Latest news with #SandySalmon
Yahoo
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
OUR VIEW: Legislature should focus on issues, not culture wars
This week, State Sen. Sandy Salmon, a Republican from Black Hawk County, introduced a resolution urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. It's a stunningly ignorant resolution that claims the court exceeded its powers by creating a law and seeks to "restore the natural definition of marriage, a union of one man and one woman." The Supreme Court did not "create" a law with its decision. It found that state bans on same-sex marriage violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The decision didn't invent a new right, it recognized that LGBTQ+ individuals have had the right to marry since the amendment was ratified. People are entitled to their personal beliefs. They can oppose gay marriage. They can view LGBTQ+ individuals as sinners. They can decline to attend a gay wedding. But they don't get to decide which Americans deserve constitutional rights. That's not how liberty works. "Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain." That's Iowa's motto. Iowa's marketing campaign tells the world this is a state with "Freedom to Flourish." But who is allowed that freedom? Whose liberties does the Legislature prize? Whose rights is it maintaining? If Salmon's resolution gains support, it won't change the law. It's symbolic — but symbols matter. They send messages to real people, to real Iowans. This state was once a leader in equality. In the 1800s, Iowa was among the first to ban school segregation, create education programs for the blind and developmentally disabled, admit a Black man to the bar, grant women the right to vote in local elections, and offer women equal access to higher education. In the 1960s, we passed our own civil rights act — then strengthened it in 2007 to protect Iowans based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In 2009, our Supreme Court made us one of the first states to recognize same-sex marriage. We were ahead of the curve. Now, we're sprinting backward. A few weeks ago, Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill removing gender identity as a protected class from Iowa's civil rights code. Our state Rep. Hans Wilz defended his support of the bill, saying it brought "clarity" on issues surrounding sex and gender "for the purposes of statutory construction." The only clarity it brought is this: Transgender people in Iowa can now be legally discriminated against. If lawmakers adopt Salmon's resolution, the message from the Statehouse will grow louder: If you're gay or trans, Iowa isn't for you. We absolutely reject that vision for Iowa. There are real problems facing Iowans: Rising utility bills, property taxes that erode the accomplishment of homeownership, schools that no longer lead the nation, crumbling infrastructure, ballooning cancer rates, a slowing economy, and a looming budget deficit. Those are the fights our Legislature should be waging. We do not have time for manufactured culture wars aimed at scapegoating marginalized people. Absolutely none of Iowa's current challenges are the result of expanding rights. Inclusion didn't break our state, but the priorities of this Legislature just might.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Iowa resolution introduced to outlaw same-sex marriage
An Iowa senator introduced a resolution to outlaw same-sex marriage. Sen. Sandy Salmon of Bremer County introduced IA SCR3, which calls for overturning the federal landmark case of Obergefell v. Hodges. The case legalized same-sex marriage in 2015. The proposal calls it an illegitimate overreach. The resolution was referred to the judiciary committee. Iowa legalized same-sex marriage in 2009 after the state supreme court ruling in Varnum v. Brien. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Iowa Senate committee moves budget bills as negotiations continue
The sky above the Iowa Capitol was crossed by contrails on March 11, 2025. (Photo by Kathie Obradovich/Iowa Capitol Dispatch) Though an agreement is yet to be reached on state spending for the upcoming fiscal year, the Senate Appropriations Committee moved four bills forward in a Tuesday meeting. Senators passed four budget bills through the appropriations committee Tuesday, making them available for floor debate in the chamber. This does not mean the issues causing budget bills to stall – disagreements in spending between the two chambers and calls by some senators to pass legislation related to eminent domain – have been resolved. The four bills all passed 13-9, with all Democrats and two Republicans, Sens. Sandy Salmon and David Sires, voted against. Other GOP members of the appropriations committee, including Sens. Dave Rowley and Dennis Guth, had signed onto the letter sent to Senate leadership saying they would oppose the passage of budget bills unless pipeline legislation was brought to the floor for debate, but they did not oppose the measures in the committee meeting. Though the bills did not receive full support from the majority party, the Senate spending bills on the state's education, health and human services, judicial, and Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund (RIIF) budgets all passed the committee. The education and HHS appropriations bills — Senate Study Bill 1231 and Senate Study Bill 1237 respectively — are both measures where House Republicans have put forward a different budget target than Senate Republicans. Much of the focus in budget disagreements has been centered on House Republicans' ask for $14 million to continue pay supplements for education support staff, primarily paraeducators, a provision in the House standings bill. Neither the House nor Senate appropriations committees have moved on the standings appropriations bill yet. But there are other areas of disagreement. The House education appropriations bill, House Study Bill 337, includes an $8 million increase for community colleges that is not in the Senate bill. The committee advanced the Senate version of this bill without comments on the funding difference between the two chambers. However, Democrats did criticize the overall lack of funding increases going to the state's higher education system — including community colleges — in the budget bill, saying the spending proposal will lead to cost increases for Iowa families sending students to Iowa colleges and universities. Sen. Cindy Winckler, D-Davenport, said she 'can't think of a time in the history of funding education' that no new funding has gone to the state's regent universities, community colleges and Iowa tuition grants. She said she found the proposal to keep funding for higher education at the same level as the current fiscal year 'disturbing,' as the state's higher education system is critical for meeting the state's workforce needs and improving personal income growth. 'At a time when we have, by your definition, 'plenty of money,' it disturbs me that this particular budget comes with very little increase,' Winckler said. '… It's historic, and you need to be aware of when you vote for this budget, if you do, that you are underfunding the future of Iowans and the workforce. Sen. Jesse Green, R-Boone, said the budget keeps 'steady funding towards higher education.' He also said he was shocked after being elected to the Legislature to learn 'we subsidize college education to the amount that we actually do,' and said the current budget better aligns with Iowa voters' expectations for state spending. 'This year, I'll admit, when I was on the campaign trail, I had a lot of constituents ask to shrink government, literally asked us to shrink government, and here we have a status quo budget,' Green said. 'So … I think this aligns with our targets. I think this aligns with what Iowans are expecting of us at this point in time, they expect us to put more money into their hands than in the government.' Differences over nursing homes, Medicaid The Senate health and human services budget bill also has differences when compared to its House companion, House Study Bill 342. The House version has $9 million more, a total of $25 million, for nursing facility provider reimbursement rate adjustments while the Senate allocated $16 million. Another difference is the inclusion of language stating Iowa's Medicaid program funding 'shall not be used for sex reassignment surgery or treatment related to an individual's gender dysphoria diagnosis.' Blocking Medicaid coverage for transgender Iowans is something the Republican-controlled Legislature has attempted to enact before, but similar measures were struck down in courts. Supporters said this year's provision would be legal as Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law a measure that removed gender identity as a protected class in the Iowa Civil Rights Act, one of the legal protections cited in court decisions. But Sen. Molly Donahue, D-Marion, said the provision would still be found unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, pointing to the 2021 district court ruling that found a similar law prohibiting Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care violated state civil rights laws and the Iowa constitution. 'It restricts (Medicaid coverage) based on someone's identity as transgender or non-gender conforming, and that is wrong and unconstitutional under Equal Protection,' Donahue said. The Senate language goes further than previous Iowa laws, as it applies to all medical treatment related to a person's gender dysphoria diagnosis. Keenan Crow, policy and advocacy director at One Iowa, said this provision could prevent transgender Iowans on Medicaid from accessing mental health care or other medical services not related to medically transitioning. Rep. Ann Meyer, R-Fort Dodge, said last week House Republicans support a restriction on Medicaid coverage for sex reassignment surgery and hormone therapy, but would take up language that would not affect mental health care access for individuals with gender dysphoria. The Senate Appropriations Committee did not make or recommend any amendments to the bills passed Tuesday, meaning changes would come on the Senate floor during debate on these or other areas of contention. Sen. Tim Kraayenbrink, R-Fort Dodge, the appropriations committee chair, asked for committee members to be prepared for another meeting to discuss the standings bill and any other remaining legislation as soon as compromises are reached. He said that could be as early as Thursday, but that negotiations could take longer. 'This is always kind of a time we have to be ready and able just to meet when we can meet if we want to try to get out of here as soon as we can,' Kraayenbrink said.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill changing definition of ‘bullying' in Iowa law heads to governor
(Photo illustration via Getty Images) The Senate sent a bill changing how the state defines 'bullying' to the governor Tuesday despite concerns by some Democrats that the measure will make it more difficult for schools to enforce anti-bullying protections. Currently, Iowa code defines bullying and harassment in schools as electronic, written, verbal, or physical acts or conduct that create an objectively hostile school environment for a student based on 'any actual or perceived trait or characteristic.' There are 17 traits listed as potential characteristics of a student that could be used in bullying, including age, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability and political belief. The law states that bullying is not limited to these categories. House File 865, approved 32-16, would remove this list and reference to students being bullied because of an actual or perceived trait of a student, instead defining bullying and harassment as 'repeated and targeted' acts and conduct that create a hostile school environment for a student. Sen. Sandy Salmon, R-Janesville, said this change is needed because some schools are not addressing bullying incidents if a student is being bullied for a reason not related to a listed trait. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'Those schools don't believe they are required to act unless the behavior is based on one of the traits listed, those school officials believing their hands are tied,' Salmon said. 'This has resulted in an unequal treatment of students and underreporting of bullying. The bill removes that confusion and clarifies that all students should receive an equal level of protection.' But Democrats said the measure will weaken Iowa's laws on bullying. Sen. Sarah Trone Garriott, D-West Des Moines, said bullying is a 'life of death matter' — she has known students who have died by suicide because of bullying, and Trone Garriott said it would be more difficult for families with students who are bullied to get support and responses from schools if the bill becomes law. The law is not limited to the traits listed, Trone Garriott said, but having the 17 characteristics in law for reference helps schools and families both identify and track many of the major reasons why students are bullied, she said. 'I think the real intent might be to make it harder for folks on this list to get the support they need, and for the people of Iowa to know what's happening in our schools,' Trone Garriott said. 'This bill makes it harder. This bill removes guidance. This bill is not going to protect anyone. It's going to make our students more vulnerable.' Sen. Matt Blake, D-Urbandale, said he was bullied in school, and suffered severe depression during middle school and high school because of the bullying he faced. He said the bill will make it harder for students like him to seek help from schools, saying the definition of bullying as 'repeated and targeted' acts and conduct will not cover much of the harassment students face. 'The instance of my life when I was the lowest, where I went home from school and cried for the entire day and the entire afternoon, is because some child, student, that had never bullied me before said one mean word to me, and that's what set me off that day,' Blake said. 'You never know what that behavior will be that sets a child off, and taking these restrictions and making it harder to protect our children is not something we should be doing in this body.' Sen. Mike Zimmer, D-DeWitt, the former president of the Central DeWitt School Board, called for lawmakers to look at how their local school districts address bullying. He said Iowa school districts already have board policies created to define and address bullying, which includes the ability to report bullying and harassment incidents using an online form. 'The vehicle to address bullying and harassment is already in code, it is already in board policy,' Zimmer said. 'It is in every single school district in this state. If an administrator is misinterpreting this, this is not going to solve that. That's an issue that's got to be handled internally between the superintendent their subordinates.' He said a better approach, if there is a problem with school officials not addressing bullying if it does not involve harassment based on limited traits, would be doing more to inform parents about the existing policy and platform. Sen. Lynn Evans, R-Aurelia, said that while Zimmer's point was correct — a board policy and procedure on how to report bullying exists — he said there are some school districts misinterpreting the law so that if a bullied student does not have an identity or characteristic listed in the Iowa code, 'they're passing it off as just two kids that were having a disagreement or a misunderstanding or a skirmish.' 'Every child should be protected in schools, every child, not just because they match up some certain traits that we decided to laundry list a number of years ago in Iowa code,' Evans said. 'The bill that is before us cleans up Iowa code. It makes it very clear that it should apply to the majority of school board policies already on the books, but it ensures that every kid — even though their traits may not be listed in Iowa code — that they get the same protections as everyone else.' The measure heads to Gov. Kim Reynolds' desk. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
