Latest news with #LizBrown
Indianapolis Star
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana spoofed by The Onion over fake pornography 'law.' Some people thought it was real
The Onion, a parody news site known for its satirical headlines, may have caused some Hoosiers to do a double-take Friday after posting the following article: "New Indiana law requires all porn viewers to register as sex offenders." No such law exists, of course. Not in Indiana or elsewhere. The story caught fire over the weekend, leading to thousands of reactions and hundreds of user comments across several social media platforms. Some people admitted they couldn't tell at first if the headline was real or not. Here's what we know about it. Story continues after photo gallery. In a spoof article about Indiana posted last week, writers at The Onion claimed the — and we can't stress this enough — fictitious law will "keep sexual content away from those not yet on the state's list of deviants." The Onion included fake quotes from real-life Republican State Sen. Liz Brown of Fort Wayne, who had a hand in authoring Senate Bill 17, a real law signed by then-Gov. Eric Holcomb last year requiring age verification checks on porn sites. Perhaps that's why The Onion credited Brown as the fake bill's fake co-sponsor, jokingly quoting her as saying Hoosiers who wanted to access adult content online would have to go on record as being "a depraved person in the eyes of the law." People on social media had a mix of reactions. It's not the first time Indiana has been lampooned by The Onion. In October 2024, days before the national presidential election in which Donald Trump won re-election, the parody site posted a story with the following headline: "New Indiana law requires women voters to show husband's ID." Last year, Indiana passed a bill into law mandating porn sites include age verification checks in a bid to prevent children from accessing adult content. Hoosier parents, as well as Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, can sue websites that fail to screen out minors. Several adult-content websites, including a California-based free-speech trade group, have sued Indiana over the law, arguing age-verification checks impinge on Hoosiers' constitutional rights. Among other concerns, the Indiana ACLU has warned the law could pose significant risks to online privacy and safety. Despite a temporary injunction imposed by a federal judge last year, Indiana's age verification law remains in effect while a similar law adopted by Texas awaits a pending decision by the U.S Supreme Court. Story continues after photo gallery. Meanwhile, free speech advocates warn a bill introduced by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, could lead to a nationwide ban on pornography in the United States. The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA) proposed by Lee would scrap how the federal government currently interprets and defines obscene material and replace it with a more broader definition. Essentially, anything uploaded to the internet containing "nudity, sex, or excretion" that lacks "serious value," according to the bill, could be labeled obscene and therefore illegal. While the bill doesn't explicitly ban pornography outright, according to the Salt Lake Tribune, it makes it easier for prosecutors to lock up and sue anyone who creates, hosts and distributes it. 'Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted,' Lee said in a prepared statement. In an article posted last week on Mashable, free speech advocates called the bill "a slippery slope," warning it could not only outlaw America's adult entertainment industry, but potentially have far-reaching impacts on what exactly pornography entails. "IODA would allow prosecutors to say, "'It no longer matters if it's offensive to the larger community…if it's offensive to us, we can bring a case,'" Mike Stabile told Mashable, who serves as director of public policy at adult industry trade organization, the Free Speech Coalition. OPINION: Republicans appeal to morality with bill to ban all porn. Will it turn off their base?
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill abolishing court positions passes Senate
Sen. Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne, speaks on a bill on April 15, 2025. (Whitney Downard/Indiana Capital Chronicle) Eleven mostly rural counties will lose judges under a bill passed 33-16 by the Indiana Senate Tuesday. House Bill 1144 — which adds judges and magistrates in Elkhart, Hamilton, Lawrence and Vigo counties — has moved through the entire session without language abolishing courts. Then, on April 10, hours before a committee deadline, an amendment was added in the Senate Appropriations Committee eliminating one court each in Blackford, Carroll, Gibson, Greene, Jennings, Monroe, Newton, Owen, Pulaski, Rush and Scott counties, along with six juvenile magistrate positions in Marion County. This provision is estimated to save the state approximately $748,885 in Fiscal Year 2027 and up to $2.75 M in Fiscal Year 2032, according to a fiscal analysis. Sen. Jean Leising, R-Oldenburg, said constituents in her district were shocked by the move. 'That created quite a frenzy from the people that maybe should have been expecting it. I don't know, but they weren't expecting it,' she said. Leising tried unsuccessfully to add her judges back into the bill on Monday. She voted against the proposal. She said she knows the courts were chosen based on caseload statistics but she wished the list had been made public earlier in the process. 'I would just hope that in the future when things like this are done that maybe it was a more open process so those counties can come speak up,' Leising said. 'If a county now has two judges and you do away with one of them, it's a tremendous impact.' The general idea of reallocation was discussed in a study committee in October 2024. Essentially, Indiana uses a weighted caseload study that assesses how much judicial time is needed for different types of cases. Then it looks at how many cases are filed to determine how many judges and magistrates are needed for the caseload. For years lawmakers have added state-funded court officers when the statistics have shown more judges are needed to handle additional cases. But as population has shifted away from some rural counties, they have never taken a judge away — even if the weighted caseload shows they have too many court officers. Sen. Liz Brown said every two years the study committee looks at the need for court officers when lawmakers are crafting a new state budget. That's because the state pays for the salaries of judges and magistrates — currently about $183,000 and $146,000, respectively. CONTACT US 'At the same time we looked at where there is not a need in the state,' she said. 'I want to assure you that this was not done with any sense of personality … this is strictly where is the need in the state of Indiana.' Brown said 'courts that are losing a judge, we looked at them on their own, independently, and said there is not sufficient need here.' The weighted caseload study shows, for instance, that Monroe County has ten judges but only needs 7.87. Blackford County has two judges but the study shows it needs less than one. The bill now goes back to the House, where court abolishments were not originally part of the measure. That chamber can either accept the changes or send the bill to conference committee for final negotiations. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Casino study is a good place to start but could be even better
Lawmakers want to study new locations for casinos. (Photo by) If Indiana were to start from scratch and legalize casino gambling today, we obviously wouldn't leave out the state's two largest population centers. That's why I am intrigued by a bill that would study casino reorganization — from the transfer of an existing, underperforming license to potentially adding a new license. Senate Bill 43 was the result of a failed attempt to move the Rising Star casino in southern Indiana to New Haven, just outside of Fort Wayne. The intense opposition stopped that idea, but led to the next one. The legislation requires the Indiana Gaming Commission to contract out for a study to identify two regions where a license could locate, which could add a 14th license to the mix. Honestly, I think the state needs a much broader study looking at gambling overall. Since Indiana legalized the lottery in 1988, lawmakers have approved virtually every other gambling option you can think about. Riverboat casinos (which have since moved onto land); racinos (which started out as slots at the horse tracks and now are full-fledged casinos); sports betting; charitable gambling; and low-stakes gambling at bars. iGaming proposal for lottery and casinos dead for the session All of these are cannibalizing each other at some point. Not to mention the interactive online gambling that casinos and the Hoosier Lottery are seeking. That bill also stalled this session. Sen. Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne, called the study 'incredibly shortsighted' in an opposing speech from the Senate floor last month. 'If we are really going to look at this, instead of doing this piecemeal, then let's really look at our gambling revenues,' Brown said. '… If we care, then we should have an honest look at our gaming revenue that we're seeing. Whether it's horse tracks, whether it's the sports betting or whether it's the on-the-ground casinos.' 'It's a Jenga game. They all need to be looked at in a fix,' Brown added. But alas, we will stick with the current discussion. I understand that when gambling started in Indiana, lawmakers chose to put facilities near state lines to attract gamblers hailing from other states in which it wasn't legal. But it's a different world now. It makes no sense that the Indianapolis and Fort Wayne areas don't have casinos — if, indeed, the goal is to maximize tax revenue to the state. An amendment made to Senate Bill 43 acknowledged this, by narrowing the study from three regions to two. Sen. Aaron Freeman, R-Indianapolis, said any 'serious conversation' about a license needed to include his hometown, adding that the southeastern casino was 'dying.' 'If the purpose of gaming is revenue, why there is not a casino in downtown Indianapolis defies my understanding,' Freeman said. 'Because it would support all of our tourism, all of our big games, all our industry. Everything in Indianapolis — it would support it.' Some Indiana gambling operators have said this is destabilizing. And, of course, if you move a license to Indianapolis, it will impact the number of people from central Indiana willing to drive to the racinos in Shelbyville or Anderson. Same for Fort Wayne. But I think lawmakers need to look at the overall health of the industry and taxes brought to the state, rather than individual operators. According to annual reports by the Indiana Gaming Commission, gaming and sports wagering operations brought in $691 million in taxes in fiscal year 2022. That dropped down to $655 million in fiscal year 2024. Maybe the answer is fewer licenses overall, but placed for maximum impact. Maybe a study would find we need to go all in on more expansions. Or maybe we are right where we need to be. We need to think bigger, and consider what's best for all of Indiana. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Broad' Indiana bill protecting parents' rights from DCS, schools advances to House floor
A bill headed to the Indiana House floor seeks to codify that parents' "fundamental right" to make decisions about their children's care. (Getty Images) Supporters of a controversial parental rights bill argued Monday that schools and state agencies should default to parents as the primary decision-makers for their children, and that Hoosier families need recourse when they believe their 'authoritative' rights have been violated. Up for debate in the House Judiciary Committee was Senate Bill 143 — a third attempt by Sen. Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne, to codify that governmental entities 'may not substantially burden a parent's fundamental right' to direct the 'upbringing, religious instruction, education or health care' of a child unless it has a 'compelling interest.' Brown said the bill is a response to parents whose rights have been violated by government entities — notably their children's public schools and the Department of Child Services (DCS). Several cases described in committee testimony involved cases in which DCS allegedly misidentified situations as abuse. 'What has happened is, when some DCS workers and people don't like the faith-based policies, the beliefs of some parents, they use those issues to take the child away. That's not how it's supposed to work,' Brown said Monday. 'Parents can take care of their children. They can receive medical advice, and they don't need DCS to take the child out of the home to administer that medical advice or that medical care that's happening today.' The House committee approved the bill 9-3 along party lines, sending it to the full chamber. Although 'it's not perfect,' Brown called the bill 'a first step' to 'at least make our agencies understand how important it is to consider the parents — how the parents are the primary caregivers — and we need to look to them first, instead of last, when we look at what we're going to do in the future.' Critics called the legislation 'too broad,' however. Among the opponents, Chris Daley with the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana worried that Brown's bill could create new liability for government employees and could hurt the privacy rights of LGBTQ+ youth, specifically. But some parental rights advocates were additionally opposed, saying the proposal 'does not go far enough.' Cindi Hajicek, executive director Purple for Parents United, maintained that the current bill actually empowers governmental entities to interfere with a child's upbringing — as long as the state can persuade a court that a compelling interest justifies those actions. 'This bill doesn't secure parental rights,' Hajicek said. 'It just tells the government exactly what it has to do to restrict them. It doesn't tell them no — it just tells them how.' Provisions in the Senate bill would forbid government entities from denying parents access to certain information about their children, and from 'advising, directing or coercing' a child to withhold that information from parents. Parents could bring legal action against governmental entities for violations, and courts would have to apply the highest level of legal scrutiny to those challenges. The bill makes an exception for protecting the health and safety of a child, and for active criminal law enforcement investigations involving a parent. Parents also wouldn't be allowed to decide that their children could access procedures that are banned in Indiana, such as abortion, gender-affirming care or female genital mutilation, Brown said. What has happened is, when some DCS workers and people don't like the faith-based policies, the beliefs of some parents, they use those issues to take the child away. That's not how it's supposed to work. – Sen. Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne 'School systems are keeping secrets. DCS employees are keeping secrets. Some of our health care workers are keeping secrets from our parents,' Brown said. She pointed to a local news article in which a teacher 'was very proud to show how supportive they were of their students, and detailed how they helped a student — a male — buy a dress for the prom, and kept it a secret … from the parents.' 'I'm glad they're supporting our students, but I'm not really sure that's how we want our schools to proceed,' Brown concluded. Numerous parents recalled their own experiences before the House panel. One parent, Clint Thompson, described how his twins were removed from his family's home based on a misdiagnosed leg fracture. Thompson said DCS staff took custody of the two children — plus his five-year-old at home — without providing an opportunity for him or his wife 'to be heard at all,' and said that both parents were denied access to the children's medical records during the months-long ordeal. Ultimately, the original medical diagnosis was proven incorrect. Bruising on the child's daughter's back 'was likely due to the after effects of RSV or low liver enzymes,' not parental neglect or abuse. 'Had our children not been taken out of our home due to a hospital diagnosis that ended up being wrong … the physical and emotional development of our infants would be stronger, and our five-year-old son would never have experienced emotional trauma from being ripped away from his parents,' Thompson explained. 'My wife and myself hope that no other family will have to go through what we went through just last year. And if they do, the state should support those families who have been wronged.' Also approved Monday by the House Judiciary Committee was a bill that seeks to expedite the removal of 'squatters' who occupy properties without permission. Senate Bill 157, authored by Sen. Mike Gaskill, R-Pendleton, would require law enforcement to more quickly remove violators — within 48 hours of a property owner's affidavit — unless 'credible evidence' proves otherwise. The bill moved to the House floor in a 9-3 vote, along party lines. Another parent, Yvonne Martinez Koch, said DCS was called after she didn't follow recommendations from her daughter's school for psychiatric care. Koch said school administrators pressured her to medicate her child for misdiagnosed mental health issues, which caused additional health problems. 'When we finally secured an independent neuropsych evaluation, the truth became clear: our daughter was not suffering from mental illness. She had autism, a condition that was completely overlooked and ignored and dismissed by the schools,' Koch said. Dawn Marie White, attorney for Indiana parents Grant and Myranda Phillips, testified that the couple temporarily lost custody of their two children for nearly a year, and were kept from their children's medical records, after DCS incorrectly alleged abuse of their two-month-old infant. The child was later found to be suffering from a previously undiagnosed connective tissue disorder, and a judge eventually dismissed the case. A lawsuit lodged by the family is still pending. 'This bill still allows courts to make the determination of limiting or denying parents access when it's appropriate. The court should be making these decisions, not a governmental agency that is, by definition, adversarial to parents,' White said. 'It allows good Hoosier parents to have an opportunity and right to address when governmental agencies overstep. Please don't allow governmental agencies engaged in adversarial positions to restrict parents' access without appropriate oversight. It is an unfair advantage and cruel tactic that has lasting impacts on everyone in the family.' Similar laws have passed in other states to prevent school districts from affirming transgender students. A law passed by the Indiana General Assembly in 2023 already mandates Hoosier schools to report to parents when a student requests name or pronoun changes. Gender-affirming care for transgender minors was also outlawed in Indiana during the 2023 session. 'Parents should be regarded by the state of Indiana as the ultimate decision-makers of what's best for their children,' said Jordan Carpenter, legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has helped draft related bill language in other states. 'No one knows a child's needs better than that child's parents who have the God-given right and responsibility to make decisions in the child's best interest without undue government interference.' DCS did not testify on the bill. Committee chairman Rep. Chris Jeter, R-Fishers, said he couldn't speak on behalf of the agency or comment on its position. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
17-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Legislature could explore limiting use of public health fund
Sen. Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne, asks a fellow committee member a question on March 11, 2025. (Whitney Downard/Indiana Capital Chronicle) A universally adopted funding program to boost local public health departments is facing a tough budget road, with some lawmakers questioning whether agencies have delivered on their promises or should be further constrained. The two-year-old Health First Indiana program allocated $225 million to local public health departments in the last budget cycle, or $75 million in 2023 followed by $150 million in 2024. The latest version of the budget earmarks $100 million each year. But following a budget presentation before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday, Sen. Liz Brown suggested local public health departments would simply continue to move the goalposts when it came to meeting their goals. We talk all the time about moving decisions down to the lowest level. Well, we moved this down to the lowest level and now we want to start nitpicking what some of them have chosen. That's not right. – GOP Sen. Ed Charbonneau 'When this was proposed to us, we were going to see more immediate results and … these are all promises. We're not seeing significant results yet and yet we're doubling down,' said Brown, R-Fort Wayne. Committee Chair Sen. Ryan Mishler said he and other members had received pressure from their communities to cut or eliminate the program due to questions about the money's uses. One particular concern forwarded to the Mishawaka Republican was about an unnamed county using money to provide health care services for undocumented immigrants, which he acknowledged was 'a very sensitive issue.' 'We (said) the locals can make their decisions, but it's still state money. And how can you allow state money to be used?' Mishler told the Indiana Capital Chronicle. 'We tried to get flexibility, that's what (local public health departments) wanted, but then people still come back to us because it's state money.' Mishler declined to share other examples of concerns. 'I don't want to sit here and say that we're going to eliminate it or we're going to cut it. I don't know what's going to happen there,' Mishler told his fellow committee members. 'But you may at least see some restrictions on the uses as a happy medium.' State Health Commissioner Lindsay Weaver cited research about the return on investment for public health dollars, which can be up to $14.30 for every $1 spent. She pointed to the program as a way to reduce health care utilization and Medicaid expenditures 'by getting in front of' these issues. Additionally, she said local economic development organizations reported that people moving into their areas 'are looking at those health metrics,' which are posted on the state site. 'This is the program that's going to make a difference in that space,' she said. One area she pointed to was birth outcomes. Indiana has some of the worst infant and maternal mortality rates in the country but, prior to this funding, only 39% of counties had an evidence-based program to improve. Now, Weaver said, 84% did. 'I do fully suspect we'll be at 100% by the end of 2025,' she said. All 92 counties opt in for 2025 public health funding Brown acknowledged that it took time for the money to be distributed to departments, which then partnered with local organizations to deliver services like prenatal health services and diabetes management. But Brown pointed to smoking cessation as a concern, noting that such information depended on 'imperfect' survey data. 'I could start with 25% of my county smoking and as the smokers age out (and) die from lung cancer or heart disease, I may not have new smokers. So I have a lower smoking rate in my county but I haven't actually reduced the smoking rate in my county at all,' she said. Weaver noted that such efforts also included vaping, which is disproportionately popular among Hoosier youth. Many counties have devoted money to smoking cessation programs, as detailed on the state website. However, the state doesn't have an aggregate report on its website. Sen. Mike Crider, R-Greenfield, pointed to the oft-debated tobacco tax increase as one way to reduce cigarette use and, by extension, Medicaid costs. 'I, for one, am going to be encouraging us to continue to play the long game,' said Crider, who called himself a fan of the program. 'Because this isn't a short game; we're not going to change behavior overnight.' One Democrat likened program spending to 'deferred maintenance.' Prior to the program, counties spent an average of $55 per resident for public health — far below the national average of $91 — though totals ranged from $83 to $1.25 per Hoosier, depending on their county of residence. 'On one hand, we don't want to spend on Medicaid. But, on the other hand, we don't want to improve public health. You can't have it both ways,' said Sen. Fady Qaddoura, D-Indianapolis. '… You're not paving roads, you're dealing with the human condition. And that can't be dealt with quickly.' Brown floated the possibility of restricting the fund uses to exclude regulations — such as inspecting tattoo parlors or mitigating lead poisoning — and capital improvements. Currently law restricts regulatory spending to less than 40% and capital to less than 10%. But Sen. Ed Charbonneau, who authored the 2023 bill that created Health First Indiana, defended the program before his fellow committee members. 'This isn't like an economic development program where you fund something with $250 million dollars and two years later you've got a building up and 50 people working,' said Charbonneau, R-Valparaiso. 'We knew, at the beginning, this was going to be a long-term approach.' He said Thursday was the first time he'd heard there'd been a promise for 'immediate results.' 'If that was the case, it wasn't true. Because there's no way that this program was going to be able to create immediate results,' said Charbonneau. Even before it got off of the ground, it faced pushback. Dozens of Hoosiers criticized any investment in public health as the COVID-19 pandemic wound down. To address those concerns, the bill was crafted in a way that gave control to counties. The program is arguably the biggest accomplishment of former Gov. Eric Holcomb's time in office. 'We talk all the time about moving decisions down to the lowest level. Well, we moved this down to the lowest level and now we want to start nitpicking what some of them have chosen. That's not right,' Charbonneau said. '… with this kind of program we ought to be proud. 'Those results are going to come somewhere down the road,' he continued. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
