What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread. I live-blogged yesterday’s gubernatorial debate, for those who missed it.

Today’s Sunday Des Moines Register includes a big feature by Jason Noble and Jeffrey C. Kummer on the $13.8 million spent so far on television commercials to influence Iowa’s U.S. Senate race. I’ve posted some excerpts after the jump.

Does anyone else think we’ve passed the point of diminishing returns on tv ads in this race? The vast majority of ads aired have been negative, and the overall quality has been poor. One of the biggest anti-Ernst spenders, NextGen Climate Action, has not produced a decent commercial yet. Most of the output has been so bad, I honestly believe Braley would be better off if NextGen had not gotten involved in this campaign at all. The Sierra Club’s spots are only marginally better. Some of the Braley campaign’s own negative ads have struck me as potentially effective, but at this point I suspect most Iowans are tuning out political ads. The volume has been overwhelming in the targeted media markets.

Pro-Republican groups, starting with fronts for the Koch brothers and now including one of Karl Rove’s outfits, keep pounding at the same two points to make Braley look bad: he insulted Senator Chuck Grassley and allegedly all Iowa farmers, and he missed a lot of House Veterans Affairs Committee meetings. But I have to wonder: once someone has heard 500 times about Braley’s alleged insult to Iowa farmers, will hearing it another ten or twenty times make any difference? Craig Robinson thinks Republicans are putting too many eggs in these baskets, and I tend to agree. The biggest accomplishment of these anti-Braley ads has been to force the Democrat to spend a lot of his money countering these charges (for instance, with tv spots on his connection to his grandparents’ farm or about what he has done for Iowa veterans). They have dictated the terms of his positive messages.

Probably the best outside ad money spent so far has been by the Chamber of Commerce. They’re running ads with Senator Chuck Grassley and Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey endorsing Ernst. Simple, positive messages.

The Iowa Supreme Court has put a stay on a state rule prohibiting doctors from prescribing abortifacient drugs to patients through a videoconferencing system, according to an e-mail blast from Planned Parenthood of the Heartland this evening. Excerpt:

Today, the Iowa Supreme Court extended the stay on the Iowa Board of Medicine’s telemedicine abortion ban, ensuring that thousands of women in Iowa will continue to have access to safe, constitutionally protected abortion while we fight to permanently reverse the ban.

As our fight for Iowa women continues, we’re pleased that the court has upheld this right, and we’re proud to continue to provide the same exceptional care that we always have, no matter what.

We also are gratified that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) filed an amicus brief supporting PPHeartland’s request for a stay. This important group of medical providers understands and agrees that a woman and her doctor – not politicians – should be making personal health care decisions.

Planned Parenthood recently appealed last month’s Polk County District Court ruling that allowed the rule adopted by the Iowa Board of Medicine to go into effect. Bleeding Heartland summarized the key points in the case here. Seven of Planned Parenthood’s nine Iowa clinics that offer abortion services have been using the telemedicine system. If the state rule had been implemented pending appeal, women would have had to drive to clinics in either Iowa City or Des Moines in order to access medical abortions in the presence of a doctor.

At this writing, the judicial order has not yet been posted on the Iowa Courts website. I will update with a link when available.  

Yesterday Planned Parenthood of the Heartland asked the Iowa Supreme Court to put on hold a state rule banning the use of “telemedicine” for medical abortions. A Polk County District Court recently upheld that rule, on grounds Bleeding Heartland discussed here. Planned Parenthood argues that it is likely to succeed on the merits when the Iowa Supreme Court considers its appeal of the lower court ruling, that the state ban would “irreparably harm” Planned Parenthood and its patients, and that a temporary injunction on the rule while the appeal is pending “will not harm the interests of the other parties or the public.” A stay on the rule would allow women to continue to receive medical abortion access at seven Planned Parenthood clinics across Iowa where the teleconferencing system is available.

The Des Moines Register posted the full text of Planned Parenthood’s motion filed yesterday. After the jump I’ve posted key excerpts, which preview the substance of Planned Parenthood’s appeal.

I’m not an attorney, but my hunch is that the Iowa Supreme Court will overturn the lower court ruling–perhaps with two or three dissenters who would defer to the Board of Medicine, along the lines of the dissents in a recent case involving the Iowa Utilities Board.

To my mind, Planned Parenthood’s strongest argument is that the Iowa Board of Medicine approved a rule that “singles out abortion, banning telemedicine delivery of this service while encouraging other uses of telemedicine.” A Des Moines Register editorial published earlier this week underscored the hypocrisy of that position. I’ve enclosed excerpts from that piece at the end of this post. Governor Terry Branstad and others in his administration have celebrated the use of telemedicine in many ways that involve doctors or pharmacists dispensing medications without ever being in the same room as their patients.

A Polk County District Court today upheld a rule adopted by the Iowa Board of Medicine last year, which would prohibit Planned Parenthood of the Heartland from providing medical abortions using “telemedicine” (where a doctor meets with the patient via videoconferencing). You can read the full text of Judge Jeffrey Farrell’s ruling here. After the jump I’ve summarized Judge Farrell’s key findings, including background on the case and excerpts from his decision. I’ve also enclosed reaction from both sides in the telemedicine abortion debate, as well as from Governor Terry Branstad and Democratic challenger Jack Hatch.

Judge Farrell’s ruling goes into effect in 30 days, but Planned Parenthood has already said it will appeal, so the Iowa Supreme Court may put another stay on the rule pending its hearing of the case.

I’m surprised by this ruling. In a November 2013 decision granting Planned Parenthood’s request for a stay of the rule, Polk County District Court Judge Karen Romano sounded skeptical that rule would be upheld when courts considered the merits. She noted the lack of evidence of any adverse outcomes in more than 5,000 abortions using Planned Parenthood’s telemedicine system, the “peculiar” fact that the Board of Medicine required an in-person meeting between a patient and doctor for abortion services, but not for other telemedicine practices, and the likelihood that denying rural women access to medical abortion would increase demand for “surgical abortion, which is much more invasive and risky.” UPDATE: In the comments, Bleeding Heartland reader ahawby notes several factors that could have influenced Judge Farrell’s perspective on this case.

Today’s decision is a victory for opponents of abortion rights, because Iowa women in small towns and rural areas will face more hurdles to obtain abortions early in pregnancy. It’s also a personal triumph for Branstad’s legal counsel, Brenna Findley. As Judge Farrell’s ruling acknowledges, Findley was a vocal advocate of the rulemaking, urging the Board of Medicine to act quickly on the petition from pro-life activists, against the advice of the board’s own legal counsel as well as the Iowa Attorney General’s office.

More than a half-dozen potential presidential candidates have visited Iowa since Bleeding Heartland’s last news roundup on the field. Any comments about the 2016 Iowa caucus campaign are welcome in this thread. Lots of links are after the jump.

Lest anyone think that ordinary people are unable to influence public discourse, consider this: Rand Paul’s latest Iowa visit will likely be remembered for how he ran away from the DREAMers who confronted Representative Steve King.

It’s been a while since Bleeding Heartland dedicated a thread to the potential 2016 presidential candidates. Please share any comments related to the next Iowa caucus campaign in this thread. Lots of links on various Democratic and Republican contenders are after the jump.

A year after Iowa law changed to require the governor to approve all Medicaid reimbursements for abortions, the new policy does not appear to have limited low-income women’s access to abortions in cases of rape, incest, threat to the mother’s life or severe fetal abnormality.

On the other hand, the policy has in effect ended Medicaid coverage of abortion in Iowa, which was already among the most restrictive states in this area.  

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a Missouri law establishing a 300-foot buffer zone around funerals, and has upheld some state laws creating buffer zones around abortion clinics. But today, all nine justices found that a Massachusetts law establishing a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. You can find the full texts of the majority opinion and two concurrences in McCullen et al v Coakley here (pdf).

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor. The ruling found that although the Massachusetts law was not attempting to regulate speech based on content, “The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted inter­ests,” which “include ensuring public safety outside abortion clinics, preventing harassment and intimidation of patients and clinic staff, and combating deliberate obstruction of clinic entrances.”

There is a long history of intimidating and sometimes violent protests outside Massachusetts abortion clinics. But the majority rejected state officials’ contention that the 2007 law was needed because a previous, less restrictive buffer zone law had not worked. The court argued that a more narrowly-tailored approach, stepping up law enforcement around the Boston clinic with the most problems, could achieve the same end without restricting protesters’ free speech in public areas.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, concurring in judgment only. He would have thrown out the law because it regulates speech in a “content-based” manner and can’t survive the “strict scrutiny” standard which “requires that a regulation represent “the least restrictive means” of furthering “a compelling Gov­ernment interest.” Justice Samuel Alito wrote a separate opinion concurring in judgment. He would throw out the state law because it “discriminates based on viewpoint. Speech in favor of the clinic and its work by employees and agents is permitted; speech criticizing the clinic and its work is a crime.”  

Two federal judges in Iowa plan to retire next year, and U.S. Senator Tom Harkin has recommended that President Barack Obama choose among three possible replacements. Cedar Rapids-based attorney Dave O’Brien is Harkin’s choice to replace U.S. District Judge Mark W. Bennett, who presides in Sioux City. O’Brien finished fifth in the Democratic primary to represent Iowa’s first Congressional district. I’ve posted background on his legal credentials after the jump.

Harkin suggested two possible nominees for the position to be vacated by James Gritzner, chief district judge for Iowa’s Southern District: Polk County District Court Judge Karen Romano and Nick Klinefeldt, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District. A former prosecutor in Polk County, Romano became an Iowa District Associate judge in 1996 and a District Court judge in 2001. She has been on Harkin’s short list before, and I’ve posted more background on her after the jump.

I hope Obama chooses Romano to fill this vacancy, as she has much more relevant experience than Klinefeldt. On Harkin’s recommendation, Obama appointed Klinefeldt to be U.S. attorney in 2009. The Senate confirmed him to that position about four and a half years ago. His official bio is below as well.

Romano was in the news last November after her ruling put a temporary stay on the Iowa Board of Medicine’s rule banning the use of telemedicine to provide abortion drugs to Iowa women. Social conservatives including Bob Vander Plaats’ FAMiLY Leader organization threw a fit, but I have little doubt that the state board’s rule will not stand up in court when Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit is heard on the merits.

Ryan Foley of the Associated Press observed, “It is unusual for Iowa, a state that only has five active district judges, to have two pending vacancies for the lifetime judicial positions at the same time.”

If any Iowa Democrat deserves a primary challenge, it’s three-term State Senator Joe Seng. Although the Davenport-based veterinarian represents one of the Democrats’ safest urban districts, Seng is anti-choice and supported Republican calls for a vote against marriage equality in 2010. As chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, he has helped pass several bills that are good for industrial agriculture but bad for the environment, especially clean water. In addition, Seng himself challenged three-term U.S. Representative Dave Loebsack in the IA-02 Democratic primary two years ago, so he couldn’t claim the moral high ground against a primary challenger for his state Senate seat.

I was excited to see yesterday that another Democratic candidate, Mark Riley, had filed papers to run in Senate district 45. When I realized Riley was Seng’s Republican opponent in 2010 and ran an independent campaign against Iowa House Democrat Cindy Winckler in 2012, I became disappointed. Was he just a fake like the “Democrat” who ran against State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad in 2010?

I sought comment from Riley about why he was running as a Democrat in Iowa Senate district 45, having campaigned as a Republican in the same district a few years ago. I’ve posted his response after the jump. You be the judge. Riley would have my serious consideration if I lived on the west side of Davenport.  

This week marks the Iowa legislature’s first “funnel” deadline of the 2014 session. With the exception of appropriations bills, most legislation that has not cleared at least one committee in at least one chamber is dead for the year. Only occasionally do House or Senate leaders revive bills that didn’t get through the funnel.

Rod Boshart published a comprehensive list of bills that are still pending in either the Iowa House or Senate, as well as proposals that didn’t make it this year. Notably, the ideas Governor Terry Branstad outlined in his Condition of the State speech last month are still alive, as are the top priorities House and Senate leaders mentioned on the opening day of this year’s session.

Any comments about the legislature’s work is welcome in this thread. Reading Boshart’s lists, I felt a mixture of relief and disappointment. So many bad ideas died in the funnel, but so did a lot of proposals I would strongly support.

My dismay is probably nothing compared to what socially conservative Republicans are feeling. For the second year in a row, no bills aimed at “protecting” traditional marriage made it through the funnel. Every proposed anti-abortion bill died too, except for the ban on “telemedicine” abortions (which failed to move last year but passed the Iowa House last week). You would think that with a 53-47 Republican majority, the Iowa House would move more of these abortion bills through committee at least.

Although Iowa House Republicans sought to restrict abortion rights after regaining the majority in the lower chamber in 2011, anti-choice bills were never a high priority for leadership. In fact, House leaders sometimes put the brakes on conservative efforts to bring anti-abortion legislation to the floor. During the 2013 legislative session, not a single bill restricting abortions even made it out of a committee in the Republican-controlled Iowa House.

House leaders must have gotten some flack from their caucus or outside advocacy groups, because even though restricting abortion isn’t a top agenda item for House Speaker Kraig Paulsen or Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer, they made sure to move an anti-abortion bill quickly during this year’s session. Yesterday the Iowa House approved House File 2175, which would ban the use of telecommunications technology for the purpose of terminating a pregnancy. (A similar bill died in the funnel last year.)

Follow me after the jump for background and details on the roll call.

The U.S. House approved a bill yesterday that would make the “Hyde amendment” banning federal taxpayer funds for abortions a permanent law rather than a restriction requiring annual approval. Pete Kasperowicz reported for The Hill,

Republicans noted that Democrats just a few weeks ago approved the Hyde Amendment as part of the omnibus spending bill. They said that approval shows how noncontroversial the permanent measure should be. But Democrats countered that the bill is unnecessary precisely because Congress continues to approve the rider annually.

“This bill is a hoax,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.). “Federal taxpayer [money] is not spent on abortion.” […]

During the floor debate, Slaughter said the bill is really an attack on ObamaCare, because it would end the payment of federal subsidies to people who use the healthcare law to buy health insurance that covers abortion. Slaughter said that change would chip away at women’s rights by imposing a financial hurdle to getting an abortion and accused Republican men of coming up with a policy that no woman wants. […]

Republicans said ObamaCare needs to be tweaked because it requires taxpayers to subsidize the purchase of health plans that cover abortion, which frustrates the intent of the Hyde Amendment.

The “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” passed by 227 votes to 188, with very few representatives crossing party lines. As expected, Iowa Republicans Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) supported the bill, while pro-choice Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted no. So far, I’ve only seen public comment on this vote from King; his news release is after the jump.  

Once upon a time, a few moderate Republicans served in the Iowa legislature. Sometimes they faced primary challenges from the right, because conservatives resented their positions on social issues and their willingness to compromise with statehouse Democrats.

Social moderates are long gone among Iowa House and Senate Republican ranks, but party leaders prefer not to talk about, let alone deliver on, some of the key priorities for hard-liners. That leads to occasional infighting between mainstream Republican lawmakers and those who want to rock the boat.

One of the proud non-compromisers, Tom Shaw, just announced plans to retire from the Iowa House. His comrade-in-arms Greg Heartsill will face at least one Republican primary challenger in Iowa House district 28.

Republican State Representative Tom Shaw announced on Facebook last night that he will not seek re-election in Iowa House district 10. Defending his “no compromise” approach to serving in the legislature since his first election in 2010, Shaw quoted a retired California legislator as saying, “When we give in to liberals, even an inch, we’re not compromising; we’re abdicating our rights and our honor.” Shaw and his close allies, State Representatives Kim Pearson and Glen Massie, were perhaps best known for helping to block in committee and later voting against a 20-week abortion ban bill, on the grounds that it did not go far enough to end abortions. Pearson and Massie both retired from the Iowa House rather than seek re-election in 2012. Last year, Shaw could persuade only ten of his Republican colleagues to co-sponsor his more extreme version of a “personhood” bill declaring life to start at conception.

Iowa House district 10 covers Humboldt, Pocahontas, and Calhoun counties, plus portions of Webster County (but not Fort Dodge). I’ve posted a map after the jump. It leans strongly Republican, with nearly 3,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats as of January 2014.  

Shaw confirmed by telephone this morning that he is retiring from the state legislature and will not consider running against Democratic State Senator Daryl Beall in Iowa Senate district 5. Shaw’s retirement may be good news for Beall, as the open Iowa House seat comprising half the district should draw more Republican interest than taking on a three-term incumbent in a much more competitive Senate district. Beall currently has one declared challenger, Fort Dodge-based financial adviser Tim Kraayenbrink.

UPDATE: The first candidate to declare for Shaw’s seat was Mike Sexton, who was elected to the Iowa Senate in 1998 but retired after one term. I’ve posted background after the jump. I would guess that an experienced candidate and former legislator would have been a tougher challenger to Beall than Kraayenbrink. But not surprisingly, Sexton sees the open House seat as an easier path back to the statehouse. I would guess that at least one tea party oriented candidate will compete against Sexton in the House district 10 primary.

I was skeptical about these rumors, but according to Craig Robinson of The Iowa Republican, Governor Terry Branstad’s legal counsel Brenna Findley “has been meeting people about a congressional run in the Third District.” Findley told the Des Moines Register “that she appreciates the encouragement, but she’s focused on her job” in the Branstad administration. That phrasing falls short of ruling out a Congressional bid.

Follow me after the jump for first thoughts on strengths and weaknesses Findley might bring to a GOP primary campaign. At the end of this post, I’ve enclosed background on the potential candidate from her 2010 campaign bio and the news release announcing her appointment as legal counsel.  

Iowa’s “C+” average in a new report on The State of Women in America masks a large disparity in Iowa’s ranking across the three dozen factors measured. Anna Chu and Charles Posner of the Center for American Progress compiled the report released this week. The fact sheet on Iowa is here, and these interactive tables show how Iowa compares to other states overall and on each metric. I’ve listed the metrics considered in each area after the jump. This page explains in more detail the methodology and data used to measure the states.

The C+ grade for Iowa reflects a ranking of 21st out of 50 states when all factors are considered. Iowa did best in the “health” area, with an A- grade and a ranking of seventh. The percentage of our state’s population lacking health insurance is relatively low. Several reproductive rights issues were examined, which means that our state’s grade and rank might be far lower if the Iowa Senate had not been under Democratic control these past few years (blocking efforts to restrict access to legal abortion).

In the “economic security” area, Iowa was ranked 32nd and received a D+ grade. Those low marks reflect the gender gap in wages, especially for Iowa women of color, and the lack of any state policy on “paid family, medical, or temporary disability leave.”

Iowa’s worst marks were in the “leadership” area, where our state got an F and ranked 42nd among the states. Who can be surprised, given our dismal record of electing women to high office? The Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University has an extensive database of reports on women’s representation in Iowa government at the local, state, and federal level. The Center for American Progress also noted the fact that “Women hold only 33.3 percent of the managerial jobs in Iowa, despite making up 51 percent of the state’s population.”

Iowa House Republicans failed in 2011 and again last summer to curtail Medicaid coverage of abortions in this state. A compromise passed near the end of this year’s legislative session gave the governor power to determine whether the state should reimburse abortion providers for certain Medicaid cases. However, administrators at the University of Iowa Hospitals in Iowa City have apparently let Governor Terry Branstad off the hook: the hospital no longer bills Medicaid for the handful of abortions that might be eligible for coverage.

Follow me after the jump for background and more details on the current policy.

The path appears clear for passionately conservative State Representative Jason Schultz to move up to Iowa Senate district 9 in next year’s election. Longtime State Senator Nancy Boettger announced Friday that she will retire. Although she’s one of the longest-serving Iowa Senate Republicans, she’s never played a particularly important role. The last three Senate minority leaders haven’t tapped Boettger for their leadership teams.

Boettger’s retirement creates a career advancement opportunity in the strongly Republican Senate district 9. The two obvious potential candidates are State Representatives Matt Windschitl and Jason Schultz, who represent both halves of the district in the Iowa House. Within hours, Schultz announced his Senate candidacy. Windschitl told The Iowa Republican blog over the weekend that he will stay in the Iowa House. Windschitl is one of the GOP’s rising stars and serves as an assistant House majority leader, but he’s drawn criticism from some “pro-life” activists as not strong enough on their issue. In contrast, Schultz co-sponsored the most extreme version of “personhood” legislation and has fought to get a personhood vote on the Iowa House floor when Windschitl and others blocked a vote on that legislation. (Windschitl introduced a different “personhood” bill this year.)

After the jump I’ve posted a map of Senate district 9 and the latest voter registration numbers for the district, along with Schultz’s official bio. It’s also worth noting that Schultz chairs the Iowa House Local Government Committee and previously chaired the Appropriations subcommittee on economic development. He endorsed Ron Paul for president in 2012. In my opinion, he’s a contender for most clueless Iowa legislator. His passionate opposition to marriage equality prompted him to introduce one of the dumbest bills I’ve heard of, which would have banned Iowa judges from citing case law or precedent in their rulings. Schultz also joined a small group of legislators who threatened to yank state funding for the Des Moines Area Community College over the Governors LGBTQ Youth Conference.

Governor Terry Branstad signed into law today a bill setting Iowa’s health and human services budget for the next fiscal year and establishing a new “Iowa Health and Wellness Plan” for low-income Iowans not currently covered by Medicaid. The full text of Senate File 446 is available here. Division XXXIII contains the language on the Iowa alternative to expanding Medicaid, a compromise struck in the closing days of the legislative session last month.

After the jump I’ve posted some links and comments on today’s news. As far as I can tell, Branstad has not yet explained why he is happy to accept federal funding for the Iowa Health and Wellness Plan, likely to be more expensive than expanding Medicaid would have been. Earlier this year, he made a huge fuss about how we can’t afford such a program because of the federal deficit, and how we can’t trust the feds to live up to their funding promises.

Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen is thinking seriously about running for Congress in the open first district, covering 20 counties in northeast and central Iowa. He hasn’t given a timeline for making up his mind and has said he’s trying to figure out “what’s the best way to serve Iowans. What meets their needs?”

I would suggest that Paulsen consider this cold, hard reality: he is unlikely to serve Iowans as a member of Congress, because he would lose the GOP primary in IA-01.

UPDATE: Scroll to the end of this post for a sixth reason.

The Iowa Senate wrapped up its work for the year shortly after midnight on May 23, and Iowa House members adjourned about 11 hours later. Lawmakers in both parties have been congratulating themselves for compromising on some big issues that ended in stalemate the previous two years. Rod Boshart compiled an excellent list of what the legislature did and didn’t approve during 2013.

We all can appreciate the desire to finish a big project before a holiday weekend, and since legislators stopped receiving per diem payments weeks ago, they understandably wanted to get out of town as quickly as possible. However, I found it disturbing that votes were held before most lawmakers, let alone members of the public, had time to digest final conference committee deals on education reform, an alternative to Medicaid expansion, property taxes, and the health and human services budget. Transparency isn’t just a buzzword. Had journalists and advocacy groups been able to look over the last-minute compromises, people might have discovered problematic language or even simple drafting errors, which could produce unintended consequences after Governor Terry Branstad signs these bills into law.

I have a lot of questions about the final education reform bill and the plan to provide health insurance to low-income Iowans, particularly those earning between 101 percent and 138 percent of the poverty level. I also need more time to sort through the budget numbers and final changes to the standings bill. After the holiday weekend Bleeding Heartland will examine the important results of the legislative session in more detail. For now, I’ve posted after the jump details on who voted for and against the major bills approved this week.

UPDATE: In the May 24 edition of the On Iowa Politics podcast, statehouse reporters Mike Wiser and James Lynch discussed how the big issues came together “behind closed doors,” with no public scrutiny or oversight. Lynch commented that to his knowledge, the conference committee named to resolve the impasse over Medicaid expansion never formally met, except perhaps for one organizational meeting. Lynch recounted one occasion when Iowa House Republican Dave Heaton was briefing journalists about the health care talks, and the journalists asked when that happened, since there hadn’t been any public notices of conference committee meetings. According to Lynch, Heaton replied, “We’re not having meetings, but we’re meeting.” Senate President Pam Jochum said that negotiations between Democratic State Senator Amanda Ragan and House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer produced the “key to Iowa’s health care compromise.” Notably, Upmeyer didn’t have a prominent role in passing the House health insurance plan, nor was she named to the conference committee assigned to merge the House and Senate proposals.

Speaking to journalists on May 22, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and Jochum weren’t able to answer a specific question about compromise wording reached regarding Medicaid coverage of abortions. That was no minor issue–it was the last sticking point holding up approval of the health and human services budget. In effect, Gronstal told journalists, you can see the wording after the final bill is published.

During the 2011 legislative session, Iowa House Republicans approved a ban on most abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. Several attempts by Republicans to bring that bill to the floor in the Iowa Senate failed. At the time, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal warned that the House legislation “invites a very serious court challenge” and violates a woman’s “right to make her own personal, private decision about abortion without the interference of politicians.” After the original bill died in the upper chamber, the Iowa House passed an even more restrictive ban on abortions after 20 weeks gestation (which is equivalent to about 18 weeks post-fertilization). Governor Terry Branstad supports efforts to ban abortion after 20 weeks in Iowa, but as long as the Iowa Senate remains under Democratic control, such legislation will not advance here.

Many other states have passed versions of a ban on late-term abortions. Yesterday a Ninth Circuit U.S. Appeals Court panel struck down the law Arizona adopted in 2012. The three judges (including one conservative appointed by a Republican president) agreed that the law violates a woman’s constitutional rights.

After the jump I’ve posted excerpts from the majority and concurring opinions. Assuming the state of Arizona appeals, this case could lead to the most important U.S. Supreme Court ruling on abortion in a decade.

State Senator Kent Sorenson claims to have made some Iowa House Republicans unhappy by helping the advocacy group Iowa Pro-Life Action pressure state representatives over abortion funding. Currently, Iowa’s Medicaid program covers abortions under very limited circumstances. In fact, our state is among the most restrictive in this area. Nevertheless, a compromise worked out on the final day of the 2011 legislative session angered many conservatives. Some Iowa Republicans have pushed for a total ban on Medicaid-funded abortion.

In a Facebook post last night, Sorenson lambasted members of his own party who do not keep their promises on the “pro-life” issue. He claimed that some House Republicans “are considering filing ethics charges against me” because he signed a letter Iowa Pro-Life Action sent to lawmakers. Looking through the Iowa House Code of Ethics, it’s not clear to me which rule Sorenson might have violated. House Republican staffer Josie Albrecht told me by telephone that she was not aware of any pending ethics complaints by legislators against Sorenson.

I enclose the full text of the Facebook post after the jump. At this writing, it has been “shared” by 63 Facebook users, including conservative talk radio hosts Steve Deace and Jan Mickelson.

Sorenson is already facing an ethics investigation related to alleged paid work for Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign. I have been wondering whether Republicans might be better off with a different nominee in Iowa Senate district 13 next year. However, an uncompromising stand against abortion funding would serve Sorenson well if he faced a GOP primary challenger.

I’ve been watching for signs that Republican State Senator Sandy Greiner might retire rather than run for re-election in 2014. Although she has more legislative experience than most of her GOP colleagues and was an early backer of Bill Dix’s effort to become minority leader, she didn’t join the Republican leadership team after Dix became head of the caucus last November.

If Greiner seeks another term in the Iowa Senate, I believe she would be favored to hold what looks like a swing district on paper. But in the last few days I’ve been wondering whether she might run into trouble during a Republican primary. I’ve posted some thoughts on this scenario after the jump, along with a map and the latest voter registration totals from Senate district 39.

The U.S. Senate approved a budget for fiscal year 2014 at 4:38 am on Saturday after voting on amendments for most of the night. The budget passed by 50 votes to 49 (roll call). Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley and the rest of the Senate Republicans voted no, joined by four Democrats representing red states. The rest of the Democrats, including Senator Tom Harkin, voted for the budget.

As is often the case, Senate votes on various amendments were more interesting than the final party-line vote on the budget. Follow me after the jump for details on how Grassley and Harkin voted on some of those amendments. I’ve also enclosed statements from Grassley and Harkin.

During 2011 and 2012, the Iowa Senate was our state’s firewall against the social conservative agenda. The Republican-controlled Iowa House passed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, sweeping limits on abortion rights (twice), a “stand your ground” bill and a constitutional amendment that would invalidate virtually all restrictions on guns. All of those bills died in the Democratic-controlled state Senate.

Social issues have never been a priority for Iowa House leaders. They blocked a floor vote on a “personhood” bill in 2011 and steered clear of extremist crusades like impeaching Iowa Supreme Court justices and replacing gun permit laws with “constitutional carry.” Still, I expected House Republicans to cover the usual bases during this year’s legislative session.

Instead, almost every high-profile bill on so-called family values failed to win House committee approval and therefore died in the legislature’s first funnel deadline last Friday. That includes some mainstream conservative efforts as well as freak show bills like ending no-fault divorce or barring county recorders from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Most amazing to me, House Republicans no longer have the votes to pass a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman.  

This weekend in Des Moines, Democratic State Senator Matt McCoy showed how pro-choice elected officials should talk about abortion rights and the “personhood” movement.

Busy weekend in Iowa politics! I’m continuing to update the post on Tom Harkin retiring with reactions and speculation about possible Senate candidates. Here’s an open thread for anything else on your mind.

A bunch of links that caught my eye this week are after the jump.

Forty years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Roe v Wade. Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. I’ve posted many links about abortion rights and availability below.  

Today the U.S. Senate fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Senator Tom Harkin, the godfather of the Americans with Disabilities Act, has been the Senate’s leading proponent of ratifying this treaty. Senator Chuck Grassley voted no, along with most of his Republican colleagues. Background on the treaty and statements from Harkin and Grassley are after the jump.

Whatever happens in tonight’s Iowa legislative races, one mystery will remain: why couldn’t Republicans recruit a stronger candidate to run against Mike Gronstal in Iowa Senate district 8?  

Given how much money Democratic and Republican leaders are spending on advertising in the Iowa Senate races, it’s unfortunate that so few of the television and radio commercials are available online. Both of the candidates in the battleground Senate district 30 (Cedar Falls/Waterloo) continue to set a good example for transparency, though.

The final tv ads supporting Senator Jeff Danielson and his Republican challenger Matt Reisetter are after the jump, along with other recent news from the campaign. Bleeding Heartland discussed these candidates’ previous ads here and here.

Many candidates for the Iowa House and Senate tout endorsements by outside groups in their campaign communications. Some of those groups pay for direct mail, phone calls, or even advertising supporting their endorsed candidates.

Iowa’s influential political action committees and advocacy groups have very different ways of getting involved in the state legislative campaign. Follow me after the jump for examples of four distinct strategies.

Three-time candidate for Iowa governor Bob Vander Plaats has made news this fall primarily on the “No Wiggins” campaign trail. However, the social conservative group he runs is supporting some Republican Iowa Senate candidates as well.

Last week the FAMiLY Leader launched radio advertising campaigns in two competitive Senate races–but notably, not in the district where Vander Plaats’ longtime right-hand man Matt Reisetter is running.  

Four new Iowa polls were released during the past 24 hours, and both Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s campaigns have scheduled multiple rallies in Iowa this week. Follow me after the jump for clips on those stories and related news.

Any comments about the presidential race are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: Added another poll below and excerpts from a new Romney campaign memo on Iowa.

This thread is for any comments about Congressional races you are following, whether in Iowa or in other states. Steve King and Christie Vilsack held their seventh (!) debate tonight, but I was unable to listen, because Windsor Heights holds trick-or-treating the night before Halloween.

Democrats are starting to talk about a net gain of U.S. Senate seats, but I am not that optimistic. While some races are trending toward the Democratic candidates, others where Democrats led last month are tightening (Virginia, Wisconsin).

To me, the most amazing development in a Congressional race is President Bill Clinton campaigning for Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota and recording a television commercial for her. Bleeding Heartland readers who are old enough to remember 1990s politics, could you ever have believed that Bill Clinton would be considered an asset to a Democratic candidate in North Dakota a week before the election?  

When tea party favorite Jane Jech defeated former State Senator Larry McKibben in the Republican primary to represent Iowa Senate district 36, I expected smooth sailing for Democratic incumbent Steve Sodders. Now this race looks like a tossup. Neither candidate’s advertising is educating voters about meaningful differences on real issues.

President Barack Obama rallied supporters in Davenport this morning, and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney is scheduled to campaign in Cedar Rapids tonight. After the jump I’ve enclosed highlights from Obama’s event and other links about the presidential campaign in Iowa. I will update this post later with highlights from the Romney rally.

Bleeding Heartland is updating absentee ballot totals statewide and in the four Congressional districts here every weekday. As of October 23, more than 540,000 Iowans had requested absentee ballots. With today’s early voting included, the statewide ballot requests will surpass the total Iowa early vote in 2008.  

It’s time for another discussion thread on any competitive U.S. House and Senate races. More detailed posts about the four Iowa Congressional districts are in progress, but after the jump I’ve posted the latest information on independent expenditures for and against the major-party candidates. Bleeding Heartland covered the third-quarter financial reports for the Iowa Congressional candidates here. Early voting totals for each of the four Congressional districts are here.

I’ve also added a few links on U.S. Senate races around the country. I’m amazed that Democrats still appear to be favorites to hold a small Senate majority. For me that has been one of the most surprising political stories of the year. Republicans could still win a majority, but they would have to run the table in the tossup races.