Bill aiming to stop accreditors from targeting law-abiding state universities heads to governor
The Iowa Senate has sent a bill to Gov. Kim Reynolds's desk that would bar penalization from accreditors to universities for following state law, despite concerns from some lawmakers that it would not prevent universities from potentially losing accreditation.
House File 295 would bar higher education accrediting bodies from taking negative action against state universities that follow or refuse to be noncompliant with state law, like legislation passed in the state prohibiting universities from funding or maintaining diversity, equity and inclusion offices.
The bill also removes mention of the Higher Learning Commission and replaces it with 'any federally recognized accreditor of postsecondary educational institutions,' a move Sen. Cindy Winckler, D-Davenport, said could lead to universities choosing lower-quality accreditors and 'call into question' students' degrees.
'I think that we are heading down a path that is creating political cover for laws that are being passed that conflict with gold standards of higher education,' Winckler said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Sens. Janice Weiner of Iowa City and Herman Quirmbach of Ames agreed with Winckler, saying if Iowa universities stop using the 'gold standard' Higher Learning Commission, students may choose to take their tuition dollars somewhere else and education in Iowa could deteriorate as a result.
Weiner reiterated that legislation to create a center for intellectual freedom at the University of Iowa could endanger the university's accreditation, and said the introduction of House File 295 told her 'the majority party knowingly is putting the university's accreditation at risk.'
'We could be voting, and we could be focusing on helping UIHC find a cure for the cancer plague in this state. Instead, we're dealing with a bill that knowingly risks the school's accreditation,' Weiner said. 'It's like we've stepped through the looking glass.'
Sen. Kerry Gruenhagen, R-Walcott, said there was 'a little bit of exaggeration' in the comments from his colleagues about the dangers of Iowa universities losing accreditation or using lower-quality accreditors. He doesn't expect any problems to arise with current or proposed legislation, including the bill to establish the UI intellectual freedom center.
The bill passed with a 32-15 vote.
'You know, these past couple weeks, we have heard a lot of concern about intellectual freedom, diversity, allowing both sides to speak,' Gruenhagen said. 'Instituting this in a college should have been an easy 'yes' vote for both sides of this chamber, according to floor arguments that I've been hearing. Unfortunately, we did not hear those. We did not receive a yes. Here's another chance to say 'yes' to provide opportunities.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Senate Republicans reveal dramatic dealmaking behind Trump's $3.3T megabill passage
Senate Republicans left Washington this week to sell President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill," but the road to creating and passing the legislation began just over a year and a half ago. Trump's $3.3 trillion megabill, crammed with his legislative priorities on border security, defense and energy, was a product months in the making. And it was the marquee policy in the bill, which was to extend or make permanent many of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, that was the driving force behind Republicans' desire to pass it. But Senate Republicans have had little time to rest on their laurels and celebrate the bill's passage, spending the month since Trump signed it advancing a $9 billion clawback package and trying to ram through Senate Democrats' blockade of the president's nominees. The journey to pass the bill began well before Republicans had a trifecta in Washington in early 2024, when then-Senate Republican Conference Chair John Barrasso, R-Wyo., hosted a policy retreat with Senate Republicans to hash out what the GOP's agenda could look like should the win out in November. And months later, Trump visited with Senate Republicans to discuss the strategy they had been working on behind-the-scenes. "With President Trump in the White House, we discussed how Republicans will get America back on track," Barrasso said at the time. "That starts with helping families escape the pain of Democrat high prices, unleashing American energy, stopping Democrat tax increases, and securing the Southern Border. Republicans are united." The real, nitty-gritty work began in January where concepts were taken and fleshed out into legislation. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., opted to leapfrog the House and move forward with the Senate's own budget framework, which initially divided the "big, beautiful bill" into two chunks. That added pressure on Republicans in the lower chamber to coalesce behind a plan of their own. For much of the earlier part of this year, however, the Senate was waiting on the House to fine-tune and pass their own version of the bill. Still, Thune and his leadership team, including Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., worked to get a product from one side of the building to the other that the Senate GOP could work with. And when the bill made its way to the upper chamber in early June, the pressure was on to deliver a finished product to Trump by July 4, an artificial deadline used to help corral lawmakers into finishing work on the bill. One of the major disagreements in the upper chamber before the bill ever hit the floor was over the nature of cuts to Medicaid, particularly aimed at the provider tax rate. The issue was eventually smoothed over through the creation of a $50 billion rural hospital fund, but lawmakers who sounded the alarm against it vowed to ensure that the changes to the provider would never take effect. "I think it was a huge mistake," Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said at the time. "I think this has been an unhappy episode here in Congress, this effort to cut Medicaid." "And I think, frankly, my party needs to do some soul-searching," he continued. "If you want to be a working class party, you've got to get delivered for working class people. You cannot take away health care from working people." And when the bill did finally hit the floor for what would evolve into a multi-day affair of passing through procedural hurdles, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., forcing the reading of the entire bill and a marathon vote-a-rama, Senate Republicans were still not entirely on board. At first, a cohort of fiscal hawks led by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., appeared to not support the package — they wanted even deeper cuts to Medicaid by tweaking the percentage that the federal government pays for healthcare in states that opted into Obamacare, which they argued would have saved billions extra. They were offered an amendment that eventually never came to the floor, but was enough for them to back down from tanking the bill. And their resistance began in the first of a handful of huddles inside Thune's office outside the Senate floor. Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., joined them for the closed-door conversations, and told Fox News Digital that while her vote was not contingent on getting the change added, she wanted to make the case for why it should be. "It saved a lot of money," she said. "It saved a lot of money, and so I was anxious to see us use the opportunity, since we were able to open up mandatory spending, use the opportunity to really save some money." And later on, in the wee hours of the night, Republicans were bouncing from Thune's office to the Senate floor, hashing out deals as they went to get Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, to support the bill, knowing that Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., could vote against it. "Sometimes it's got to be put on a clock, because at some point the argument has to come to an end," Mullin told Fox News Digital. "And that's why we had to do some of it on the floor. We had to, we had to force the hand." And in the end, only three Republicans, Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Collins and Tillis voted against the bill. From there it went to the House, where Republicans in the lower chamber had their own dramatic rally to pass the legislative behemoth. And now, as Republicans scatter to their home states to sell the bill to their constituents, Tillis said that the "foundational" piece of information that lawmakers can share is that they averted a nationwide tax hike. "The shame of the Medicaid provision is that the vast majority of the bill is supported," he told Fox News Digital. "I think we have to remind them the problem with the tax bill is they're not going to see a cut, but if we hadn't done it, they would have seen a historic increase." "So we need to remind them of what we're doing is continuing what we started, and the economy that we created, it was able to withstand COVID," he continued. "And I firmly believe if we hadn't passed it. We'd have been in a different posture."
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Daylight saving time: Will this be the last time we ‘fall back?'
(NEXSTAR) — It can be hard to imagine the dark, cold nights of November when you're in the throes of August, but believe it or not, we're not far from those drearier days. That means we're also not far from the biannual tradition you either appreciate, despise, or otherwise forget about: the changing of the clocks for daylight saving time. You don't have to rush to check your calendar; we're several weeks from November 2. But not long ago, it seemed the U.S. may have been gearing up to treat it like any other Sunday. Within the last several months, bills to 'lock the clocks' have been introduced, a Senate committee hearing has been held, and even President Donald Trump has weighed in on the discussions. Nonetheless, introduced bills have stalled, no more hearings have been held, and the need to set your clocks (in most states) back an hour remains. 'Tariff rebates' proposed: How would they work? So what does the future of the biannual changing of the clocks look like for the U.S.? So far, a lot like its past. More than a century ago, the U.S. temporarily observed permanent daylight saving time — setting the clocks forward an hour without setting them back a few months later — during World War I. It lasted roughly a year and returned during World War II. That then set off decades of states and cities deciding what time to observe without much guidance. There was a brief reprieve from the chaos when Congress passed the Uniform Time Act in 1966, formalizing when the country was on daylight saving time and standard time. A few years later, we tried permanent daylight saving time during an energy crisis, only for it to lose favor and be ditched. Since the mid-1970s, we've changed our clocks twice annually. Most recent efforts targeting the practice — primarily led by Congressmen from Florida — have focused on putting the country back on permanent daylight saving time, a move many health experts disagree with. As in years past, the Senate and House bills to do as such have received bipartisan support and been passed off to committees, only to stall out. What would change if daylight saving time became permanent? The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation did hold a hearing in April that examined 'the various issues around whether the country should continue 'springing forward' and 'falling back' each year with time.' Witnesses who support permanent daylight saving time and an alternative, permanent standard time, shared their opinions, and the bill advanced out of committee. It still needs a revote in the Senate, a spokesperson told Nexstar. 'Americans are sick and tired of changing their clocks twice a year — it's an unnecessary, decades-old practice that's more of an annoyance to families than a benefit to them,' Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) previously said while introducing his Sunshine Protection Act alongside Senator Patty Murray (D-WA). Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL) introduced companion legislation in the House. 'President Trump and the American people are on board with locking the lock, and now it's time we pass the Sunshine Protection Act to make Daylight Saving Time permanent.' 'It's clear that Americans want to do away with changing their clocks twice a year, and my bill will end this outdated practice,' Rep Buchanan said in a statement to Nexstar. 'We've had very promising conversations with House leadership, Energy and Commerce committee members and the Trump team about holding hearings and acting on my bill this Congress. It's clear that public support and political headwinds are on our side, and I look forward to my bill becoming law.' Some states, meanwhile, have taken it upon themselves to enact legislation that would put them on permanent daylight saving time — in most cases, however, they need Congress's approval. Only two states observe year-round standard time, an option afforded them by Congress' 1966 Uniform Time Act. States cannot opt for permanent daylight saving time. In most cases, the states standing on that side of the clock have introduced or passed measures calling on Congress to enact permanent daylight saving time or outlining conditions in which the state would observe daylight saving time permanently, typically based on actions by Congress or neighboring states. Why experts say keeping standard time is 'undeniably' better for us A House bill to give states the power to observe daylight saving time all year has been introduced and referred to committee. Multiple other states, however, have seen legislation introduced during their current legislative sessions to observe permanent standard time or exempt it from daylight saving time. Such bills in Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia have failed to pass already this year. Legislation to observe permanent daylight saving time in Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia was also unable to pass. Some states have not considered clock-locking legislation, either this year or in recent history. That includes Michigan, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. In the last five years, no related proposals have been brought forth in the District of Columbia or Rhode Island.
San Francisco Chronicle
4 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump has said abortion is a state issue. His judicial picks could shape it nationally for decades
CHICAGO (AP) — One called abortion a 'barbaric practice.' Another referred to himself as a 'zealot' for the anti-abortion movement. Several have played prominent roles in defending their state's abortion restrictions in court and in cases that have had national impact, including on access to medication abortion. As President Donald Trump pushes the Senate to confirm his federal judicial nominees, a review by The Associated Press shows that roughly half of them have revealed anti-abortion views, been associated with anti-abortion groups or defended abortion restrictions. Trump has offered shifting positions on the issue while indicating he wants to leave questions of abortion access to the states. But his court nominees will have lifetime appointments and be in position to roll back abortion access long after the Republican president leaves the White House. Bernadette Meyler, a professor of constitutional law at Stanford University, said judicial nominations 'are a way of federally shaping the abortion question without going through Congress or making a big, explicit statement.' "It's a way to cover up a little bit what is happening in the abortion sphere compared to legislation or executive orders that may be more visible, dramatic and spark more backlash,' she said. Trump is having an enduring impact on the federal courts Of the 17 judicial nominees so far in Trump's second term, at least eight have argued in favor of abortion restrictions or against expanded abortion access. No such records could be found for the other nine, nor did the AP review find evidence that any of Trump's judicial nominees support increased access to abortion. "Every nominee of the President represents his promises to the American people and aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling," a White House spokesman, Harrison Fields, said in a statement that referenced the 2022 decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade. 'The Democrats' extreme position on abortion was rejected in November in favor of President Trump's commonsense approach, which allows states to decide, supports the sanctity of human life, and prevents taxpayer funding of abortion.' Trump's first term also had an enduring impact on the courts, appointing 234 judges. By the end of that term, more than one-quarter of active federal judges were nominated by Trump, including three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade. Challenging abortion care, medication, Planned Parenthood In his second term, all but five of his 17 nominees are from states that went for Trump in 2024 and where Republicans have pushed severe abortion restrictions. Among them, four nominees are from Missouri and five are from Florida. Here is a look at the nominees who have tried to reduce abortion access or have advocated for restrictions. They did not respond to requests for comment: — Whitney Hermandorfer, who has been confirmed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has built much of her relatively short career as a lawyer around challenging former President Joe Biden's policies related to abortion and transgender rights. She challenged a federal law requiring employers to provide workers with reasonable accommodations to get abortion care, as well as Title X regulations that required providers who receive funding through the program to give information about abortions to patients if asked. Hermandorfer defended Tennessee's abortion ban, one of the strictest in the country, in court and tried to dismiss a lawsuit from doctors seeking clarification on exemptions to the ban. She said abortion deserves special scrutiny because 'this is the only medical procedure that terminates a life.' — Maria Lanahan, a district court nominee in Missouri, helped write the state's complaint in a lawsuit that had sweeping national implications for access to medication abortion. The case challenged the FDA approval of the abortion pill mifepristone despite decades of evidence showing the drug is safe and effective. The lawyer supported Missouri's effort to strip Planned Parenthood of state Medicaid funding and defended the state's abortion ban after a group of clergy sued, arguing it violated the state constitution's protections for religious freedom. — Jordan Pratt, a nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, called abortion a 'barbaric practice' and 'one of the most severe invasions of personal rights imaginable' in an amicus brief supporting Florida's 15-week abortion ban. The state now bans the procedure at six weeks. In 2025, Pratt struck down a Florida law that created a judicial waiver program for minors seeking to have abortions without parental consent. The lawyer also worked for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that opposes abortion and has sued to reverse the FDA approval of mifepristone. — John Guard, also nominated to fill for the same district, defended Florida's then-15-week abortion ban in court as the state's chief deputy attorney general. — Joshua Divine, a deputy solicitor general of Missouri who is nominated to be a district judge in the state, is currently representing Missouri in a case challenging the FDA approval of mifepristone. Divine co-authored the lawsuit, which includes misinformation about medication abortion, including that it 'starves the baby to death in the womb.' In his college newspaper, Divine described himself as a 'zealot" for the anti-abortion movement, referred to abortion as 'the killing of an innocent, genetically unique human being' and argued that life begins at fertilization. He also stepped into a prominent role in the fight over abortion rights in the state after Missouri voters approved an abortion rights amendment in 2024. That amendment did not immediately override state laws. It left it up to abortion rights groups to ask courts to knock down abortion restrictions they believed were now unconstitutional. During the ensuing legal battles, Divine represented the state in defending a host of abortion restrictions. — Chad Meredith, Trump's nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, defended the state's abortion ban and other restrictions while he was the state's chief deputy general counsel. That included a law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and describe images to abortion patients. — Bill Mercer, a Republican state lawmaker in Montana who is nominated for a U.S. District Court judgeship in the state, has repeatedly supported anti-abortion bills. Those include ones that sought to ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy; require a 24-hour waiting period and mandatory ultrasounds for abortion patients; require parental notification for minors to get an abortion; prohibit the use of state funding for abortions; prohibit certain insurance policies from covering abortions; and restrict what types of medical professionals can dispense medication abortion. — Jennifer Mascott, a lawyer in the White House Counsel's Office and a Trump nominee to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has spoken repeatedly about abortion law in panels and interviews. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Mascott in an interview on 'Fox News Live' disagreed with the argument that the decision undermined the court's legitimacy. She said abortion issues are 'more appropriately decided' by the states, elected officials in Congress and people in their local communities. Anti-abortion groups are optimistic based on Trump's early nominees Anti-abortion groups said it is premature to make broad conclusions about whether the nominees would help carry out their policy goals but that they were optimistic based on the names they have seen so far. 'We look forward to four more years of nominees cut from that mold,' said Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs for the national anti-abortion organization SBA Pro-Life America. Kristi Hamrick, spokesperson for Students for Life, said she was hopeful the administration will continue nominating those 'who will respect the rule of law.' Abortion rights advocates said Trump is embedding abortion opponents into the judiciary one judge at a time. Mini Timmaraju, president of the national abortion rights organization Reproductive Freedom for All, said the courts, until now, have largely been an effective option for advocates to challenge state abortion bans and restrictions. 'This just feeds into this larger strategy where Trump has gotten away with distancing himself from abortion — saying he's going to leave it to the states while simultaneously appointing anti-abortion extremists at all levels of government," she said.
