>> Coming up on Arizona PBS, a closer look at controversial messages sent by the wife of a Supreme Court justice to a sitting president's chief of staff.

A new art project, stitches, migrant stories together.

It's all ahead on Arizona PBS.

Arizona horizon is made by in part by the generous support of the Pekas family foundation.

Good evening and welcome to Arizona horizon.

I'm Ted Simons.

State lawmakers considering an overhaul of education for public school districts and charter school.

It would cut programs benefiting school districts and instead increase the base amount of funding for public K-12 school business $215 million.

Critics say the bill is moving too fast and there's concern that all public charter schools in the state would receive funding increases while many school districts in rural Arizona would lose money.

The Arizona public reports of the hearing lasted less than an hour with limited time for questions and answers in what will be the only public hearing and thus, the only chance for public input.

With the legislature, the senate government committee would hold yet another hearing regarding the 2020 presidential vote in Maricopa county.

County board of supervisors were issued yet another subpoena to appear at the hearing, this time to give the senate information requested by the attorney general and the board indicated it would not take part and work with the AG's office and called office.

Intense fighting continues across Ukraine as Russia's assault on the country enters the fifth week and residents in Kyiv clean up here after another round of Russia attacks and holding grounds and apparently making gains in the Northeastern area of the country.

That said, reports are that Russia is getting closer to capturing the port city of Mariupol leveled by Russian bombs.

Also of note, the Dutch beer maker Heinekin is getting out of the Russia market and the company is, quote, shocked and deeply saddened to watch the war in Ukraine unfold.

And congratulations continue for Mesa actor Troy Kutsur.

He mentioned his late father who was one team chief of the Mesa police department and very proficient in sign language.

>> My dad, he was the best signer in our family and he was in a car accident and he became paralyzed from the neck down and he no longer was able to sign.

Dad, I learned so much from you and I'll always love you.

>> He said, quote, this is our moment.

>> Dozens of text messages from the wife of Supreme Court justice Thomas Clarence are ruling on the election in a January 6th, pro trump riot at the capitol and Paul bender joined us to talk about all of this.

Paul, always good to see you and thank you for joining us.

>> There are two dozen messages to overturn this.

Are you aware of this?

>> I'm not aware of this.

This is a fairly new problem, 50 years ago, you didn't have spouses of Supreme Court justices having separate lives, but it's more likely now.

Chief justice Robert's wife is a lawyer and she stopped practicing when he went on the court.

She's entitled to do, and you'll have people on the court who are active and some are lawyers and some politics.

You'll have to figure out how to deal with this.

Everybody has known about this, about Clarence and his wife for a long time.

I don't know why there's any special problem.

It's a problem on the Supreme Court for him to recuse himself because there's no way to replace him.

If you have a 4-4 case, you don't know and if there are 5-4's and you can't replace him.

The court has no way of doing that.

On a lower court, if it's a court of appeal's judge, it's much easier for them to recuse themselves and you have a replacement for some other judge, but here, it could change the result of the case and so it's taken more seriously.

And I guess my feeling is that the fact that she's engaged in political activity, you have to accept it as a fact of life.

And I don't think you can say, you have to stop your wife from doing this if you want to be on court.

If you want a politically active wife, you can't be a Supreme Court justice.

That doesn't seem right to me.

Also it doesn't seem right he has to recuse himself where she's interested in it because she'll take positions about a lot of things.

You have to draw a line whether you have a spouse who is outspoken and interested, which I think you have to permit or a spouse who has official connection to the case.

If your child is arguing a case before the Supreme Court, then that's threatened sometimes.

Tom Carr had a son, Ramsey Clark, who was attorney general, and that's different, and I don't think you should sit on a case where your spouse or one of the children is arguing.

Any official connection to the case, if your spouse has an Amicus brief, you should, but in this case, I'm not aware of anything she's doing where she's officially a part of any of the controversies before him.

I don't think the fact she has strong opinions should be enough to recuse himself.

>> But they include text messages to the White House chief of staff, urging the sitting chief of staff or sitting president to overturn the election.

She weighed in on the make-up of the trump legal team and legal strategy with the chief of staff.

And justice Thomas subsequently has opportunities and that seems more than just an opinion, is it not?

>> It's a hard line to draw.

The line I'm trying to suggest, if she is a part of an organization that's filed an Amicus brief before him or that appears as a party in a case before him, then he should recuse.

But just because she's been outspoken and even active about political issues on behalf of one political side, if the case that's involved with him doesn't directly involve her organization, then it seems to me you shouldn't make him recuse himself.

He may want to if he feels comfortable doing it, but the fact that she is -- she's a member of an organization and so she's a member of the ACLU.

And the there's a lot of cases before the court.

Does he have to recuse himself if the ACLU has a strong interest in the case?

>> Including direct contact with players who might be at play in these cases.

>> Remember, it's her, not him.

>> That's what I'm trying to say, maybe incorrect.

But my view, you have to respect the fact that a justice of the court is entitled to have a spouse who is entitled to be an individual person with political activity and I think that if there's a financial connection, like if your wife is a lawyer and her firm is arguing a case before you, then I think you recuse yourself because you have a financial interest that because you have a financial interest in her income.

But if it's just things she says or groups she belongs to, unless they have a direct connection with the party or an amicus in a case before you, I don't think you should be required to recuse yourself.

The interesting thing, whatever I think about that, there's no way to get him to recuse himself.

Lower court judge, you can ask them to recuse and if they don't, you can go to the chief judge of the circuit or the other judges or the Supreme Court.

Here there's nobody to go to.

I mean, you can ask the chief justice to do something, but he won't and so it's really up to justice Thomas.

Tor me, that means that justice Thomas should be very careful to not do things to suggest that he is not as independent as he should be.

I don't think it's fair to make him recuse himself because he has a spouse who has expressed opinions only things before him.

>> Paul, we have to stop it and the interesting viewpoint and we appreciate your time.

Thank you, sir.

>> You are welcome and see, you Ted.

>> And coming up next on Arizona horizon, what to know about protection against surprise medical bills.

>> We spoke about the no surprise's act which provides protections against such medical bill.

Heather Mack, welcome to Arizona horizon and good to have you here about the no surprise's act and what is the no surprise's act?

>> Thank you so much for having me, but the no surprise's act is a no federal act that took effect on January 1st of this year prohibiting surprise bill.

This is when a patient goes to get services and they think near going to facility and see a network prior and end up way higher bill and not covered because it's an out of network provider.

What the act is trying to do is certain types of bills and prohibit them.

The first time is for emergency services.

The patient doesn't have a choice when they're seeking emergency services.

There's a bill that won't be surprise medical bill for emergency service.

The second category won't be for air ambulance transportation.

Ground ambulance is not included and air ambulance is.

The third category is if you go to an in-network facility and unknowingly see an out of network prior.

>> How often -- when you go, you're thinking you're in network and cared for and how often does this happen?

>> More frequently than most people are aware of or at least until people are aware of and they have that encounter.

For example, when I gave birth to my daughter seven years ago, because I need an anesthesiologist in the medical of the night and not asking a lot of questions, I saw an out of network anesthesiologist.

It's not due to anything the patient is specifically choosing, but just happens and happens frequently in the system.

>> When it does happen, do health plans deny claims?

How often does that happen?

>> It can be a reason to deny a claim or charge a much higher amount for the claim.

Typically, what we see is that the consumer unknowingly gets hit with out of network costs which are three to four times higher than what they're expecting to pay.

And a lot of times it's not covered.

>> I read about balanced billing and what does that mean?

>> Balanced bills is where a claim comes in and the insurance company covers a portion and it's usually just an out-of-network portion and they pass along the entire rest of the bill to the consumer.

>> So no surprise's act apply to this?

>> Certain types of balanced bills you have to follow into the subcategories of needing emergents treatment, having an air ambulance or going to a hospital that's in network and accidentally seeing an out-of-network prior will had an in-network hospital.

>> I think I followed you there and so, we got the in surprise's act.

It looks as though health plans, providers will have to I.D.

beforehand.

Is that true?

>> Right.

So your health plan will give you an insert in your billing statement or explanation of benefits telling you what the to surprise's act is.

We're asking providers to disclose because patients can opt out.

If a patient makes a decision that, hey, I still want to see this provider because I like this provider or they're the best at this procedure and I understand that they're out of network, there's actually an opt-out, but we want there to be patient disclosure so patients can make a choice.

In an emergency choice, you'll be covered.

But if you want to make that choice, we want patients understanding what the cost differential will be.

>> What about non-group plans and job-based plans?

>> This applies to some but not every insurance plan.

If you're on a government-funded plan like Medicaid or tricare, this doesn't apply and all plans have had their own dispute resolution process to address this.

This does not apply to plans that are self-funded by your employer.

If you have a captive insurance or a sole funded plan, to this doesn't apply.

If you're on a plan, this doesn't apply, that doesn't mean you don't have rights.

You can work with your insurance plan.

>> What about negotiations?

It looks as though it establishes a negotiating process.

>> It does.

Now that's influx because we've had something regarding that piece of law and, specifically, what the plan initially before the litigation was that under the no surprise's act one would essentially go first to your insurer and if your insurer made a decision you did not like and wished to dispute it further, there's a baseball style arbitration.

Everyone make an offer and there it goes.

>> Right.

>> That has been put off side now by some courts in Texas and that's likely going to be appealed and we're doing a more steamlined regulation process.

I would advise viewers that Arizona has had a similar law in place for quite awhile.

Another place would be to the department of insurance.

>> OK. >> Arizona's process is similar.

Serve legislature to the federal process, just a call with your insurer to see if you can work it out and there's an external and consumers can deal with this.

You might have options to your plan, might have options to the state and you certainly have options through this federal act.

>> The most important thing to know and you just answered it, you have options.

>> Absolutely.

You always have to be a consumer.

People have been injured or a family member has.

Get on the phone, see if you can talk to an actual person, understand what your rights are and, again, make that case.

You have to advocate for yourself and a lot of times doing that, you can get a great result, even if you're not able to take advantage.

>> Good information.

Good to have you here and thanks for joining us.

>> Thank you.

>> Tonight on the news hour, we speak to the Kremlin spokesperson about Russia's ongoing conflict with Ukraine.

Coming up after your hour of local news on Arizona PBS.

>> AS U.S. Sandra Day O'Connor college of law designed constitution of design.

We spoke with the center's executive director, Stefanie Linquist.

Stefanie Linquist, thank you for joining us and talking about the constitutional design and what is that?

[ Laughter ] >> Ted, thank you for having me.

It's a new center at Arizona state university law school and it was established through the generous funding of the Lone Star foundation in phoenix with the focus on the constitution, on education about the constitution and research about the constitution.

And with a very explicit comparative angle and looking at nation's, tribal constitutions, to reform it and advanced constitution.

>> For what.

>> Well, specifically to ensure that it remains as durable as it has over the last 230.

>> It's incredibly durable and also brief and as a result of that, we have a lot of provisions within the constitution that are fairly ambiguous and in the process of interpreting and applying to new circumstances.

We want to be sure at the center that the constitution survives for many, many more generations and we think that we can help support the constitution going forward.

>> In ways, what, that the constitution would be reformed?

That the constitution could be improved?

I mean, that raises a lot of alarm bell for original thinkers and folks that wrote it and said it and that's it.

>> There's an amendment process and said to be the most difficult constitution in the world to amend and cumbersome.

But frankly, constitutional amendment in a sort of general form takes place every time the constitution is interpreted by the judiciary.

As I mentioned earlier, the constitution includes many vague phrases.

So those need to be implemented in ways that apply to real world situations and so, in some ways, we think of it as undergoing new interpretations.

We as a nation encounter new circumstances.

>> You probably know very well the idea of a living, breathing document does not sit well with a lot of Americans.

>> I understand that and I think looking to the framer's intent is a valid way of interpreting the constitution.

We have taken a very explicitly non-partisan approach and we don't lay any particular ideological rules want to bring in all thinks, individuals who believe of believe that the constitution is a living document because it is through the exchange of the kinds of the ideas that new ideas about how the constitution can apply for centuries to come can be developed.

>> Is this lectures or courses involved?

>> We're thinking about curricular development and elementary school children, high school children.

We are supporting research through a fellow's program at the center which includes political scientists, law professors, journalists, sociologists.

We are welcoming speakers to the law school about constitutional democracy.

In the face of we're experiencing now around the world which is growing authoritarian regime and teaching and growing courses to support democracy.

>> Who decides the areas that are focused on and how do you get whether it's curricular or speaker series?

>> The way we've approached this is to open a big tent to partnership and so, we are working with partners at the university of Texas, the national constitution center and other foundations and organizations.

And we reach out to them as well as to faculty members at ASU and collaborators around the country and around the world to learn from them about what they think are the real hot points of constitutional law today and then move forward with collaborative projects to support and preserve the constitution.

>> And this comes at a time when a lot of people, it seems, don't really know what the constitution says and does.

The first amendment seems to be a surprise to folks every few years or so.

Is that off-base there?

>> It isn't, and, you know, the constitution is an extremely brief document.

The original constitution without the amendment only has 4500 words.

So it's actually not a long document to read.

It can be difficult to understand, of course, if you haven't taken a law course.

But the document is straightforward and the basic principles are accessible to all, including certainly the basic freedoms in the bill of rights, but the idea of separated powers.

So that one individual or a group of individuals is not exercises all three governmental powers, legislative power, executive power and judicial power.

That's extremely important to the constitution.

Of course, the basic power of federalism where we have 50 Sovereign states and that's unique and offers a wonderful opportunity for innovative policy ideas for interprets it to percolate up.

>> They come close but not too close.

Last question here.

How do you get all of them into action or see them into action?

>> It depends upon what you mean by that.

I think we certainly seek ideas for projects, collaborations, such things as podcasts and we seek information from others about what would be the best and most productive way to deploy our financial assets at the center and our collaborators and faculty members and then to a consensus to be most useful and north Partisan and that's very, very important at the center and what would advance the conversation about the constitution such that it will include citizens, students, scholars and thinkers and writers, journalists to really help the nation and our citizenry understand why it's so critical that our constitution survive.

>> It sounds fascinating and Stefanie Linquist, good stuff, and thank you for joining us.

>> Thank you, appreciate it, Ted.

>> We want to hear you from you.

Submit your questions, comments and concerns via Email.

>> That is it for now.

Thank you so much for joining us.

You have a great evening!

In the next half hour, a local business is working to make clothing that uses less water and fewer materials.