In Southern AZ Congressional Showdown, Candidates Battle Over Abortion and Border Sparks

In a recent debate for Arizona’s Congressional District 6, Democratic challenger Kirsten Engel strongly condemned U.S. Rep. Juan Ciscomani over his voting record on abortion rights and his dismissal of a bipartisan immigration proposal. The discussion intensified as Engel accused Ciscomani of failing to address critical issues affecting their border district.

Ciscomani, who narrowly won the district in 2022, countered by suggesting Engel had previously downplayed border concerns. He maintained that he is against a federal abortion ban, which he claims is a misrepresented narrative. The district remains a battleground, with 36 percent of voters identifying as Republicans, 31 percent as Democrats, and 33 percent not aligning with either party.

The debate, moderated by Ted Simons of Arizona PBS, saw candidates clash initially on immigration policy. Ciscomani criticized the Biden administration’s approach as “an open border” policy and highlighted Engel’s past votes against a border strike force during her time in the Arizona Legislature. “What we need to do is make sure that we secure our border,” he asserted, emphasizing that enhancing trade and improving immigration systems are interconnected goals.

In response, Engel challenged Ciscomani’s rejection of a bipartisan immigration deal, which fell apart recently in the Senate. She pointed out that the package included crucial provisions for border security and enhanced operations against drug trafficking. “He gets handed on a silver platter a bipartisan deal…and he rejects it,” Engel remarked, accusing him of political maneuvering influenced by external pressures.

Ciscomani dismissed Engel’s claims, arguing that the legislation faced bipartisan opposition and asserting that he would have supported improvements had he been given the opportunity. However, the backdrop of Donald Trump’s condemnation of the bill influenced its failure in Congress, signaling the complexities of party loyalties in the current political climate.

Throughout the debate, Ciscomani leveraged his endorsement from the National Border Patrol Council, arguing that his commitment to border agents contradicts Engel’s past positions. “They know that I have the backs of Border Patrol agents that work hard every day,” he stated, implying that Engel’s policies have historically neglected their needs.

On abortion, Engel accused Ciscomani of votes that would restrict service members’ rights to seek abortions. She emphasized that voters cannot trust him on reproductive rights, referencing his past statements against Roe v. Wade. Engel contended that Ciscomani had actively supported policies that restricted reproductive freedoms, while Ciscomani clarified he does not favor a federal ban but supports Arizona’s existing 15-week limit with exceptions.

Engel also scrutinized Ciscomani’s connections to the Patriot Academy, a conservative organization advocating for strict traditional values. She linked his stances on abortion to this affiliation, suggesting his political ideology is influenced by extremist views. In contrast, Ciscomani dismissed the association, stating it was a tactic to divert attention from substantial policy discussions.

The candidates further engaged in a contentious debate over water issues affecting the district. Ciscomani highlighted his involvement with the bipartisan Colorado River Caucus, asserting that he is focused on balancing agricultural and residential needs in the area. Engel countered, criticizing Ciscomani for not addressing foreign corporations’ impact on Arizona’s water supply, specifically mentioning a Saudi Arabian firm that she claims is depleting groundwater resources.

The debate illustrated the stark contrasts between Engel and Ciscomani, reflecting not only their differing political ideologies but also the pressing issues facing voters in this critical district. As the race continues, both candidates must navigate these complex subjects to sway public opinion ahead of the election.