Tanya Keith is an activist and small business owner in Des Moines, and author of the recently published Soccer Stars on the Pitch. -promoted by Laura Belin

On Sunday, my son coughed as he was unloading the clean dishes. Thus began my adventure of losing faith in Iowa’s COVID-19 response.

I grabbed the forehead scanner and “beeped” him. Normal. But it gave me pause. With three kids, and kids not presenting with symptoms, I decided to beep all the foreheads in the house. I was normal, the teen was normal, but the preschooler scanned at 100.4 and my husband at 99.9. 

Holding out hope that testing standards had relaxed enough to include all symptomatic Iowans, I called the Urgent Care associated with our doctor’s office. They told me I would need to call the Iowa Department of Public Health’s hotline at 211. So I did.

UPDATE: The Iowa legislature on March 16 suspended the 2020 session for at least 30 days. The Iowa Democratic Party sent guidance to county chairs the State Central Committee on March 23 on conducting county conventions “using an absentee system.” I’ve enclosed that document at the end of this post.

The Iowa Democratic Party is postponing county conventions scheduled for March 21 “to a future date to be determined,” the party announced today.

But for now, leaders of the Iowa legislature have no plans to pause activities at the state Capitol. They should reconsider.

Two Iowa state agencies announced on May 31 an intent to award Planned Parenthood of the Heartland sex education grants for the fiscal year beginning on July 1.

Republican lawmakers approved and Governor Kim Reynolds signed legislation seeking to deny Planned Parenthood access to the federally-funded Community Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention and Services Program (CAPP) and the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) grants. However, a Polk County District Court put that provision on hold this week, saying Planned Parenthood was “likely to succeed on the merits of its equal protection claim” under the Iowa Constitution.

Doctors affiliated with Mercy Cedar Rapids and The Iowa Clinic are refusing to sign paperwork their patients need to register for the Iowa Department of Public Health’s medical cannabis program. Iowa law requires applicants to obtain their doctor’s signature attesting that the patient has a “qualifying debilitating medical condition.” But the law stipulates that health care practitioners have “no duty to provide” written confirmation of the patient’s diagnosis.

Mercy Cedar Rapids appears to have instructed its 503 physicians not to sign the IDPH paperwork, according to two sources with qualifying conditions, who receive health care at different facilities in that network. Most if not all of the 250-plus health care providers at The Iowa Clinic, a doctor-owned group in the Des Moines area, are also refusing to sign medical cannabis card applications.

Without cooperation from a primary care provider, Iowans cannot start the process of receiving authorization to use cannabidiol legally. The number of patients affected by their health care group’s policies is unknown but potentially large. Mercy Cedar Rapids handled 451,400 outpatient visits last year at offices around Iowa’s second largest metro area. The Iowa Clinic averages 450,000 visits annually, serving about 148,000 unique patients across its central Iowa locations.

Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hutchison has ordered the Iowa Department of Public Health to list both parents on a child’s death certificate, regardless of the parents’ gender, and to modify the death certificate issued to two married mothers who sued the department earlier this year.  

Two days after the Iowa Department of Public Health announced plans to appeal a court ruling on same-sex parents’ right to be listed on birth certificates, a new lawsuit challenged the department’s refusal to list a non-birthing spouse on a stillborn baby’s death certificate.

The Iowa Department of Public Health will appeal a Polk County District Court ruling on whether non-birthing same-sex parents should be listed on babies’ birth certificates.

A Polk County District Court Judge has ordered the Iowa Department of Public Health to list a birth mother’s same-sex spouse on the child’s birth certificate without requiring the non-birthing mother to go through the adoption process.

However, the ruling does not automatically apply to all Iowa same-sex couples seeking to have both parents listed on their children’s birth certificates.

Governor-elect Terry Branstad announced today that ophthalmologist Dr. Mariannette Miller-Meeks will run the Iowa Department of Public Health in his administration. A press release noted that Miller-Meeks “has served as the first woman President of the Iowa Medical Society and was the first [woman] on the faculty in the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of Iowa and councilor for Iowa to the American Academy of Ophthalmology.” Miller-Meeks was the Republican nominee in Iowa’s second Congressional district in 2008 and 2010. She worked hard during both campaigns but lost to Dave Loebsack in Iowa’s most Democratic-leaning Congressional district.

Also on December 9, Branstad announced that he will tap Chuck Palmer to head the Department of Human Services in his administration. Palmer did that job during Branstad’s previous time as governor from 1989 to 1999. Most recently he has been president of Iowans for Social and Economic Development, “an asset development organization with the mission of creating opportunities for low and moderate income Iowans to increase income and achieve financial stability.”

Branstad has pledged to reduce the size of state government by 15 percent, and keeping that promise would likely require significant cuts in the departments Miller-Meeks and Palmer will be running. The current budget (fiscal year 2011) allocated $935.5 million from the general fund to health and human services. That’s 17.7 percent of the general fund budget alone, or 15.9 percent of total state expenditures, including federal stimulus money and reserve funds as well as general fund spending. More than $200 million in federal stimulus money supported Iowa’s Medicaid budget in the current budget year, but similar support won’t be forthcoming in future years now that Republicans have a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Branstad administration press releases on Miller-Meeks and Palmer are after the jump.

When some Republicans tried to convince county recorders not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples last April, Iowa Department of Public Health officials made clear that ignoring the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling was not an option. Unfortunately, the IDPH has determined that marriage equality does not require equal treatment for married gay couples who become parents. Now IDPH Director Tom Newton has foolishly decided to fight a lawsuit brought by a married lesbian couple seeking to have the non-birthing spouse listed on their child’s birth certificate. Heather and Melissa Gartner sued senior IDPH officials on behalf of their daughter this week, having tried and failed to resolve the matter through administrative channels.

Based on advice from the Iowa Attorney General’s Office, the IDPH contends that the non-birthing spouse must complete the adoption process in order to be listed as the second parent on a child’s birth certificate, even if the child was born after the parents were legally married. I’m a big fan of Attorney General Tom Miller, but his office blew it on this one.  

The Iowa Attorney General’s Office has advised the Iowa Department of Public Health that a married lesbian who gives birth cannot list her spouse on the child’s birth certificate, according to Michael Gartner’s must-read scathing commentary in this week’s Cityview. Excerpt:

[Attorney General Tom] Miller’s lawyers based their advice on the fact that the decision made no direct reference to the Iowa Code section on birth certificates, which refers to “husband.” “The Supreme Court ruling “does not authorize an interpretation of chapter 144 (vital statistics, including birth certificates) in a manner that would allow for a same-sex spouse to be automatically listed as the parent on birth certificates,” they said. And, insultingly and gratuitously, they added: “Using the adoption process is the best way to protect the interests and rights of all parties involved.”

How shameful.

For more than 125 years, the Iowa Supreme Court has consistently ruled that a child born in wedlock is presumed to be the legitimate child of the woman and her spouse – even if the woman was pregnant by another man at the time of the wedding, even if the woman was impregnated by another man during her marriage. “The law presumes that a child born in wedlock is legitimate,” the court said in 1882. More than 100 years later, in 1995, the court ruled in a similar case that “the state’s interests involve preserving the integrity of the family [and] the best interests of the child….” Yes, “the best interests of the child.”

The Iowa Code couldn’t be clearer. Section 252 says: “A child or children born of parents who, at any time prior or subsequent to the birth of such child, have entered into a civil or religious marriage ceremony, shall be deemed the legitimate child or children of both parents, regardless of the validity of such marriage.” And the Supreme Court says gays can marry one another.

Go read Gartner’s whole piece, which highlights key passages from the Iowa Supreme Court ruling in Varnum v Brien. He also points out that adopting a child involves significant time and expense.

I’m surprised that the Attorney General’s Office would give the Iowa Department of Public Health bad advice on this matter. Tom Miller strongly praised the court’s “clear and well-reasoned opinion” the day Varnum v Brien was announced. Miller’s advice helped persuade Governor Chet Culver not to seek to overturn the ruling. Assistant Attorney General Heather Adams wrote a memo reminding all Iowa county recorders that they must comply with the decision and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The Iowa Department of Public Health should give married spouses equal protection under the law.

I mentioned in this post that it’s been a full year since the Iowa Smokefree Air Act went into effect. The public smoking ban was one of the most controversial bills considered during the 2008 legislative session, and advocates praised the law’s success at a press conference this week.

According to a recent Iowa Department of Public Health survey, 14 percent of Iowans smoke. In 2007, IDPH research estimated the smoking rate at 19 percent. That’s a significant decline, suggesting that around one-quarter of Iowans who smoked in 2007 have since quit. The $1 a pack tax hike on cigarettes approved in 2007 was probably a major factor in this trend as well.

The overwhelming majority of Iowa businesses are complying with the smoking ban, according to a June 30 press release from the IDPH. A little more than 1 percent of Iowa businesses with employees (1,015 to be exact) have received a “Notice of Potential Violation” from the IDPH. Of those, approximately half are bars and restaurants. I’m not surprised, since bar and restaurant owners were the smoking ban’s most vocal opponents (despite research showing that smoking bans do not hurt businesses in the hospitality industry). For those who want more details on compliance with the Smokefree Air Act, I’ve posted the IDPH press release after the jump.

Although some Democrats were angry that the legislature took on this issue last year, I’m proud to have supported the smoking ban at this blog for all the reasons I listed here.  

Nearly every day I see reports on this or that program in Iowa receiving additional funding thank to the federal economic stimulus bill, passed in February over loud Republican objections. This news caught my eye on Monday. Iowa will receive about $7.5 million out of $100 million appropriated to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Program:

Polk County will receive $3 million to eliminate lead in 206 housing units; Marshalltown will get nearly $2.6 million to remove lead from 150 housing units; and Sioux City will be awarded nearly $2 million to create 75 lead-safe housing units.

Two potential Republican candidates for governor next year happen to be from Sioux City: businessman Bob Vander Plaats and State Representative Chris Rants. I know some conservatives are clueless about the dangers posed by lead paint, but I wonder if Rants and Vander Plaats can see the benefit of creating lead-safe housing.

Background: lead poisoning can cause mental retardation and behavioral problems, and not only in children. “Exposure to excessive amounts of inorganic lead during the toddler years may produce lasting adverse effects upon brain function.” Decades later, people poisoned by lead can show signs of cognitive deficits and mental illness. People exposed to high levels of lead in the womb and in early childhood have cells missing in key areas of the brain and have been found to be “more likely to be arrested for crimes, especially violent crimes.”

If Republicans claim they support lead remediation but don’t think it belongs in an economic stimulus bill, remember that lead remediation requires human labor and therefore creates jobs. I also would like Republicans to explain where they would find the money for this important work, since Republican politicians want deep spending cuts at the state level as well as a federal spending freeze.

I’m glad to learn that more funding to get lead out of homes was included in the stimulus bill. Reducing children’s exposure to lead has long been a priority for Barack Obama.

The Iowa Department of Public Health’s Bureau of Lead Poisoning Prevention has more background on lead poisoning in Iowa.

Following up on noneed4thneed’s post about Marshalltown schools closing for a week because of six probable cases of swine flu (H1N1 virus) in Marshall County, I’ve posted more news about this disease in Iowa after the jump.

Today is the 20th World AIDS Day. President George W. Bush marked the occasion:

When the administration launched the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief in 2003, the goal was to support 2 million people with lifesaving anti-retroviral treatment in five years.

“I’m pleased to announce that we have exceeded that goal early,” said Bush, standing with first lady Laura Bush on the North Lawn of the White House, which was decorated with a giant red ribbon to mark the occasion. “The American people through PEPFAR are supporting lifesaving treatment for more than 2 million people around the world.”

Pregnant women who are HIV-positive should be aware that there are ways to reduce the risk of passing the virus on to your child.

Daily Kos user sfbob posted this reflection on having lived with AIDS for 28 years while losing more than 160 “friends, neighbors, co-workers and acquaintances” to the disease.

Daily Kos user rserven put up this thread where many people are sharing their AIDS stories.

The Iowa Department of Public Health’s HIV/AIDS program information is here.

The Iowa Center for AIDS Resources and Education (ICARE) has a website here:

 Who We Are

ICARE is a non-profit AIDS organization with staff and volunteers who provide comprehensive practical, emotional, and financial support to persons living with HIV/AIDS, their partners, families, friends and others concerned about HIV or AIDS in a safe, accepting and non-judgmental atmosphere.

What Is HIV?

HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is an infection that disables the human immune systems ability to fight infections and overcome illnesses. HIV is the virus that causes AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome).

Our Mission

ICARE’s mission is to enrich the quality of life for persons living with and affected by HIV/AIDS. Through the distribution of information and services, we aim to foster the self-empowerment necessary to live productively and positively in the face of HIV/AIDS.

Our Approach

ICARE offers a client-centered, holistic service approach that actively involves the client and family in the service delivery process. All services are free and confidential.

Earlier this month the Iowa Department of Public Health released draft regulations for implementing the smoking ban that will go into effect on July 1. You can view the draft regulations here.

The Des Moines Register reported a few days ago that the people who have always opposed the smoking ban are furious about the IDPH’s draft rules:

“In my mind and in the minds of just about every single legislator I’ve talked with in the past week – and that’s about 20 or so – this is an absolute perversion of the legislative intent. Period,” said Rep. McKinley Bailey, a Webster City Democrat who voted against the bill in April.

The state’s administrative rules are intended to help clarify and implement laws and spell out details of enforcement. The Legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee discussed the proposed rules for the smoking ban Wednesday.

The Legislature this year approved a ban on smoking, effective July 1, in almost all indoor public places, including bars and restaurants. One provision in the law allows bar owners to permit smoking in their outdoor patio areas but prohibits restaurants from allowing outdoor smoking.

The rules, also effective July 1, say that bar food is limited to ice, pre-packaged snacks, popcorn, peanuts and the reheating of commercially prepared foods that do not require assembly, such as frozen pizza.

Under that definition, bars that have a grill and serve a burger, for example, would be considered a restaurant.

McKinley Bailey is a good Democrat, but I think he’s wrong on this issue. A restaurant is commonly understood to mean “a place where meals are served to the public.” I looked that up in several dictionaries.

If you look up definitions of “bar,” you will find that it refers to a counter or an establishment where beverages, especially alcoholic beverages, are served. Some of the definitions mention that food may be served at bars as well. The IDPH draft regulations account for this, by explaining the types of food that a bar may serve.

If you allowed every establishment that serves drinks to evade the smoking ban, you’d have hundreds of restaurant owners placing a few tables outside and declaring themselves to be “bars.”

It seems reasonable to say that if a business is serving the public food cooked to order, that establishment is a restaurant subject to the smoking ban.

I want to address this part of the Register article as well:

“This is a clear case where a state agency is going beyond the scope of the intended legislation,” said Tom Baldwin, owner of Drink, a Clive bar.

Roughly 3 percent of Drink’s sales are from food. But because of the proposed rules, the facility would be considered a restaurant for the purposes of enforcement of the statewide smoking ban, he told the rules committee Wednesday.

Baldwin has a simple choice to make. If he thinks that his business depends on letting patrons smoke, he can stop serving meals cooked to order and serve pre-packaged food instead. By his own admission, food accounts for only about 3 percent of his business’s sales.

Or, if he feels that cooking food for customers is vital for his business, he can go smoke-free.

Either way, I don’t think his argument about legislative intent holds water.

As I’ve written before, the research on smoking bans suggests that they do not hurt the bottom line. This report is worth reading in full, but here is the main conclusion:

A significant body of scientific research has been accumulated on the economic impact of smoking bans on hospitality business, particularly bars and restaurants. The only research that shows any long-term negative effect on bar or restaurant sales is unscientific research that has been sponsored by the tobacco companies.

All independent published studies conducted in the US and Canada that used tax data in the analysis concluded that “smoking restrictions do not impact negatively on hospitality sales, employment, or tourism activity in the long run.”

The current economic climate, with rising costs for food and transportation hitting restaurants and forcing many consumers to reduce their discretionary spending, is a genuine threat to the hospitality industry. In contrast, restaurant and bar owners’ anger over the new smoking ban is misplaced.