Latest news with #IowaConstitution
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Iowa Senate approves Gov. Kim Reynolds' appointees despite objections over LGBTQ stances
The Iowa Senate has confirmed several more of Gov. Kim Reynolds' appointees to state boards and commissions, including her picks to serve on the regulatory panel for controversial carbon capture pipelines and two picks for state civil and human rights panels. The Senate also approved an appointee to the Board of Regents governing of Iowa's public universities as well as the Board of Medicine and Board of Pharmacy. Confirming the governor's appointees to state boards and commissions requires approval from two-thirds of the 50-member Senate, which is controlled by Republicans. Iowa Senate Republicans confirmed two of the governor's appointees to state civil and human rights panels May 9 who were both opposed by One Iowa, the state's leading LGBTQ advocacy group. In a 34-16 vote on party lines, the Senate confirmed Cheryl Elsloo to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission that enforces the state's antidiscrimination law and Whitney Smith McIntosh to the Human Rights Board, which serves underrepresented groups across the state. One Iowa Executive Director Max Mowitz issued a statement in April sounding the alarm about the appointments and said "there should be some baseline requirements for the Human Rights Board and Civil Rights Commission, and those include supporting civil rights for everyone." Elsloo has been a lobbyist with Protect My Innocence, which bills itself as a nonprofit group that defends the innocence of Iowa minors. One Iowa called it an anti-LGBTQ hate group. She has lobbied in favor of earlier versions of legislation to remove gender identity as a protected class from the Iowa Civil Rights Act, criminalize bringing minors to drag shows and amend the Iowa Constitution to end same-sex marriage. The latter two measures have never advanced in any form in the Legislature, but Reynolds in February did sign a bill ending transgender Iowans' civil rights protections into law. The new law takes effect July 1. One Iowa said Smith McIntosh has a "history of making hurtful, inflammatory statements against LGBTQ Iowans." The Des Moines Register reported in July 2022 that some community members objected to some of Smith McIntosh's social media activity as anti-LGBTQ. She is a Southeast Polk school board member. She liked an image on Facebook from June 2022 that shows fire raining down on a city with the text "Fireworks in honor of Pride Month." The image appears to depict the Biblical story of God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. In a comment on the post, Smith McIntosh wrote that any kind of pride is a sin that will invite the wrath of God. "Sexually confused people need help, respect and support to turn to God," she wrote under the post. She also commented on a March 2022 post about Lia Thomas, the University of Pennsylvania swimmer and a transgender woman whose success at the college national championships fueled debate over whether transgender female athletes participating in women's sports have an unfair advantage. "I say we refer to him by his biological name," Smith McIntosh wrote, misgendering Thomas. "Look, we understand that we aren't necessarily going to agree politically with everyone the governor appoints, that's a given," Mowitz said. "But this is more than just a political disagreement. This is about someone who can't even do the bare minimum to respect others. That is not someone who should be on the Human Rights Board." Sen. Claire Celsi, D-West Des Moines, was the only Senate Democrat to speak on any of the governor's appointments May 9. "I was originally planning on supporting Ms. Smith McIntosh," Celsi said. "Since then, I have heard some very disconcerting commentary of things that she has spoken about that are completely against, I believe, humanity, if you want to go there, and just very, very unflattering, so I cannot support this nomination." Smith McIntosh said in a statement that "people can say what they want, they can think what they want," but she was ultimately confirmed to the Human Rights Board. "I will be on this board for the next three years and I plan on doing everything I can to make sure that the human rights of all humans are honored and respected," Smith McIntosh said. "But first we need to define what a right is." Former Republican state Rep. Joshua Byrnes will serve a second term on the three-member Iowa Utilities Commission, which has come under fire from some Republican lawmakers for approving eminent domain use for a planned carbon capture pipeline. The Senate confirmed Byrnes May 13 for another term serving on the commission, 45-1, with Sen. Doug Campbell, R-Mason City, casting the sole vote against his appointment. Despite heated debates and divisions among Senate Republicans over the passage of a bill limiting eminent domain use for carbon pipelines, only one lawmaker rose to speak about his appointment. Sen. Mike Klimesh, R-Spillville, said Byrnes had an "interesting ride" when the Senate confirmed his appointment to the panel four years ago. "Working with him at the UIC in this position, he is doing great work for the Iowa Utilities Commission for the state of Iowa as a board member of the Iowa Utilities Commission," Klimesh said. "He's very dedicated, he digs in, he's not afraid to tackle and solve complex issues." Several House and Senate Republican lawmakers have heavily criticized the commission's 2024 unanimous decision to grant Summit Carbon Solutions' permit to build a carbon capture pipeline across Iowa using eminent domain. Byrnes voted to approve the Summit pipeline's permits, but was also one of two board members who filed a dissent to a section of the pipeline he thought imposed a burden. "The North-South lateral runs approximately 123 miles through seven counties and impacts 118 eminent domain parcels — all of which are necessary to serve only one ethanol facility," Byrnes wrote. He was first appointed to the commission Nov. 30, 2020. Byrnes served in the Iowa House for six years starting in 2011. He attended Luther College and obtained a master's degree from Winona State University. The Senate also confirmed Christine Hensley, a Republican from Des Moines, to fill the empty seat left by former board President Mike Richards, who resigned in January 2024. Her term will expire April 30, 2027. Lawmakers confirmed Hensley May 9 on party lines, 34-16. She was previously a Des Moines City Council member and is president of the Iowa Student Loan Corp. Hensley was not one of the appointees that One Iowa shared concerns about. She attended Drake University and was awarded an honorary doctorate from Grand View University. The Iowa Senate took a bipartisan 43-3 vote to confirm Victoria Sharp, the deputy chief of staff of the Iowa City Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, for her first three-year term on the state Board of Medicine. Sharp has practiced medicine for over 20 years and received her medical degree from the University of Arizona College of Medicine-Tucson and a Master of Business Administration at the UI Tippie College of Business. Sen. Janet Petersen, D-Des Moines, spoke in support of Sharp's confirmation, but criticized systemic problems with the Board of Medicine and the direction of health care policy in Iowa under Reynolds. "As many of you in the chamber have heard me say over and over, I am not pleased with how the Board of Medicine has been handling cases," Petersen said May 13. She pointed to the case of Sherri Moler, of Eldridge, who in 2023 sued Lynn Lindaman for sexually assaulting her 47 years earlier. Lindaman is a former athletic trainer who, after his conviction, became an orthopedic surgeon in Polk County. Petersen said Moler "went to the board and was ignored." "Her case, when they said that they had done an investigation on a doctor, she had never even been contacted by the investigators regarding her case," Petersen said. Sens. Sandy Salmon, R-Janesville; Mark Lofgren, R-Muscatine; and Campbell voted against Sharp's confirmation. David Weetman, director of the University of Iowa Health Care's acute care, will join the Board of Pharmacy after unanimous confirmation by 46 members of the Senate. He will serve a three-year term on the Board of Pharmacy, which is made up of five pharmacists, two members of the public and one certified pharmacy technician. Weetman completed his residency and obtained a Master of Science from Johns Hopkins University and received a pharmacy degree from the UI College of Pharmacy. Sabine Martin covers politics for the Register. She can be reached by email at or by phone at (515) 284-8132. Follow her on X at @sabinefmartin. Marissa Payne covers the Iowa Statehouse and politics for the Register. Reach her by email at mjpayne@ Follow her on X, formerly known as Twitter, at @marissajpayne. This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Senate confirms appointees to Iowa utilities, civil rights panels
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Iowa lawmakers plan to block Medicaid coverage for gender dysphoria treatments
Hundreds gathered at the Iowa State Capitol Feb. 24, 2025 to protest legislation that would remove protections for gender identity under the Iowa Civil Rights Act. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Iowa Republican lawmakers are trying again to pass a ban on Medicaid funding going to gender-affirming care for transgender Iowans, this time by including language in the proposed budget for health and human services programs. A Senate subcommittee advanced Senate Study Bill 1237 Wednesday, the HHS appropriations bill for fiscal year 2026. The measure included language that the funding allocated for Iowa's Medicaid program 'shall not be used for sex reassignment surgery or treatment related to an individual's gender dysphoria diagnosis.' Iowa has attempted to ban Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care law before, but these laws were struck down by the courts for violating the Iowa Constitution and the Iowa Civil Rights Act. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the state's denial of two transgender women's transition-related care through Medicaid violated the Iowa Civil Rights Act. A Polk County District Court judge also ruled in 2021 that a law passed after that state Supreme Court decision, which amended the Iowa Civil Rights Act to allow for the exclusion of Medicaid coverage for transition-related health care, violated the Iowa Constitution. Earlier this year, Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law a measure that removed gender identity as a protected class in the Iowa Civil Rights Act. As activists rallied against the measure for potentially allowing for the legal discrimination against transgender Iowans, one of the arguments posed by lawmakers was the fact that previous laws attempting to deny Medicaid coverage for transition-related health care were blocked through the state Civil Rights Act. Keenan Crow, policy and advocacy director at One Iowa, said Thursday that one of the major differences between the language in this year's Senate appropriations bill and previous attempts to ban Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care was the reference to all 'treatment related to an individual's gender dysphoria diagnosis,' not just sex reassignment surgery. This could impact transgender Iowans' ability to access mental health care and other services, Crow said. 'Our first line of intervention on any gender dysphoria case is going to be mental health counseling, period, that is the primary treatment for gender dysphoria,' Crow said. 'And obviously I am not okay with restricting surgical care either, but to go even further and and get into restricting medications and mental health supports and all this other stuff, that is truly wrong.' Even with the removal of gender identity from the Iowa Civil Rights Act, denying transgender Iowans gender-affirming care could still be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The 2021 district court ruling found the law prohibiting Medicaid coverage of transition care violated both state civil rights laws and the state constitution. The Iowa Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the law in 2023. The House Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee met Thursday to discuss its version of the HHS budget bill, House Study Bill 342, which passed unanimously. The House legislation, in its current form, does not include the Senate's language. But House Speaker Pat Grassley told reporters Thursday that the House supports restricting Medicaid funds going toward transition-related health care. 'We don't believe the taxpayers … should be paying for surgeries and other hormone therapies,' Grassley said. 'I know that there's a piece of that that's in the Senate bill, I think you will see a piece focused on those two things that I just said on our side. But again, we have not negotiated the Senate language out with them. They may have some different languages where we may settle, but I think you could expect to us to, at least, have that conversation about the taxpayer paying for those two items.' The chair of the House HHS appropriations subcommittee Rep. Ann Meyer, R-Fort Dodge, said she has spoken with Grassley about the provision, and that there will be discussions with the full House Republican caucus. However, she said that the House would likely consider different language on the measure that would not impact Medicaid coverage for mental and behavioral health care for transgender Iowans. 'If this were to come before the House, we would just be talking about surgery and hormone therapy,' Meyer said.
CBS News
22-04-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Iowa to consider constitutional change to address how traumatized witnesses testify in court
Iowa's top prosecutor is proposing an amendment to the state constitution to solve what one lawmaker called an "interesting conundrum," weighing a person's constitutional right to confront their accuser in the courtroom against the desire to protect traumatized children and vulnerable people. But some worry the proposal could hinder a defendant's rights in court. The Iowa House approved the measure last week, and it passed the Senate in March, though it would take years and several more votes — by lawmakers and the public — before the state constitution could be changed. The issue stems from a state Supreme Court decision last year that said the Iowa Constitution requires people accused of a crime and the trial witnesses testifying against them to see each other. The decision broke with decades of how the U.S. Supreme Court and other states handle the issue, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird argues. "We are the only state that has come to that conclusion," said Bird, a Republican. "It's really important that we can protect kids in court, that kids who have been traumatized can have the opportunity to testify outside the presence of the person they may be very, very afraid of." The amendment would say that constitutional right "may be limited by law" for certain witnesses: those under 18 and those with mental illness, intellectual disability or other developmental disability. Both legislative chambers would need to approve the measure again in 2027 or 2028 to put it before voters in November 2028. The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution lays out the rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions, specifying the right to a speedy trial, an impartial jury, and, among other things, "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The Iowa Constitution, adopted in 1857, also defines the rights of persons accused, including the same confrontation clause. The U.S. Supreme Court said in a 1990 decision, Maryland v. Craig, that "the right to confront accusatory witnesses may be satisfied absent a physical, face-to-face confrontation" when remote testimony is necessary and can be provided reliably. "Maryland's interest in protecting child witnesses from the trauma of testifying in a child abuse case is sufficiently important to justify the use of its special procedure," the decision said. The majority of courts across the country have aligned with that Supreme Court decision, according to Colin Miller, a University of South Carolina law professor. The most common exception is when the state's confrontation clause includes the words "face to face." That explicit text led the New Hampshire Supreme Court this year, for example, to say a 9-year-old girl's remote testimony violated the defendant's constitutional right. "Up until Iowa, our — as practitioners and as a national agency — operating assumption was that if it did not say 'face to face' in the state constitution, they would abide Maryland v. Craig," said Meg Garvin, executive director of the National Crime Victim Law Institute at Lewis & Clark Law School. Garvin was referencing the Iowa Supreme Court's decision last year that reversed the convictions for a man accused of neglect or abuse of a child and child endangerment causing bodily injury. Two of his other children testified against him from outside the courtroom, where they could not see the defendant. A 1998 state law carved out that exception for a minor needing protection "from trauma caused by testifying in the physical presence of the defendant where it would impair the minor's ability to communicate." If the judge allows, a minor's testimony could be televised to the jury and defendant in the courtroom. Iowa's confrontation clause does not specify "face to face," but the court said that violated his constitutional right to confrontation, declaring the state constitution affords more protection to criminal defendants than the federal constitution. "When our constitution was adopted, a 'confrontation' was understood to involve a 'face to face' encounter," the court said. Bird said her office wanted to ensure the solution they proposed to protect kids "stands the test of time." It's supported by law enforcement and county attorneys, as well as various victim advocacy organizations, many of whom told lawmakers that justice isn't being served in Iowa if children are forced to face an abuser again or are too afraid to tell their stories. "The thing that I sit almost daily, definitely weekly, and grapple with with parents is when they have to decide: 'Is the price of justice worth it for my child?'" Wendy Berkey, a family advocate at a Des Moines-area child protection center, told lawmakers in January. "Unfortunately, right now in Iowa the answer they often have is no." The public opposition to the proposal has been concentrated among defense attorneys who cite examples of people wrongly accused and say these allowances for certain witnesses signal to the jury that the defendant is guilty. The existing law looks similar to the approach in many states, said Chris Wellborn, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. But Wellborn suggested that changing the constitution is a slippery slope. "They're basically futzing around with the Sixth Amendment," he said. "I would argue that's a very dangerous road to go down because when you start saying we carve out exceptions for someone's confrontational rights, do we also carve out exceptions for their right to present a defense?" Bird said the current law has "worked for years without controversy," and she is not seeking additional legislation. But Wellborn's concern was echoed by Republican state Rep. Charley Thomson, who said the provisions "open the door wide to mischief by future legislatures." State Rep. Steven Holt acknowledged the constitutionality concerns but said the Iowa Supreme Court didn't offer many options. "They struck it down but didn't really give any guidance as to what we should do," said Holt, a Republican. "They've left us with an interesting conundrum as we try to protect children in the courts against ... having to be traumatized again."
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Iowa considers whether to change constitution to address how traumatized witnesses testify in court
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa's top prosecutor is proposing an amendment to the state constitution to solve what one lawmaker called an 'interesting conundrum," weighing a person's constitutional right to confront their accuser in the courtroom against the desire to protect traumatized children and vulnerable people. But some worry the proposal could hinder a defendant's rights in court. The Iowa House approved the measure last week, and it passed the Senate in March, though it would take years and several more votes — by lawmakers and the public — before the state constitution could be changed. The issue stems from a state Supreme Court decision last year that said the Iowa Constitution requires people accused of a crime and the trial witnesses testifying against them to see each other. The decision broke with decades of how the U.S. Supreme Court and other states handle the issue, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird argues. 'We are the only state that has come to that conclusion,' said Bird, a Republican. 'It's really important that we can protect kids in court, that kids who have been traumatized can have the opportunity to testify outside the presence of the person they may be very, very afraid of.' The amendment would say that constitutional right 'may be limited by law' for certain witnesses: those under 18 and those with mental illness, intellectual disability or other developmental disability. Both legislative chambers would need to approve the measure again in 2027 or 2028 to put it before voters in November 2028. What is the Sixth Amendment? The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution lays out the rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions, specifying the right to a speedy trial, an impartial jury, and, among other things, 'to be confronted with the witnesses against him.' The Iowa Constitution, adopted in 1857, also defines the rights of persons accused, including the same confrontation clause. The U.S. Supreme Court said in a 1990 decision, Maryland v. Craig, that 'the right to confront accusatory witnesses may be satisfied absent a physical, face-to-face confrontation' when remote testimony is necessary and can be provided reliably. 'Maryland's interest in protecting child witnesses from the trauma of testifying in a child abuse case is sufficiently important to justify the use of its special procedure,' the decision said. The majority of courts across the country have aligned with that Supreme Court decision, according to Colin Miller, a University of South Carolina law professor. The most common exception is when the state's confrontation clause includes the words 'face to face." That explicit text led the New Hampshire Supreme Court this year, for example, to say a 9-year-old girl's remote testimony violated the defendant's constitutional right. 'Up until Iowa, our — as practitioners and as a national agency — operating assumption was that if it did not say 'face to face' in the state constitution, they would abide Maryland v. Craig,' said Meg Garvin, executive director of the National Crime Victim Law Institute at Lewis & Clark Law School. An originalist interpretation Garvin was referencing the Iowa Supreme Court's decision last year that reversed the convictions for a man accused of neglect or abuse of a child and child endangerment causing bodily injury. Two of his other children testified against him from outside the courtroom, where they could not see the defendant. A 1998 state law carved out that exception for a minor needing protection 'from trauma caused by testifying in the physical presence of the defendant where it would impair the minor's ability to communicate.' If the judge allows, a minor's testimony could be televised to the jury and defendant in the courtroom. Iowa's confrontation clause does not specify 'face to face,' but the court said that violated his constitutional right to confrontation, declaring the state constitution affords more protection to criminal defendants than the federal constitution. "When our constitution was adopted, a 'confrontation' was understood to involve a 'face to face' encounter,' the court said. Protecting victims Bird said her office wanted to ensure the solution they proposed to protect kids 'stands the test of time.' It's supported by law enforcement and county attorneys, as well as various victim advocacy organizations, many of whom told lawmakers that justice isn't being served in Iowa if children are forced to face an abuser again or are too afraid to tell their stories. 'The thing that I sit almost daily, definitely weekly, and grapple with with parents is when they have to decide: 'Is the price of justice worth it for my child?'' Wendy Berkey, a family advocate at a Des Moines-area child protection center, told lawmakers in January. 'Unfortunately, right now in Iowa the answer they often have is no.' The debate over defendants' rights The public opposition to the proposal has been concentrated among defense attorneys who cite examples of people wrongly accused and say these allowances for certain witnesses signal to the jury that the defendant is guilty. The existing law looks similar to the approach in many states, said Chris Wellborn, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. But Wellborn suggested that changing the constitution is a slippery slope. 'They're basically futzing around with the Sixth Amendment,' he said. 'I would argue that's a very dangerous road to go down because when you start saying we carve out exceptions for someone's confrontational rights, do we also carve out exceptions for their right to present a defense?' Bird said the current law has 'worked for years without controversy," and she is not seeking additional legislation. But Wellborn's concern was echoed by Republican state Rep. Charley Thomson, who said the provisions 'open the door wide to mischief by future legislatures.' State Rep. Steven Holt acknowledged the constitutionality concerns but said the Iowa Supreme Court didn't offer many options. 'They struck it down but didn't really give any guidance as to what we should do,' said Holt, a Republican. 'They've left us with an interesting conundrum as we try to protect children in the courts against ... having to be traumatized again.'
The Independent
21-04-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Iowa considers whether to change constitution to address how traumatized witnesses testify in court
Iowa's top prosecutor is proposing an amendment to the state constitution to solve what one lawmaker called an 'interesting conundrum," weighing a person's constitutional right to confront their accuser in the courtroom against the desire to protect traumatized children and vulnerable people. But some worry the proposal could hinder a defendant's rights in court. The Iowa House approved the measure last week, and it passed the Senate in March, though it would take years and several more votes — by lawmakers and the public — before the state constitution could be changed. The issue stems from a state Supreme Court decision last year that said the Iowa Constitution requires people accused of a crime and the trial witnesses testifying against them to see each other. The decision broke with decades of how the U.S. Supreme Court and other states handle the issue, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird argues. 'We are the only state that has come to that conclusion,' said Bird, a Republican. 'It's really important that we can protect kids in court, that kids who have been traumatized can have the opportunity to testify outside the presence of the person they may be very, very afraid of.' The amendment would say that constitutional right 'may be limited by law' for certain witnesses: those under 18 and those with mental illness, intellectual disability or other developmental disability. Both legislative chambers would need to approve the measure again in 2027 or 2028 to put it before voters in November 2028. What is the Sixth Amendment? The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution lays out the rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions, specifying the right to a speedy trial, an impartial jury, and, among other things, 'to be confronted with the witnesses against him.' The Iowa Constitution, adopted in 1857, also defines the rights of persons accused, including the same confrontation clause. The U.S. Supreme Court said in a 1990 decision, Maryland v. Craig, that 'the right to confront accusatory witnesses may be satisfied absent a physical, face-to-face confrontation' when remote testimony is necessary and can be provided reliably. 'Maryland's interest in protecting child witnesses from the trauma of testifying in a child abuse case is sufficiently important to justify the use of its special procedure,' the decision said. The majority of courts across the country have aligned with that Supreme Court decision, according to Colin Miller, a University of South Carolina law professor. The most common exception is when the state's confrontation clause includes the words 'face to face." That explicit text led the New Hampshire Supreme Court this year, for example, to say a 9-year-old girl's remote testimony violated the defendant's constitutional right. 'Up until Iowa, our — as practitioners and as a national agency — operating assumption was that if it did not say 'face to face' in the state constitution, they would abide Maryland v. Craig,' said Meg Garvin, executive director of the National Crime Victim Law Institute at Lewis & Clark Law School. An originalist interpretation Garvin was referencing the Iowa Supreme Court's decision last year that reversed the convictions for a man accused of neglect or abuse of a child and child endangerment causing bodily injury. Two of his other children testified against him from outside the courtroom, where they could not see the defendant. A 1998 state law carved out that exception for a minor needing protection 'from trauma caused by testifying in the physical presence of the defendant where it would impair the minor's ability to communicate.' If the judge allows, a minor's testimony could be televised to the jury and defendant in the courtroom. Iowa's confrontation clause does not specify 'face to face,' but the court said that violated his constitutional right to confrontation, declaring the state constitution affords more protection to criminal defendants than the federal constitution. "When our constitution was adopted, a 'confrontation' was understood to involve a 'face to face' encounter,' the court said. Protecting victims Bird said her office wanted to ensure the solution they proposed to protect kids 'stands the test of time.' It's supported by law enforcement and county attorneys, as well as various victim advocacy organizations, many of whom told lawmakers that justice isn't being served in Iowa if children are forced to face an abuser again or are too afraid to tell their stories. 'The thing that I sit almost daily, definitely weekly, and grapple with with parents is when they have to decide: 'Is the price of justice worth it for my child?'' Wendy Berkey, a family advocate at a Des Moines-area child protection center, told lawmakers in January. 'Unfortunately, right now in Iowa the answer they often have is no.' The debate over defendants' rights The public opposition to the proposal has been concentrated among defense attorneys who cite examples of people wrongly accused and say these allowances for certain witnesses signal to the jury that the defendant is guilty. The existing law looks similar to the approach in many states, said Chris Wellborn, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. But Wellborn suggested that changing the constitution is a slippery slope. 'They're basically futzing around with the Sixth Amendment,' he said. 'I would argue that's a very dangerous road to go down because when you start saying we carve out exceptions for someone's confrontational rights, do we also carve out exceptions for their right to present a defense?' Bird said the current law has 'worked for years without controversy," and she is not seeking additional legislation. But Wellborn's concern was echoed by Republican state Rep. Charley Thomson, who said the provisions 'open the door wide to mischief by future legislatures.' State Rep. Steven Holt acknowledged the constitutionality concerns but said the Iowa Supreme Court didn't offer many options. 'They struck it down but didn't really give any guidance as to what we should do,' said Holt, a Republican. 'They've left us with an interesting conundrum as we try to protect children in the courts against ... having to be traumatized again.'
