The IUB’s mission statement is to “regulate utilities to ensure that reasonably priced, reliable, environmentally responsible, and safe utility services are available to all Iowans.” It’s not their job to shut everyday Iowans out and fast track Bruce Rastetter’s latest money-making scheme.
The IUB has the power to deny permits for the proposed Summit, Navigator and Wolf carbon pipelines.
We’ve called and left messages for commissioners Joshua Byrnes and Erik Helland, now it’s time for Reynolds’ appointed commissioner Sarah Martz to hear from you!
Call IUB Commissioner, Sarah Martz, today (Wednesday) and tell her to deny Summit’s pipeline permit. 515-725-7888 is the publicly listed office number for the IUB.
Share your story! Tell her why you care about stopping CO2 pipelines
Tell her pipelines are dangerous and potentially deadly, putting the people and places we love at risk.
Urge her to deny Summit’s permit application and not let Bruce Rastetter abuse eminent domain for private gain!
click on the image to purchase The Color Purple on Amazon.com
On this edition of Iowa Press, Dr. Brad Buck, superintendent of the Waukee Community School District, and Chris Coffelt, superintendent of the Central Decatur Community School District and Lamoni Community Schools, discuss issues involving public education in Iowa. Joining moderator Kay Henderson at the Iowa Press table are Linh Ta of Axios Des Moines, and Caleb McCullough of the Quad City Times and Lee Newspapers.
If you don’t have time to watch of course you can always read the transcript at IowaPBS.org. And to save you some time, I’ve included a few highlights here so you don’t have to muck through the whole thing. But I still encourage you to tune into this better than usual Iowa Press program to hear what these two public school administrators have to say about the Republican school vouchers program for private schools, book banning and more.
Highlights:
Caleb McCullough hasn’t been on the Iowa Press panel very long but already it seems longevity on the program actually has an inverse corellation to quality of questions asked. Odd because off the program he is a fine reporter.
McCullough: Chris, Decatur County was one that received no education savings account for those students. So, is it true that your school districts did not have any students leave for those education savings accounts?
Coffelt: “…we also think that that might not be the right question to ask in terms of students that have left for that because students have always had choice about where they may want to go to school. For us, it’s what is the long-term impact of opening up public school funds for private school choice for school districts and students across the state?”
Ta: “Speaking of school funding, the state is giving public school districts $1200 per pupil who decide to leave and use the ESA program. Chris, is that enough money?” Great question. Well done.
Coffelt: “So, I don’t know that that’s enough money to replace the funding that would have been there had the student remained in the school district itself.”
Buck: “The $7600 for each student who walks out the door, the math for that doesn’t work long-term likely.”
Ta: “Two weeks ago, we had private school educators here share that they believe the ESA program will help create more private schools in their areas. Do you see that happening in Decatur County?” Another great question. I appreciate her following up on what the private school folks put forth.
Coffelt: “…Regardless of what type of choice parents have or what structure might be available, we work on making the system that is a part of our community currently one that students want to go to and parents are proud of. And so, that’s what we’ll work to continue to do. And I think in that, much like we have done in the past, parents will choose to be in our school systems or in school systems that meet those needs for them and the needs of the kids that those schools are serving proudly on a daily basis.” Impressive how this public school superintendent uses his answer to the question as an opportunity to stand up for public schools. In his answer I hear pride and commitment to his community and school district.
Next question comes from McCullough who we’ll give the benefit of the doubt and assume he was just playing devil’s advocate, trying to get information out there by asking this question that as an Iowa reporter, he should have probably already understood. Coffelt schools the Iowa Press panelist.
McCullough: “One argument that public school advocates made while this program was in discussion against it is that it will disproportionately affect rural schools because they don’t have the same level of funds that urban schools do. As we mentioned, in Decatur County there were no education savings accounts that were approved, so that money isn’t leaving school districts. So, do you still have that concern about the rural school district?”
Coffelt: “I do because I also believe that money is not coming to the school districts in the future. Over the past 10 years we’ve seen on average about a two percent growth in state supplemental assistance, the state aid that school districts receive. That’s about 60% of our budget that supports staffing and instruction, that serves students on a daily basis. Two percent increase on an annual basis does not meet what we are seeing in increases in expenditures on a basis, nor does it allow us to pay our teachers, pay our staff in a way that is competitive with the private sector, with private industry.”
This next volley by Kay Henderson is one of the best questions I’ve ever seen her ask on the program. It educated viewers and invited historical analysis. If you don’t watch the show regularly, you may not know this isn’t all that common of a thing. I’m encouraged.
Henderson: Brad Buck, a decade ago you were the Director of the Iowa Department of Education under Terry Branstad’s governorship. A decade now on from that, what changed? What changed in the debate about public education that now you have passage of state funded education savings accounts?
He gave a long answer you should watch on the video, but here it is in part. Telling and sad that even a Branstad guy is lamenting the degradation of Iowa’s public schools since Kim Reynolds has been governor.
Buck: “So, it has just been honestly troubling to me to watch what has happened over time. A decade ago we were talking about really doing the things it was going to take to support and improve public schools. And now we’ve gone down a path where we would say there’s a private school option for your child to go to with different expectations and accountability systems than exist for the public school system.”
And more from Buck on the “what about competition? argument.
Buck: “Buck: Yeah, so it’s America, right? We love competition. We love the concept of competition. And I think what we also embrace is fairness. And so, if we’re going to compete, I think the question is if you have one system working under one set of rules and another system working under another set of rules, is that really competition? And is it in the spirit of fairness that we would typically expect? So, let me go back and just say this — we will go pound for pound with everybody in Waukee. So, I’m happy to try to compete against whomever we need to compete against. I think though the question as it relates to ESAs is, is it the same playing field? And is it the same rule set for the two systems? And does that truly lead to different outcomes from a competition perspective?”
And for me the saddest thing that I heard while watching this program was during the discussion of the book banning law the Republicans pushed through.
After pointing out the efforts his school district has made to understand and follow the law and that they have received no guidance from the Iowa Department of Education about the implementation of these laws, Brad Buck said this, kind of illuminating how ridiculous the law is and the equally ridiculous outcome.
Buck: “To that point, [we] read through the law, read through the definition of sex acts, etcetera, and then tried to decide — because there’s nuances in defining what those sex acts are, even though they’re defined in the law what is seemingly clear, that is not necessarily seemingly clear by incident in a story. So, we worked with our teacher librarians and our English teachers and we removed about, I would say removed about 24 books, I think that’s kind of where we are. The Color Purple, Lawn Boy, I probably won’t do well off the top of my head, yes for some examples.”
The Color Purple?? I admit I have not read Lawn Boy, “a coming of age trek from landscaping crew to navigating the dead American dream— all the way to reimagining a future on his own terms.” Doesn’t sound so bad. I assume it did not deserve banning either. But The Color Purple? Pulitzer Prize winning The Color Purple by Alice Walker? Also a movie starring Whoopi Goldberg and Oprah Winfrey that was nominated for eleven Academy Awards?
What is wrong with the Republican brain? I will leave it there.
Finally, a word to the declared Democratic candidate for congress in my district, Christina Bohannan, please get out there and talk with Chris Coffelt and other superintendents, administrators and teachers in the district. The sorry state of Iowa’s public schools under Republican rule has got to be a winner for Democrats.
That is all. Watch the program. Have a nice Monday, loyal readers!
Iowa’s new child labor law conflicts with federal regulations by easing some restrictions on teenagers working in potentially dangerous conditions, the U.S. Department of Labor wrote in a letter to Democratic lawmakers.
Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda and Wage and Hour Division Principal Deputy Administrator Jessica Looman replied to questions sent by Iowa Democrats in July following the implementation of Senate File 542.
The measure, signed into law by Gov. Kim Reynolds in May, loosens restrictions on some child labor regulations in Iowa. Under the new law, minors over age 16 can sell and serve alcohol in restaurants while kitchens remain open, 14- and 15-year-olds can work longer hours and more hours a week, and 16- and 17-year-olds can seek exemptions to work in restricted fields with dangerous working conditions as part of a work-study program or employer training.
Department of Labor officials wrote that the changes to restrictions for workers ages 16 and 17 in potentially dangerous fields violates federal law. While federal law also allows teens to be employed in some “hazardous occupations” through student-learner and apprenticeship programs, the Iowa law would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to work in demolition, heavy manufacturing and to operate certain power-driven machines — work prohibited for minors under national child labor laws.
Iowa’s law also conflicts with federal regulations because it doesn’t require the registration of employers or student-learner programs that employ teens in potentially dangerous fields through learning programs, labor officials wrote. Federal law requires training and work-study programs to register through the U.S. Department of Labor or through a state agency before employing minors to ensure work conditions meet state and federal standards.
Despite Iowa loosening these requirements in state code, most employers are still subject to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the letter, and those in violation could be subject to penalties.
“While states can pass more protective laws, states cannot nullify federal requirements by enacting less protective standards,” Nanda and Looman wrote.
These are not the only areas where the new law conflicts with federal code. In a May letter, labor officials said Iowa’s move to allow 14- and 15-year-olds to perform certain tasks, including light assembly work and non-incidental work in meat freezers and industrial laundries, conflicted with federal law, as did the expansion of hours permitted for workers ages 14 and 15. Previous Iowa law matched federal regulations.
The officials said the department “will continue to monitor Iowa’s implementation of the law to assess potential obstruction of federal child labor protections.”
Sen. Nate Boulton, D-Des Moines, said the letter is a warning to employers who could put their businesses “at risk by hiring young people in illegal jobs.”
“The child-labor expansion forced into law by Republican politicians and Gov. Reynolds sets a trap for Iowa kids and businesses alike,” Boulton said in a statement. “It makes our kids less safe by exposing them to hazardous environments that could get them injured or even killed — something the legislation itself acknowledged. And now it creates new bureaucratic confusion that can lead employers right into violations of federal law.”
Democrats repeatedly criticized the areas where the proposal conflicted with federal child labor law in debate during the 2023 legislative session. But Republicans including Sen. Adrian Dickey, R-Packwood, said the existing Iowa child labor law also conflicted with federal standards, as do child labor laws in a “majority of the states” as well as Washington, D.C.
“If you’re outraged on this bill because high schoolers will be able to work hours that contradict federal law, then why did you try to introduce legislation to legalize recreational use of marijuana?” Dickey said in April.
Iowa was one of multiple states that passed laws in 2023 rolling back child labor laws. These changes to work regulations come as Iowa, alongside many other states, face workforce shortages, though Republicans have said the measure was not an attempt to address Iowa’s need for workers.
Rep. Jeff Cooling, D-Cedar Rapids, said the measure hurts both employers and workers.
“Kids’ lives are at risk today because Republican lawmakers passed a bill for the special interests,” Cooling said in a statement. “Not only is it confusing but it proves costly for Iowa businesses just trying to do the right thing. Child labor is not the solution to Iowa’s workforce shortage and it never should be.”
Note from Capital Dispatch: Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our web site. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of photos and graphics.
Happy Labor Day, loyal BFIA readers! While I was searching the internets for the obligatory holiday posting, I came across several “Labor Day rants” on YouTube. There was also a post entitled, “Labor Day is a leftist scam.” I did not click on them. Seems there are forces at work out here where nothing is too benign to try and degrade.
So enjoy Labor Day, the official end of summer. Go to a picnic, join a union, celebrate our rights and freedoms.
We received this email from Accountable Iowa Thursday. This story feels so important that I decided to pass it on:
Last month, we told you about a plot by an out-of-state insurance company to force an Iowa clinic into a fraudulent bankruptcy. The goal: Hoodwink Iowa legislators into passing a law that puts a price tag on the lives of Iowans injured by medical negligence. And it worked! {my bolding – ed.}
Here’s how it all went down:
An Iowa doctor botched the delivery of a baby, crushing her skull with forceps, causing permanent and severe brain damage. The clinic and the family’s lawyers were eager to settle the case, but the clinic’s insurance company refused. When an Iowa jury returned a major verdict against the clinic and its doctors last year, the insurance company pushed the clinic to file bankruptcy.
That bankruptcy would prove pivotal in the decision by many legislators to vote for a law in January that forces a one-size-fits-all limit on damages whenever a negligent doctor, clinic, or hospital kills or permanently injures one of their patients. But then, in March, a judge threw out the clinic’s bankruptcy claim as fraudulent, saying, “A question arises about whether the bankruptcy was motivated by a proper purpose …” Now, the clinic is sharing the truth in their own lawsuit filed in July against their own insurance company, claiming they acted in bad faith to influence state lawmakers.
From start to finish, this story reads like a Grisham novel packed with intrigue and deceit. However, there’s nothing fictional about the outcome for the citizens of Iowa. The law passed partly because of this bankruptcy ruse makes it more challenging to hold negligent hospitals accountable when they cause harm.
We must tell our legislators in the months ahead to never get fooled again and stand up for every Iowan’s right to trial by a citizen jury. Because a trial by jury is about the people, fellow citizens, and their right to decide the outcome of a case, not special interests, politicians, or the government.
We got yet another good jobs report from the Biden Administration Friday. Remember how the previous administration had been one of only two administrations to preside over job losses during their term. The other loser was Herbert Hoover, also a Republican.
The formula for successful job growth is not a secret. President Biden tells us out loud all the time – from the bottom up and from the middle out. Labor unions are integral to this formula as they help secure better wages and safer working conditions for their members. Much better for all when the rewards of an economic system are widely spread among many than narrowly spread among a few.
Thanks to all you workers out there. And never make the mistake that a Republican politician will help you out. Republicans do nothing but hurt laborers. Do you need any more proof?
A) Let’s start with a labor history question: A state Supreme Court in Massachusetts was the first to hold that labor unions were legal. Was that before or after the Civil War?
B) 15 minutes of fame. Mark Rissi of Cedar Rapids was sentenced to 2.5 years for threatening an election official. In what state did the election official that Rissi threatened live?
C) Speaking of election officials, what member of the Trump gang lost a summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by election officials in Georgia?
D) What was Idalia?
E) What organization mostly made up of Irish miners in eastern Pennsylvania was crushed in the 1879s?
F) A week ago Saturday a young man committed a mass murder in Jacksonville, Florida in a crime that was driven by what motive?
G) A new rule proposed by the Labor Department this week would extend overtime pay to those earning less than how much per year in a full time job?
H) In a truly unexpected move, Georgia Gov, Brian Kemp refused to do what to start the process to fire Fulton County DA Fani Willis?
I) In a somewhat related story Republicans in Wisconsin’s legislature are preparing to do what to newly elected Supreme Court justice Janet Protasiewicz?
J) Rapper M&M sued what Republican presidential candidate to keep that candidate from using M&M’s songs in the campaign?
K) You can’t get there from here – the Panama Canal is limiting the cargo weight of ships using the Canal due to what?
L) September 1, 1939 – what began?
M) Which woman associated with the labor union movement was described as “the most dangerous woman in America” in 1902?
N) Iowa’s AG Brenna Bird will appeal a district court’s decision that will allow what official forms to be printed in languages other than English in Iowa?
O) Alabama’s AG argued in court Wednesday that he has the power to file criminal charges against anyone who does what?
P) What national figure froze in the middle of a news conference Wednesday?
Q) Real horrors. In Canberra, Australia a neurosurgeon removed what from a woman’s brain in what is thought to be a world first?
R) Trial gets under way this week in Canada for the leaders of a protest last year that shut down what major Canadian city?
S) A financial statement by what Supreme Court justice last week revealed yet more major gifts from benefactor Harland Crow?
T) What is the purpose of “Right to Work” legislation?
Asking why women aren’t having more babies in a country with the highest maternal and infant mortality rate in the developed world, no mandated maternity leave, childcare higher than in state tuition in over 30 states, and school boards afraid of facts is hilarious. – Kyla Lacey
For some reason I just can’t concentrate this week on a single subject. As I start to think deeply on a subject, suddenly I am distracted and my mind starts to consider the new subject. That may be a pattern I have as cooler weather slowly seeps in and the weather mellows out for a while.
So I will start writing this and see where the thoughts take me.
*It is finally beginning to look like even the most hard core MAGA politicians now have to admit that human caused climate change is real and incredibly serious. But that doesn’t mean they will do anything substantial because their paycheck (or bribe or “campaign contribution”) depends on their refusal to do anything to companies that are among those that contribute to global warming.
Yes there has been a warm earth in the past that had cataclysmic weather, but the rise in temperatures occurred over thousands, even millions of years – not the 200 or so years that we have seen in this current bout of warming. The rapid warming will not be followed by a rapid cooling. It will take thousands, maybe millions of years just like it has before
Remember the issues we used to talk about pre-Trump? Health care, guns, access to abortion, good schools, Social Security and Medicare, hunger and homelessness among others. Our public discourse has been hijacked by “cultural” distractions which corporate media, social media and MAGA politicians have used to totally divert the conversation. MAGA politicians and their minions create momentary ‘crises’ that force us to fight the fire directly in front of us while the rest of the forest burns in the background.
So tired of hearing lies from the right concerning the economy. Wages and spending power are actually rising. A Democrat once again walks into the presidency following an irresponsible MAGA president who has left the economy in a wreck. President Biden resurrected the economy just as Obama did before him and Clinton did before them. Democrats keep the country stable and thriving. But thanks to corporate media and social media Americans can’t seem to understand that.
Interesting that the list of drugs that Medicare will be negotiating prices on with the Pharma reads almost like a list down from the most advertised drugs on TV. At least it looks like it to me based on what little TV I watch. No doubt the drug companies advertise the crap out of these specific drugs because they are so profitable.
Almost comical to see Chuck Grassley come to the immediate defense of Pharma and denigrate the negotiations as ‘government setting the prices for drugs.’ Far from it, Chuck! It is a negotiation, just like they negotiate with the VA and countries like Canada. Tell the truth, Chuck.
Sure makes me wonder yet again why Iowans voted for a party first clown and liar like Grassley instead of a man of integrity like Admiral Michael Franken.
There is sure history being made around us daily. Among other things we live in the era of the most corrupt Supreme Court ever. Heading up the list of corrupted judges is Clarence Thomas who is simply in a class by himself. You almost wonder if a day goes by that Clarence doesn’t get a grift. By the way, the corruption appears to be only among the MAGA court members.
I will end this rambling post with a few words that the extremist right seems to be proud of but may be reluctant to have discussed. That is their plans to completely redo our form of government and install their dream of a Unitary President under a plan called Project 2025. You must understand that while Project 2025 was drafted with another Trump presidency in mind, the expectation is that ANY ‘Republican’ elected would be expected to implement this.
(4 minutes)
Project 2025 contains ideas that have been bouncing around the extremist right for a long time. The main idea is simply that the President is in charge and cannot be restricted by the legislature or the courts. The president is also in charge of the administration and appointments would revert to the spoils system that was in use up to the 1880s.
The Supreme Court is looking for cases to gut the power of the regulatory commissions. Couple this with the ideas in Project 2025 and we essentially will have a one man rule. By the way Project 2025 is written by the Heritage Foundation which is mostly underwritten with money from the oil industry.
Thom Hartmann discussed Project 2025 in his daily newsletter Thursday. He delved deeply into the history and its current application of similar systems. Stated simply there are few and they are dictatorships. Here is a short excerpt from Hartmann’s newsletter. I suggest you read the whole newsletter to get a flavor of how far removed it is from American ideals:
One of the most disturbing aspects of Project 2025 and other plans for future Republican presidencies is their consolidation of power in the hands of the president, reflecting the way government is run in Hungary, China, and Russia rather than the checks-and-balances envisioned by our nation’s Founders.
They would outright end the operational independence of the of the Department of Justice and the FBI, turning both into tools (or weapons) the president alone could wield.
The Federal Reserve, with its ability to turn on the monetary spigot to ensure “the good times roll” or turn off the spigot to induce a recession would also become the president’s political plaything.
Ditto for the Federal Communications Commission, which has the power to not only regulate but even shut down over-the-air radio and TV broadcasts that displease it, as well as wielding a largely today-unused power of censorship over cable TV and the internet.
And the Federal Trade Commission, which has the power to grant billion-dollar favors or inflict severe punishments on companies, would lose their independence because they could be used to reward or destroy companies that have earned the favor or ire of the president.
MMM wore this No. 6 mask on the floor of congress and in a picture with President Biden.
The action alert below from the DCCC arrived in our inbox yesterday highlighting Iowa’s first District Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks’ deceitful attempts to make herself look as if she and her party are not responsible for turning American women into second class citizens by pretending publicly to care about access to contraception.
Full disclosure I live in District 1 and care deeply that Miller-Meeks does not get re-elected. I am not worried in the slightest about MMM’s small-minded endeavors. I say bring them on! And Christina Bohannan should be saying bring it on too.
Any female of child bearing age who grew up thinking she had just as many rights as a man but who just got her right to choose her own future or save her own life stripped away by the Republican party and a right wing SCOTUS is not going to be appeased by Republicans claiming they are now trying to make birth control more accessible so vote for us anyway!
I believe most young American women thought birth control was already accessible and probably had no idea that anyone in 2023 could possibly be opposed to birth control. What, Rs are going after birth control too? MMM and her fellow R’s think it will persuade women to vote for them that… they are trying to get you birth control access you thought you already had? Even if voters believed MMM, which they would be foolish to do, it makes no sense.
“Miller-Meeks [and other Republicans]… have opposed Democratic-led efforts to safeguard access to birth control. They voted last year with the vast majority of House Republicans to oppose legislation to ensure access to contraception nationwide, a right that was regarded as newly under threat after the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. Anti-abortion groups encouraged lawmakers to oppose the measure, claiming that its definition of contraceptives could be interpreted to include pills that induce abortions. Only eight Republicans voted with Democrats to support the bill, and most of them are no longer in Congress. NYT
I say let Republicans pass all the fake birth control access bills they want and try to brag about it. It is going to make things worse for them because it highlights the fact that Republicans want women to go back to the 1950’s. They want a nationwide ban on abortions whether it is medically necessary or not and they are coming for birth control. Voting for a Republican is not a good deal for women.
Christina Bohannan, Miller-Meeks’ opponent, should be jumping all over these pathetically lame tactics by her opponent. She is reportedly making this a primary theme of her campaign. I hope Bohannan magnifies MMM’s anti-women votes as clearly, explicitly, loudly and frequently as she possibly can on the campaign trail. MMM’s scheme to prevent voters from knowing what she really supports is NOT going to work but it will be up to the Bohannan campaign to make sure every voter in the district knows the facts and votes accordingly. Rs have no qualms about twisting facts to make themselves seem reasonable. This debate will be all about the best framing and is Bohannan’s to lose in my opinion.
My hope is that the Bohannan campaign will not miss opportunities to say more to the media than “it’s purely political” or “she’s doing it to provide cover.” Those are true statements but this seemed like a missed opportunity for positive media messaging because those statements don’t seem to serve to inspire voters or draw anyone into the campaign. To Christina Bohannan I would like to say I hope your campaign is ready for the next media opportunity to say what you really want to say. Miller-Meeks voted for a nationwide ban on women’s right to choose. She is a member of a party that has turned our sex into second class citizens. Don’t just point out that she’s lying to help herself politically. People think all politicians do that. Their eyes will gloss over. Make her pay when you talk to the media.
In fairness, in the NYT article, Bohannan was quoted to have pointed out that MMM aligns herself with extremists and abortion bans. These are perfectly fine true statements but the entire statement sounded like DCCC talking points. Maybe it wasn’t but it sounded like it.
Republicans seem to be the only party that can get away with reliance on talking points and generalities. Their voters blindly accept anything their politicians say. I think ordinary voters hear generalities made by candidates as political talking points – boring. I feel it is much more powerful for Democrats to hammer specifics – statements she has made, votes she took, which extremists? Specifics on the issues paired with effective values framing – what our candidate believes and stands for – and taking full advantage of every messaging opportunity, I feel will be key to winning this race.
My hope is that at every campaign stop MMM is pummeled with questions from women about why she supported stripping American women of their rights. It’s not even really about abortion rights. It’s about rights. Period. The right for women to be equal citizens in America and determine our own future. That is what it is really about and that is what Republicans stand against. This is the best way to frame the debate, in my view.
And candidate Bohannan, please make sure you talk over her on Iowa Press. Republicans are permitted by the media to lie so freely the only way to expose them is if we do it ourselves. And they won’t leave you enough time. MMM will keep her eye on the clock and run it out. Don’t be complacent and think this is going to be easy. Iowans watch Fox News. That is a big problem. And R’s are not going to hand over this seat. We have to fight for every vote.
Everyone, you can donate to the DCCC if you are so inclined but better to donate directly to MMM’s Democratic opponent, Christina Bohannan.
Here is the DCCC action alert.
ICYMI: Miller-Meeks Tries to Hide Extreme Anti-Choice Record
Mariannette Miller-Meeks is working overtime to cover up her dangerous anti-choice record in Congress by touting an “essentially meaningless” bill she claims expands access to contraception. The truth? It’s “not clear” what impact the bill will have, other than providing a convenient talking point for Miller-Meeks.
Reminder: Miller-Meeks co-sponsored legislation banning abortion with no exceptions and risking contraception access, and even voted against a bill protecting access to contraception.
DCCC Spokesperson Mallory Payne:
“Mariannette Miller-Meeks’ extreme anti-abortion record is hurting Iowa women – and she won’t be able to cover that up with bogus talking points.”
She had barely opened her town hall to questions when Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, a Republican from a competitive district in Iowa, was pressed to defend her opposition to abortion rights.
“One of the main functions of the federal government is to protect life,” Ms. Miller-Meeks, who won election in 2020 by just six votes, told a sparse crowd this month in Iowa City, a younger, more progressive part of her district where she rarely campaigns.
Ms. Miller-Meeks then quickly pivoted to politically safer terrain, telling her constituents about how she had also sponsored legislation aimed at expanding access to contraception.
It is an increasingly common strategy among vulnerable House Republicans — especially those in politically competitive districts — who are trying to reconcile their party’s hard-line anti-abortion policies with the views of voters in their districts, particularly independents and women.
Just ahead of lawmakers’ long summer break, Ms. Miller-Meeks was part of a group of House Republican women who introduced the Orally Taken Contraception Act of 2023, a bill that they pitched as a way to expand access to contraception and that she called “a significant step forward for health care.”
Abortion rights advocates argue that the legislation is essentially meaningless and merely an effort by Republican lawmakers to mislead voters about their positions on women’s health. But for the G.O.P. women who are backing it, the bill offers an elegant way to shift the conversation away from the divisive issue of abortion.
The contraception bill introduced in July, co-sponsored by at least eight Republican women and endorsed by the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, would direct the Food and Drug Administration to issue guidance for companies that want to make oral contraception available without prescriptions. But it is not clear what practical effect it would have.
Only two drug companies are actively working to offer birth control over the counter. One of them, Opill, was already approved for sale without a prescription before the legislation was introduced. The other, Cadence Health, is years into the application process with the F.D.A. and does not need the guidance that the bill directs the agency to issue.
Abortion rights groups have dismissed the bill as a stunt aimed at masking Republicans’ drive to crack down on both abortion and contraceptive access.
Ms. Miller-Meeks, along with other co-sponsors including Representative Stephanie Bice of Oklahoma, have opposed Democratic-led efforts to safeguard access to birth control. They voted last year with the vast majority of House Republicans to oppose legislation to ensure access to contraception nationwide, a right that was regarded as newly under threat after the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The situation has left Ms. Miller-Meeks in a precarious position. Democrats hope that flipping her seat will be part of their path to winning back the House majority in 2024. Earlier this month, Christina Bohannan, a former state lawmaker who lost to Ms. Miller-Meeks in 2022, announced she would run for the seat again. She immediately raised $276,000, more than any other congressional candidate in Iowa had raised in their first 24 hours.
Ms. Bohannan plans to make abortion rights central to her campaign to unseat Ms. Miller-Meeks.
“About 61 percent of Iowans support the right to abortion in all or most cases,” [Bohannan] said in an interview. “Representative Miller-Meeks has aligned herself with the most extreme members of her party instead of the people of Iowa on this issue, proposing one abortion ban over another.”
Ms. Bohannan dismissed the contraception bill as a “purely political” text that was drafted “to provide political cover for her own record.”
Ribbon cutting ceremony at the almost finished interchange on I-80/I-380 near Coralville on Aug. 25, 2023. Photo Credit – Mariannette Miller-Meeks congressional newsletter Aug. 27, 2023.
It has been no secret the interchange between Interstates 80 and 380 near Coralville needed improvement. It has long been one of the most crash-prone places in the state of Iowa. Commenced in 2018, the infrastructure project to reconstruct it is approaching completion, maybe in time for the Labor Day weekend.
On Friday, Aug. 25, the Iowa DOT held a ribbon-cutting ceremony to “open” the Highway 218 part of the exchange. This is a bit of an artificial marker because the place is so large, the part of the exchange I use to travel to Des Moines has been finished and open most of the summer.
The exchange sprawls a lot of land, so that is a negative. A potential decrease in number of accidents and ease of use are in the asset column. Once a driver learns how to use the exchange, it can be a stress-reliever. The rebuilt exchange should improve traffic flows which will be noticeable for University of Iowa sporting event patrons.
Naturally, area politicians attended the ribbon cutting ceremony. Coralville Mayor Meghann Foster got the lead quote in the Cedar Rapids Gazette. Iowa City Mayor Bruce Teague was also quoted. My member of congress Mariannette Miller-Meeks was the highest-ranking elected official present and she was not quoted. All the elected officials present were supportive of the project.
Cedar Rapids Gazette photo of the ribbon cutting ceremony for the I-80/I-380 interchange on Aug. 25, 2023.
Events like the opening of an important Interstate Highway exchange could be a kumbaya moment for the community. This one wasn’t. After the ceremonial scissors sliced the ribbon, the politicians broke down into groups by party for selfies. By the weekend, they were posting photos with their friends, said photos, with the exception of the one above, included no members of the opposing party. It was a subtle vibe, but increasingly present as time went on and the partisan pics came across my feeds.
What was I expecting?
The term kumbaya originates in an African-American spiritual song from the American South. The earliest record in the Library of Congress’s American Folklife Center (AFC) comes from lyrics collected in North Carolina in 1926 for a song called “Oh Lord, Won’t You Come By Here.” The spiritual pleads for divine intervention—for God to come by here and help a people in great need, referencing an area historically connected to the enslavement and oppression of African Americans. The word kumbaya is taken from the song’s refrain.
Maybe we need divine intervention to relieve us of partisanship. What the politicians did that Friday isn’t getting us to the promised land.
Society is divided, even at a ribbon-cutting for infrastructure that helps everyone. At least we have a new, safer Interstate interchange upon which to drive. I’m not sure it helps us get anywhere better with regard to our politics. We need something that will bridge the political gap between us. Sadly, this event wasn’t it.
Governor Kim Keynolds: (515) 281-5211 U.S. Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 Iowa Members of Congress - Rep. Randy Feenstra (R) - Rep. Ashley Hinson (R) - Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) - Rep. Zach Nunn (R) Iowa US Senators - Senator Joni Ernst (R) - Senator Charles Grassley (R)
Happy Labor Day, loyal BFIA readers! While I was searching the internets for the obligatory holiday posting, I came across several “Labor Day rants” on YouTube. There was also a post entitled, “Labor Day is a leftist scam.” I did not click on them. Seems there are forces at work out here where nothing is too benign to try and degrade.
Blog For Iowa 