?  Children who would have otherwise never “struggled” with gender dysphoria may now be taught to question their own identity.

Moreover, teachers are rarely equipped to teach about topics relating to gender identity and sexual orientation.  Requiring them to teach this information may cause them to violate their own beliefs.  Additionally, how can parents be sure that their convictions and values will not be undermined by what their children are being taught in school?

Schools should heed the warnings from doctors and researchers. Children are harmed when they are taught that alternative gender identities and sexual orientations are normal. Conversations with children about gender identity and sexual orientation should be left to parents and doctors, not schools.

Blaine Conzatti is a columnist and 2016 Research Fellow at the Family Policy Institute of Washington. He can be reached at

OSPI Responds to Concerns About New Education Standards


It seems that the Office of State Public Instruction’s idea of damage control is using semantics to confuse the parents of students.

Last week, the state Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) released its health and physical education standards for the 2017-2018 school year.

The document clearly instructs public schools districts to begin teaching students — beginning in Kindergarten — about gender expression, gender identity, gender roles, and sexual orientation.  The state expects this area of education to be completed by the seventh grade, so that students are able to “distinguish between biological sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.”

OSPI Page 29

Predictably, parents were outraged.

Following the public discovery of these standards last week, OSPI Communications Manager Nathan Olson said that the specific learning outcomes outlined on page 29 of the standards are merely recommendations to local school districts, not requirements, and that all curriculum is determined by the local school districts.

“State learning standards are the required elements of instruction,” said Olson. “Outcomes provide the specificity to support school districts in meeting each standard in each grade level.”

Here is where OSPI is trying to hide: by stating that curricula are determined by the local school districts, which is true, they are deflecting attention from the fact that all public school districts must use OSPI’s standards and outcomes to determine what to teach students.

You can equate OSPI’s use of semantics to Henry Ford stating that you can buy any color car you want, so long as it’s black.

OSPI’s assertion that state education standards are simply recommendations does not comport with Washington state law or the Superintendent’s introduction to the health and physical education standards document. According to Washington law, district curriculum is expected to be aligned with the state’s education standards and outcomes.

According to RCW 28A.655.070,

“The superintendent of public instruction shall develop essential academic learning requirements that identify the knowledge and skills all public school students need to know and be able to do based on the student learning goals in RCW 28A.150.210.”

According to the health and physical education standards (emphasis added),

“The Washington state learning standards are the required elements of instruction and are worded broadly enough to allow for local decision-making.  Outcomes provide the specificity to support school districts in meeting each standard in each grade level. The 2016 health and physical education standards and outcomes provide the guidance to teach, reinforce, and apply all of the state’s learning goals” (Page 2).

“By implementing grade-level outcomes, educators will help students meet the learning standards. All districts, schools, and educators in Washington state are expected to implement the state learning standards and outcomes for all students” (Page 10).

While it is true that state education outcomes leave flexibility for schools to determine the best way to teach the required concepts, OSPI’s main concern is that students understand the concepts enumerated in the standards document.  School districts and local schools must use the state education outcomes to determine whether they are implementing the state learning standards, as they are required by the state to do.

OSPI is using the definitions of standards and outcomes to confuse you.  But make no mistake – come 2017, public schools across the state will be teaching students, beginning in kindergarten, about gender expression, gender identity, and sexual orientation.  It is foolish and deceptive for OSPI to claim that schools will not be expected to teach these concepts because these requirements are “outcomes” and not “standards,” hiding behind semantics as a means of avoiding public backlash.

OSPI conceded that it does not plan to issue a press release or otherwise inform parents of these radical changes.  By now, they must be aware of their overreach and are preparing for blowback from the parents of students across the state.

Sign the petition, and call OSPI State Superintendent Randy Dorn (360-725-6000) to let him know that you’re not on board with not being notified of these new standards.

Washington Schools to Teach Gender Identity Curriculum in Kindergarten


Kindergarten used to be a place for children to learn how to add, subtract, and read.  Next year, Washington school children as young as five years old will instead be learning about gender fluidity and the differences between gender and sexual identity.

The newly-minted health and physical education standards, released by the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), will be implemented in schools across the state for the 2017-2018 school year.

As reported by The Daily Caller, the new standards require students to learn about gender identity and expression beginning in kindergarten.

  • Beginning in Kindergarten, students will be taught about the many ways to express gender.  Gender expression education will include information about the manifestations of traits that are typically associated with one gender. Crossdressing is one form of gender expression.
  • Third graders will be introduced to the concept of gender identity.  These children will be taught that they can choose their own gender.
  • Fourth graders will be expected to “define sexual orientation,” which refers to whether a person identifies as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual; they’ll also be taught about HIV prevention.  Children in fourth grade will be told that they can choose their sexual orientation.
  • Fourth and fifth graders will learn about the relativity of gender roles and why such roles are social constructs that are not inherent to who we are as male or female human beings.
  • Seventh graders will be expected to “distinguish between biological sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.”
  • High school students will critically “evaluate how culture, media, society, and other people influence our perceptions of gender roles, sexuality, relationships, and sexual orientation.”

These changes to education standards will transform public schools into a conduit for promoting the latest gender theories plaguing universities across the country.

Perhaps the most concerning element about the new standards, however, is that OSPI has no plans to notify parents of these controversial changes.  In a phone call this morning with FPIW, OSPI communications manager Nathan Olsen confirmed the changes and said that the state does not plan to issue a press release or otherwise inform parents of the changes.

When asked by The Daily Caller “whether a student who rejects the idea that ‘gender identity’ is distinct from ‘biological sex’ could end up failing a course on account of their beliefs, Olson replied that it “would be handled at the district/school level.’”

Parents should be concerned about whether these standards are age-appropriate, as well as whether the manner in which these topics will be taught may undermine the values held by their family.  It is frightening to think that students who hold traditional beliefs about gender and sexual identity may have to choose between accepting politically correct talking points or failing assignments and being ostracized by school administrators.

We encourage all concerned parents to attend the next school board meeting in your school district (find information on your school district here).  Ask if your local school board plans to implement the state’s radical new curriculum for elementary school classes in your child’s school and, if you aren’t satisfied with the response you get from the school board, we’d encourage you to run for the school board and to let us know of your intention.

You can sign the petition to show your opposition at this link, and support FPIW as we work to return sanity to the classroom and culture.

Planned Parenthood and NARAL Surveys Call For Restrictions on Crisis Pregnancy Centers


Planned Parenthood and NARAL have distributed their surveys for the upcoming election cycle to candidates seeking political office here in Washington.  The content of the questions demonstrates the radical policy positions advocated by two of the more prominent pro-abortion groups and the candidates they will ultimately decide to support.

Political advocacy organizations use candidate surveys to gauge a candidate’s position on the issues.  The survey responses enable these special interest groups to determine which candidates they will endorse and support financially. But the questions on these surveys also give us insight into the worldview of the survey creators.

What are the priorities of Planned Parenthood and NARAL in this upcoming legislative session?  The apparent vision for pro-abortion groups seems to be circumventing parental rights, discouraging pregnant women from making an informed decision about their pregnancies, and violating conscience rights of health care providers.

NARAL’s survey asks candidates whether they will oppose legislation that requires parental notification and consent for minors under age 18 to access abortion or contraception.  Planned Parenthood’s survey similarly remarks that parental notification and consent requirements “undermine Washington’s efforts to reduce teen pregnancy.”  Planned Parenthood and NARAL’s view on parental notification and consent seeks to undermine parental rights and ignores what is in the best interest of a minor’s health.

Parents should not be excluded from the health care decisions of their children, nor should it be legal for abortion clinics to perform secret abortions on young girls — who, under the law, have limited capacity in decision making — without the knowledge and consent of their parents.  Children in Washington cannot attend an ‘R’ rated movie or open a bank account without the consent of their parents, but Planned Parenthood and NARAL want these children to be able to avoid notifying their parents when obtaining abortions or acquiring birth control.

Both organizations’ surveys also ask whether the candidate supports sexual health education that promotes birth control usage and contraceptive methods.  Many parents object to their children’s schools providing resources that promote abortion and birth control, which is presumably why these organizations maintain such an interest in cutting parents out of the decision-making process on such sensitive issues.

When it comes to conscience rights and religious freedom, candidates are asked in both surveys if they agree that health care providers who have moral objections should be forced to provide abortions and contraceptives.  Planned Parenthood’s survey attacks the forty percent of Washington’s hospitals that are managed by Catholic health systems, claiming that these religiously-affiliated health providers “undermine patients’ rights” and “interfere with their ability to obtain a full range of health services.”

The conscience and religious rights of health care providers are increasingly under attack. A U.S. district court in Michigan recently dismissed a lawsuit against a Catholic nonprofit that operates 86 hospitals in 21 states. The ACLU, which filed the lawsuit, wanted to force these religiously affiliated hospitals to change its policy that prohibits doctors from performing abortions.

NARAL’s candidate survey additionally seeks to determine whether candidates share the organization’s opposition to crisis pregnancy centers – which NARAL calls “anti-choice fake ‘clinics’” – and other resources for pregnant women that do not include abortion.  Crisis pregnancy centers are clinics that offer resources and support to mothers and infants free of charge, but do not perform abortions. Despite pro-abortion activists’ claims to the contrary, their opposition to crisis pregnancy centers makes it apparent that these organizations do not support a woman’s ‘right to choose’ if that choice involves an informed decision to not pursue an abortion.

NARAL also objects to legislation that requires women undergo ultrasounds before receiving an abortion. Administering ultrasounds before receiving an abortion allows women to make an informed decision about their pregnancy. One Iowa pregnancy resource center reports that “90% of women who see their baby by ultrasound choose life.”

No wonder NARAL refers to ultrasounds as “unnecessary” in its survey.

The candidate surveys distributed by Planned Parenthood and NARAL make it clear that these organizations are promoting a radical pro-abortion agenda that wishes to undermine the rights of parents and healthcare providers, and restrict the ability of pregnant women to make informed decisions about their pregnancies.  As the election nears, Washington voters must educate themselves on which candidates share the abortion lobby’s agenda.

FPIW’s Washington voter guide is scheduled to be released in early July.

You can see the full survey from Planned Parenthood here, and the full survey from NARAL here.