Republican State Representative Mark Costello easily won yesterday’s special election to represent Iowa Senate district 12. The seat became vacant after Joni Ernst’s victory in the U.S. Senate race. According to unofficial results posted on the Iowa Secretary of State’s website, Costello received 3,068 votes, to 924 votes for Democrat Steve Adams and 131 votes for Libertarian Don Brantz. Adams deserves credit for stepping up to give voters a choice in the second- or third-most Republican Iowa Senate district. Although the Libertarians were smart to nominate a candidate here, they didn’t have anything like the Iowa GOP’s resources for voter turnout, and their nominee got the worst kind of publicity a candidate can have when he was charged with several crimes earlier this month.

Democrats retain a 26 to 24 majority in the Iowa Senate, but Costello told Radio Iowa he’s optimistic and hopeful Republicans will win a majority after the 2016 elections. They certainly will have better opportunities to gain Iowa Senate seats in the coming cycle than they did in 2014. Blowing the chance to defeat GOP State Senator Mark Chelgren this year could prove costly for Iowa Democrats.

Costello’s victory will force a special election in Iowa House district 23, which he has represented for the last two years. Like Senate district 12, the House district should be safe for Republicans, allowing them to maintain a 57 to 43 majority in the Iowa House next year.

I expect another crowded GOP nominating convention when House district 23 delegates meet to choose a new candidate. Several people who sought the GOP nomination in Senate district 12 live in communities Costello has represented. Republicans would do well to nominate a woman. It’s embarrassing that Amy Sinclair is the only woman left in their Iowa Senate caucus, and the Iowa House GOP caucus includes 51 men (including Costello) to just six women.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

Did anyone get any noteworthy holiday greetings from politicians this year? It was bittersweet to open Tom Harkin’s final holiday card as a U.S. senator. My family also received a card with a lovely photo of Monica Vernon, her husband, and their three daughters. A Cedar Rapids City Council member, Vernon accepted this year’s Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor shortly after being runner-up in the first Congressional district primary. I assume her holiday greeting went out to everyone who donated to Jack Hatch’s campaign for governor, since I did not contribute to Vernon’s Congressional effort. I expect Vernon to run for Congress again in 2016, although she might be angling to run for governor in 2018 instead. First-term Representative Rod Blum should be vulnerable in IA-01 when he has to face a presidential-year electorate.

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama turned a typical holiday photo-op into a teaching moment when he and First Lady Michelle Obama delivered gifts to the U.S. Marine Corps’ Toys for Tots campaign.

The President started putting the sports and the science toys into the ‘girls’ bin.  Placing a basketball into the bin, Obama says:

“I just wanna make sure some girls play some ball.”

A person from the crowd queries his decision to put legos in the girls, rather than the boys collection – because they might not like them.  The President responds:

“Girls don’t like toys?”

As he continues to sort, he comes across a T-Ball set.

“T-Ball? Girls like T-Ball” and nodding, puts the set in the girls’ bin.  The crowd is snapping photos, with some looking a little confused and he adds. “I’m just trying to break down these gender stereotypes.”

I love it. Girls shouldn’t be limited to the toys specially marketed to them and their parents (dolls, beauty products, and legos in pink and purple hues).

Obama caused a stir in the White House press corps when he called on eight women and no men at his final press conference this year. The move was not a coincidence:

“The fact is, there are many women from a variety of news organizations who day-in and day-out do the hard work of covering the president of the United States,” [White House press secretary Josh] Earnest said. “As the questioner list started to come together, we realized that we had a unique opportunity to highlight the fact at the president’s closely watched, end-of-the-year news conference.”

Contrary to fantasies promoted by some social conservatives, improved sex ed programs appear to be making teenagers more likely to use birth control and far less likely to become pregnant. Tony Leys reported for the Sunday Des Moines Register,

Teen birth rates are plummeting in Iowa and across the country, and experts say it’s mainly because young people are being more careful about sex. Despite rosy memories about how wholesome kids were in the good old days, the fact is that American teens were three times more likely to become parents in the late 1950s and early 1960s than they are today. […]

Researchers and activists are trying to understand what’s behind the declining teen birth rates so they can keep the trend going.

“That’s the question of the day. Nobody can pinpoint exactly what’s causing this,” said Addie Rasmusson, a community health consultant with the Iowa Department of Public Health.

Rasmusson said part of the explanation is that educators have determined which types of lessons make the most difference. They have created carefully researched lesson plans for teachers to follow.

“Twenty years ago, maybe you could throw together whatever you thought sex ed should be,” she said.

Rasmusson added that lesson plans can be flexible. For example, she said, messages are tailored to reach teen boys and members of racial groups that have relatively high pregnancy rates. […]

A recent national report from the Guttmacher Institute, which studies reproductive health, said the teen birth rate decline is mainly because of increased and improved use of contraceptives. Teens are not becoming dramatically less sexually active, the report says. They’re also not having more abortions. But they are having fewer babies.

Leys’ report is worth reading in full, as he describes some innovative sex ed programs that teach teens “how to say no to unwanted sex, how to prevent pregnancies and how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.” Toward the end, the article points to a big problem for birth control access in rural Iowa. I was not aware that Casey’s General Stores has a company-wide policy against selling condoms. They are the only retail outlet in many towns. Independently-owned pharmacies have been disappearing from Iowa communities, and Planned Parenthood of the Heartland has reduced the number of clinics it operates in small towns as well.  

Republicans nominated State Representative Mark Costello for the December 30 special election to replace Joni Ernst in Iowa Senate district 12. The district covers Mills, Fremont, Montgomery, Page, Taylor, and Ringgold counties in southwest Iowa. This post includes a map.

Seven candidates sought the GOP nomination in this strongly Republican district, containing more than twice as many registered Republicans as Democrats. Besides the five candidates Bleeding Heartland discussed here, David Sieck and Charla Schmid joined the GOP race. Sieck is a Mills County farmer who has been active on Missouri River management issues. Schmid has served several terms on the Montgomery County School Board and is active in Business and Professional Women/Iowa. She also serves on the board of directors of 50/50 in 2020, a bipartisan group encouraging more Iowa women to run for office.

The Iowa Republican’s Craig Robinson wrote up last night’s nominating convention, where Costello led from the beginning and secured the nomination on the fourth ballot.

A Democratic district convention will meet this weekend to nominate Steve Adams of Red Oak. He is a community development specialist with Iowa State University Extension.

Earlier this week, Libertarians nominated Don Brantz for the Senate district 12 special. He is “a longtime Mills County supervisor and southwest Iowa social worker” who is running on a platform of increasing funding for rural schools and abolishing the state Department of Education. It’s smart for Libertarians to compete here. Odds are long, but anything can happen in a low-turnout environment, and how many people will show up to vote on December 30?

Costello is the heavy favorite. If he wins, a special election will be needed in Iowa House district 23, covering Mills and Fremont counties, plus most of Montgomery County. House Republican leaders did not assign any committee chairmanship to Costello, perhaps expecting that he would soon leave for the Iowa Senate.

Regardless of who wins the Senate district 12 special, the number of women in the Iowa Senate will drop from ten the past two years to seven for the next two years. First-termer Amy Sinclair will be the only woman in the Iowa Senate GOP caucus.  

The Iowa House will begin its 2015 session on January 12 with 57 Republicans and 43 Democrats (assuming a Republican wins the January 6 special election in House district 4). Depending on who wins that special election, the 100 state representatives will include either 27 or 28 women, and either 72 or 73 men.

After the jump I’ve posted details on the Iowa House majority and minority leadership teams, along with all chairs, vice chairs, and members of standing House committees. Where relevant, I’ve noted changes since the previous legislative session.

Some non-political trivia: two of the three state representatives with the surname Olson retired this year, as did one of the two Iowa House members named Smith. There are still two Millers and two Taylors in the legislature’s lower chamber, one from each party. As for first names, the new cohort contains five six Davids (four go by Dave), four Roberts (two Robs, one Bob, and a Bobby), four Marys (one goes by Mary Ann), three four Johns, and three Brians. There are two Lindas, two Elizabeths (a Beth and a Liz), and two men each named Dan, Mark, Greg, Chuck, Bruce, Todd, and Chris.

2015 UPDATE: Added below information for John Kooiker, who won the House district 4 special election, and David Sieck, who won the House district 23 special election.  

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread.

The Washington Post’s media critic Eric Wemple caught syndicated columnist George Will red-handed in a flagrant conflict of interest.

This case highlights Will’s intersecting lines of influence. He’s a director of the Bradley Foundation, an entity with more than $800 million in assets and 2013 grants totaling nearly $34 million to organizations in Wisconsin and across the country, including big-time Beltway entities like the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Federalist Society. His column is syndicated to about 450 newspapers. Keeping those two worlds separate is quite a job, as the Nov. 19 column demonstrates: Here, Will touted an outlet funded generously by a group he helps to lead. And thanks to the columnist’s kind words, WILL may have an easier time finding funders outside of the Bradley Foundation. All very cozy, synergistic and, as media critics might say, an out-and-out conflict of interest – an offense of which Will has been accused before.

Click through to read the whole column, including Will’s response. The columnist is unrepentant: “I do not see how disclosure of my connection to Bradley, and Bradley’s connection to WILL, and WILL’s connection to the school choice program, would be important to readers.” That suggests he will not hesitate to pull the same stunt again. Newspapers including the Des Moines Register should drop Will’s column if they don’t share his views on what constitutes full disclosure.

Speaking of the Register, Lynn Hicks (up to now the newspaper’s executive business editor) is taking over this month as editorial page editor as Randy Evans retires from that position. Evans will be missed. Seven people will serve on the Register’s editorial board going forward: President and Publisher Rick Green, Executive Editor Amalie Nash, Lynn Hicks, Rox Laird, Andie Dominick, Clark Kauffman, and Brian Smith. Laird has been writing editorials at the Register for about 30 years, Dominick since 2001. Kauffman is a longtime investigative reporter who just joined the editorial board in September of this year. Smith “is taking on a new engagement editor role that emphasizes reaching new audiences and connecting with the community”; up to now he has been an associate digital editor for the Register.

It’s probably too much to hope for the Register to make the politics and opinion sections of the website easier to navigate. Every newspaper owned by Gannett seems to operate with the same horrible template now. So I’ll settle for hoping that in the future, the Register will disclose any family connections between subjects of guest columns and members of the editorial board.

Rolling Stone magazine is backing off from a widely publicized story about an alleged rape at a University of Virginia fraternity. There were red flags in the original story, and some other journalists have questioned why no one from Rolling Stone interviewed the alleged perpetrators of the gang rape. I agree 100 percent with Olga Khazan: “this whole episode is terrible news for survivors of rape on college campuses and elsewhere.” Whatever did or did not happen to “Jackie” (the subject of Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s article), the collapse of this story undermines advocates working to get colleges and universities to address the real problem of sexual assault on campus.  

The Democratic Party has long championed issues of importance to working women, such as equal pay and ending discrimination in the workplace. Yet party leaders in the U.S. House just denied Representative Tammy Duckworth a proxy vote for this week’s elections on committee members. The official story is that granting a proxy vote to Duckworth (who is eight months pregnant and has received medical advice against traveling) would “set a precedent.” Another House Democrat had requested a proxy vote to allow her to attend a funeral.

What an absurd excuse. Going to a funeral instead of to your job is a personal choice unrelated to health or medical concerns.

Many people in the House Democratic caucus are unhappy about the decision and suspect the “slippery slope” argument was just a cover story.

Members and aides are privately seething over what they see as Pelosi’s latest attempt to stack the deck against Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., who is running for ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee against Pelosi’s closest friend and fellow Californian, Rep. Anna G. Eshoo.

And many members are concerned about the optics of not allowing Duckworth a proxy vote when Democrats are supposed to be the party that fights for women. Democrats have tried to make electoral gains by touting the “When Women Succeed, America Succeeds” economic agenda.

“Our party should be the party that stands up for women,” Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida said in a caucus meeting Tuesday morning, according to a source in the room.

A source also said that civil-rights icon and longtime Georgia Democratic Rep. John Lewis was fighting Pelosi’s refusal: “We will pay a price for not doing this,” he reportedly said.

KJ Dell-Antonia pointed out at her New York Times blog, “Pregnant women are protected by the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, but protection against discrimination does not require accommodation.” That’s one reason why President Barack Obama “has repeatedly called on Congress to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, (PWFA), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed federal lawsuits recently against companies” that allegedly fired pregnant workers.

If Nancy Pelosi can’t see the simple logic here, House Democrats should elect a minority leader who does.

UPDATE: On Wednesday the House Democratic caucus chose Pallone as ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Republicans had a lot to celebrate on November 4, and Democrats have plenty to worry about after the midterm election debacle.

But all is not rosy in GOP world either. If I were a Republican, I’d be particularly concerned about three things.

Two weeks after election day, political junkies like me are still processing what happened. Losing control of the U.S. Senate was the most obvious bad outcome for Democrats, but maybe not the most concerning one. The Senate map for 2016 gives Democrats a lot of opportunities to make up ground.

Five other political realities have been bothering me more.  

November 4 was a devastating day for Iowa Democrats, but let’s look on the bright side for a moment.

1. Democrats held the Iowa Senate majority.

Since 2011, the Iowa Senate has kept us off the disastrous path followed by Kansas, Wisconsin, Ohio, and other states where Republicans control the trifecta. I’m disappointed that with a favorable map, Democrats weren’t able to expand their Iowa Senate contingent to 27 or 28. State Senator Daryl Beall was one of the good ones and will be missed by many. But a wave like that could have done a lot more damage.

For at least two more years, the Iowa Senate will continue to be a firewall against all kinds of horrible legislation that Iowa House Republicans will pass and Governor Terry Branstad would sign.

2. Iowa is no longer in a club with Mississippi.

All week, I’ve been reflecting on the many thoughtful and capable women who have been involved in Iowa politics during my lifetime. Not only Democrats, but also Republicans from Mary Louise Smith to Joy Corning to Mary Lundby and most recently, Mariannette Miller-Meeks. These women cared about public policy and ran for office to get things done. They weren’t recruited by strategists who thought they would be a marketable package. For this place in history to go to someone as ignorant and stage-managed as Joni Ernst feels very wrong.

That said, at least my children will not grow up believing that Iowans are too narrow-minded to elect a woman to Congress.

3. The Iowa Supreme Court is more likely to expand voting rights for thousands of non-violent ex-felons.

I had hoped Staci Appel would become Iowa’s first woman in Congress, but this wasn’t the year to be running against a guy who projects as a generic Republican.

The good news is that Iowa Supreme Court Justice Brent Appel will almost certainly be able to hear a lawsuit expected to be filed soon, which would challenge Iowa’s current law on voting rights. In April, a divided Iowa Supreme Court allowed Tony Bisignano to appear on the ballot despite a aggravated misdemeanor conviction. Three of the seven justices indicated that they were prepared to strike down a 1994 law defining all felonies as “infamous crimes,” which under the Iowa Constitution lead to the loss of a citizen’s voting rights. Three other justices disagreed with that opinion for various reasons and would uphold current law.

Justice Appel recused himself from the Bisignano case, but in other non-unanimous rulings he has usually joined the justices who believe not all felonies should disqualify Iowans from voting (Chief Justice Mark Cady and Justices Daryl Hecht and Bruce Zager).

Iowa Supreme Court justices tend to err on the side of recusing themselves, rather than hearing cases where there could be any appearance of a conflict of interest. Had Staci Appel won on Tuesday, I suspect Brent Appel would not have weighed in on any case affecting who might be able to vote to re-elect his wife. His participation could make the difference between a 3-3 split and a 4-3 majority ruling rendering the legislative definition of an “infamous crime” as unconstitutional. Thousands of Iowans with non-violent felony convictions might then be able to vote, as felons can do in most other states upon completion of their sentences.

UPDATE: When I wrote this post, I didn’t know the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa was planning to file a lawsuit today challenging Iowa’s restriction on felon voting rights. The ACLU of Iowa is acting on behalf of Kelli Jo Griffin, who was tried and acquitted for voter fraud earlier this year. After the jump I’ve enclosed the announcement, with more background and detail on the lawsuit.  

For the past two years, ten women have served in the Iowa Senate (20 percent of the chamber’s membership). That number will fall to seven or eight by the time the newly-elected legislature begins its 2015 session.

However, the number of women who will serve in the Iowa House will grow from 25 to 27 for the next two years. Follow me after the jump for details and a full list of Democratic and Republican women who will serve in the newly-elected Iowa legislature.

Following up on prospects for increasing racial and ethnic diversity in the Iowa legislature, all five African-American state representatives were re-elected to the Iowa House this week: Helen Miller (House district 9), Ruth Ann Gaines (House district 32), Ako Abdul-Samad (House district 35), Deborah Berry (House district 62), and Phyllis Thede (House district 93). Neither party nominated any African-American candidates for the Iowa Senate, which remains all-white.  

Iowans have yet to elect a Latino candidate to the state legislature. Democrats nominated Karyn Finn in House district 60 and Maria Bribriesco in Senate district 47, but both lost to Republican incumbents on Tuesday.

As has been the case since Swati Dandekar left the Iowa Senate in 2011, the Iowa legislature includes no Asian-American lawmakers. Neither party nominated any Asian-American candidates in 2014.

Iowa Republicans are up in arms today on social media, outraged that retiring Senator Tom Harkin said this about Joni Ernst’s campaign commercials (via Andrew Kaczynski):

“And there’s sort of this sense that, ‘Well, I hear so much about Joni Ernst. She is really attractive, and she sounds nice.’”

“Well I gotta to thinking about that. I don’t care if she’s as good looking as Taylor Swift or as nice as Mr. Rogers, but if she votes like Michele Bachmann, she’s wrong for the state of Iowa.”

To hear Republicans tell it, that is the most offensive comment ever.

People who oppose equal pay and longer paid parental leave for working women, who would force women to continue unwanted pregnancies, who think women’s employers should be able to veto insurance coverage of birth control, are in no position to play “PC police.”

Harkin’s meaning was clear: Ernst’s advertising has promoted her as appealing, while mostly avoiding substantive issues. But no matter how nice she may be or may appear in her own marketing, she supports policies that are wrong for Iowa.

By the way, Harkin has a perfect voting record on women’s rights issues and has always supported equal pay for women as well as reproductive rights and access to family planning. Republican hero Senator Chuck Grassley has opposed all of those policies at virtually every turn.

UPDATE: Inadvertently confirming that she wants this election to be about anything but substantive issues, Ernst went on Fox News Monday to distort what Harkin said:

“I was very offended that Senator Harkin would say that. I think it’s unfortunate that he and many of their party believe that you can’t be a real woman if you’re conservative and you’re female,” she told Fox News. “Again, I am greatly offended about that.”

Of course, Harkin neither said nor implied anything about a “real woman” not being conservative. He said Ernst supports policies that are wrong for Iowa. And as @SusaninIowa pointed out, it’s telling that Ernst wasn’t offended to have her voting record compared to Bachmann’s.

There was no need for Harkin to apologize for his remarks on Monday.

The Iowa secretary of state campaign looks like a nail-biter. Neither Democrat Brad Anderson nor Republican Paul Pate has had a lead outside the margin of error in any public poll I’ve seen. The new Loras College statewide survey shows Anderson barely ahead of Pate by 39.9 percent to 39.0 percent. That survey did not include the other two candidates running for secretary of state, even though Libertarian Jake Porter received about 3 percent of the statewide vote in 2010.

When Anderson and Pate appeared jointly on Iowa Public Television earlier this month (in a “job interview” that resembled a debate), major differences between the candidates were apparent. Pate would continue outgoing Secretary of State Matt Schultz’s crusade for a voter ID law, an expensive “fix” to a non-existent problem, which risks disenfranchising voters. Anderson proposes several ideas to improve the voter file and maintain security, without depressing turnout.

During the same “Iowa Press” program, Pate hedged on whether former employees of the Secretary of State’s Office should pay back the state for salary and benefits they received for doing no work. I’ve enclosed that exchange after the jump. I would guess that 90 percent of Iowans agree with Anderson: it’s a “no-brainer” that these people should pay back the money.

Pate’s campaign website is mostly devoid of policy ideas. His case to voters is simple: he has more experience, having served as secretary of state before, he supports voter ID requirements, and he is a “non-partisan leader,” as opposed to his “partisan political operative” opponent. Never mind that Pate once sought the position of Iowa GOP chair.

Compared to Pate, Anderson has proposed more specific ideas for improving the work of the Secretary of State’s Office. (For that matter, so has Porter.) Anderson’s campaign website includes not only ideas to make Iowa number one in voter turnout, but also proposals to make it easier to start a business, create a new registry for veteran-owned businesses, improve the integrity of the Iowa caucuses, make it easier for overseas and military voters to cast ballots, and most recently, an address confidentiality program that would allow survivors of domestic abuse or sexual violence “to register to vote, cast a ballot, and go about daily life without fear for safety.” (Pate’s campaign quickly announced that the Republican also supports “Safe at Home” measures.)

Anderson and Pate are still running the television and radio commercials Bleeding Heartland covered here. In addition, a group I’d never heard of called iVote has spent just under $30,000 to run a tv ad opposing Pate. Democratic strategists created the new political action committee to get involved in several secretary of state races. When I saw iVote’s spot for the first time during a lunchtime local newscast, the unorthodox style caught my attention. I’ve enclosed the video and transcript below. The Cedar Rapids Gazette’s fact-checker rated this ad “true.”

Speaking of the Gazette, that newspaper endorsed Anderson today, saying he would offer “a clean break” from the “sorry chapter” of Schultz’s tenure as secretary of state. Click through to read the whole editorial, or scroll own to read excerpts. How embarrassing for Pate not to get the support of his hometown newspaper. He’s been a local business owner for decades as well as a former Cedar Rapids mayor and former state senator representing part of Linn County.  

Former Iowa Senate Republican staffer Kirsten Anderson filed a lawsuit in Polk County District Court yesterday, claiming she was subjected to “sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act.” Anderson served as communications director for the Iowa Senate GOP caucus from February 2008 to the middle of May 2013. Bleeding Heartland covered the circumstances surrounding her firing here and here. Anderson filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission last year. She is suing the State of Iowa, the Iowa Senate, the Iowa Senate Republican caucus, Iowa Senate Minority Leader Bill Dix, Iowa Senate Republican senior staffer Eric Johansen, and Ed Failor, Jr., the primary advisor to Dix since shortly after Dix was chosen to lead the GOP caucus in late 2012.

William Petroski’s report for the Des Moines Register includes a link to the 20-page court filing, which can be downloaded as a pdf file. Pages 3 through 7 list many incidents supporting Anderson’s claims about a hostile work environment and sexual harassment, starting in 2010. Several current and former lawmakers are named. The lawsuit paraphrases inappropriate comments by former GOP Senators Shawn Hamerlinck and Merlin Bartz. Senator Tim Kapucian is said to have laughed at an unnamed senior analyst’s inappropriate comments about a “loose” female Democratic senator. Senators Joni Ernst and Sandy Greiner allegedly “did and said nothing” after witnessing “sexual innuendo and inappropriate behavior exhibited by their male colleagues.” Ernst denied that charge in a written statement, which I’ve enclosed after the jump. She suggested Anderson was perhaps “being exploited ahead of the election.”

Speaking to the Des Moines Register, Anderson’s attorney Mike Carroll

denied any political motivation behind the timing of the lawsuit. He said that before a lawsuit could be filed, his client had to file a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. The complaint was filed last year. The commission issued a letter in July giving Anderson 90 days to file a lawsuit, and the filing deadline was set to expire Oct. 29, he said.

In her own statement, Anderson said, “As to the suggestions that I am a pawn in a political drama, that is not the case. I am standing up for my rights as an employee; a right to work in a place without inappropriate and discriminatory conduct.”

Pages 12 through 17 of the court filing include a memo Anderson handed to Johansen on the morning of May 17, 2013, suggesting that her work was being criticized because she had complained about a “sexually hostile work environment” that “no private sector workplace would tolerate.” Later the same day, in Dix’s presence, Johansen gave Anderson a choice of resigning or being fired. Pages 17 and 18 list six causes of action under the Iowa Civil Rights Act. Anderson is seeking back pay and benefits, compensatory damages, a ruling that her termination was unfair and/or discriminatory, and injunctive relief requiring (among other things) new training procedures for Iowa Senate staffers.

Former State Senator Staci Appel and David Young are holding their second debate, hosted by KCCI-TV and the Des Moines Register at Simpson College in Indianola. I’m live-blogging after the jump. KCCI will have the video up later on their website.

Who else was stunned by recent reports about the lapses by the Secret Service?  Sebastian Payne listed the “the top 10 recent Secret Service headaches” here. Dylan Matthews goes into more detail on three astounding incidents: an intruder with a knife got all the way into the East Room of the White House; President Barack Obama ended up in an elevator with a convicted criminal who was carrying a gun; and it “took the Secret Service four days to realize that shots had hit the White House residence.”

Secret Service Director Julia Pierson resigned this week, and I agree 100 percent with Bryce Covert’s take:

Reasonable people can disagree about whether, ultimately, she deserved to lose her job or whether anyone in charge during such an incident would have to resign. But it’s probably not pure chance that Pierson, who held that position for just a year-and-a-half, was a woman. Time and again, women are put in charge only when there’s a mess, and if they can’t engineer a quick cleanup, they’re shoved out the door. The academics Michelle Ryan and Alex Haslam even coined a term for this phenomenon: They call it getting pushed over the glass cliff. […]

The understaffing, for which Pierson was not responsible, could have played a significant role in the breach that led to her losing her position. Former secret service agents told the Washington Post that the incident may have been related to the severe staffing shortage in the division responsible for securing the White House. […]

As for the Secret Service, it turns out that Joseph Clancy will be Pierson’s temporary replacement, even though he was in charge of the presidential detail the night the Salahis slipped past checkpoints [in 2009].

I don’t know how much of the security lapses can be attributed to inadequate Secret Service staffing and funding levels during Obama’s presidency, and how much stem from a too-broad mission or aspects of the Secret Service training and organizational culture. For the safety and of the president and everyone around him, I hope these problems will be solved quickly. It will take a lot more than a change at the top.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

A. When it happens in a campaign debate.

Since last night, I’ve been thinking about a ridiculous unwritten rule of our political culture.

On the one hand, we have former State Senator Staci Appel. While debating her opponent in Iowa’s third Congressional district, she expressed herself in a slightly inarticulate way. Later, she and her campaign staff clarified her position: she supports going through the existing system for revoking passports of people affiliated with terrorist organizations. But what she thinks doesn’t matter to her opponents. They will keep twisting the meaning of her awkward phrase over and over on television.

On the other hand, we have State Senator Joni Ernst. While debating her opponent in the U.S. Senate race, she misrepresented a constitutional amendment she co-sponsored, which calls for recognizing and protecting “the inalienable right to life of every person at any stage of development.” Ernst insisted the “personhood” amendment would not threaten access to birth control or in-vitro fertilization, even though independent fact-checkers have confirmed that yes, it would. This wasn’t some offhand comment on a topic she wasn’t expecting to come up. Ernst agreed to co-sponsor the “personhood” amendment. Four of her fellow Iowa Senate Republicans and more than two dozen Iowa House Republicans chose not to co-sponsor similar legislation, because they understood its implications. In yesterday’s debate, Ernst stood by her support for “personhood” as a statement of faith. She also stood by her false claim that it wouldn’t affect birth control or fertility treatment options for women.

At best, Ernst’s comments reveal stunning ignorance and a failure to research bills before signing on to them. At worst, she knows what “personhood” would mean if enacted, and was lying during the debate. Neither option is acceptable.

Yet for some reason, the smooth way Ernst spoke during the exchange over abortion rights is not considered a “gotcha” moment. Today, she’s probably more worried about news emerging that her husband sued a house painter over unfinished work, when she has spent months depicting herself as willing to resolve conflicts “the Iowa way” in contrast to “litigious” Bruce Braley. I’m sick of trivia dominating our political discourse and elections being about everything but the candidates’ real stands on real issues.

LATE UPDATE: Lynda Waddington wrote a good column for the Cedar Rapids Gazette on Ernst’s “personhood” comments during the debate.

People who choose a career in politics tend to fall into one of two groups: the “hacks” who work on campaigns, and the “wonks” who immerse themselves in public policy. Paulee Lipsman, who passed away on Thursday in Des Moines, was a rare person who excelled in both fields. She worked on many election campaigns and was a dedicated volunteer for the Iowa Democratic Party at all levels, from the Scott County Democrats all the way up to representing Iowa on the Democratic National Committee. Arguably, she had more influence on the state during more than 20 years of work on the Iowa House Democratic research staff (the later years as director). Staff rarely if ever receive public recognition for any legislation that comes out of the Iowa House or Senate, yet lawmakers could not do the job without them.

I didn’t know Paulee well, but when I talked with her, I was always impressed by her deep knowledge of state government and policy. She enjoyed spinning scenarios as much as the next political junkie, but her passion didn’t end with getting Democrats elected. She was driven to improve public policy, and her views were grounded in facts.

Over the past few days, Iowa Democrats have posted many tributes to Paulee on social media. I enclose some of those words below, along with excerpts from her obituary. Several staffers, lawmakers, or lobbyists expressed gratitude for how Paulee helped them learn the ropes when they were newbies at the State Capitol. She was a role model for women working at the statehouse and a strong supporter of Democratic women running for state office.

Phil Specht’s words in one thread rang especially true: “One of the things I loved about her was even though both of you knew she was smarter and knew more (about practically anything) she would never talk down to anyone.” Presidential candidates sought out Paulee Lipsman’s support–both John Kerry and Joe Biden bragged about her endorsement in press releases. But she wasn’t the type to drop names or pull rank on anyone.

Until I read the Des Moines Register’s piece on Paulee’s passing, I did not know that she had been raped or that she filed an influential lawsuit related to that case during the 1980s. Roxanne Conlin was one of Paulee’s closest friends and represented her in that lawsuit. I’ve enclosed some of her comments about the case below. Paulee retired from the Iowa House Democratic research staff in 2010 to work on Conlin’s campaign for U.S. Senate.

UPDATE: During a stop in Des Moines on September 17, Vice President Joe Biden said, “Paulee Lipsman was a remarkable, remarkable woman. She was not only a friend of mine, but she was a tireless advocate for fairness and equality. I know that she will be greatly missed.”

Not being a football fan, I had never heard of Ray Rice until the Baltimore Ravens running back received a pathetic two-game suspension for beating up his fiancee Janay Palmer (now his wife) earlier this year. Rice finally lost his job yesterday, after a leaked video showed him punching Palmer in an elevator. But Louis Bien’s timeline of key events in the case underscores how many authority figures bent over backwards to help Rice avoid any serious repercussions.

For months, top management for the Ravens made clear they hoped Rice would continue to play football with minimal interruption. The team’s official twitter account promoted the idea that Palmer shared some responsibility for getting knocked out. Having given other players one-or two-game suspensions for domestic violence incidents, the National Football League didn’t ask the Atlantic City casino for video footage before deciding on an initial consequence for Rice. Unbelievably, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell interviewed Janay Rice about the incident in the presence of her husband. In a meaningless gesture, the NFL suspended Rice indefinitely yesterday–after the Ravens had ended his contract.

Instead of moving forward with aggravated assault charges, New Jersey prosecutors offered Rice a deal involving probation and anger management counseling rather than prison time. The “pretrial intervention” agreement means that Rice can avoid trial and even have the criminal charges expunged, as long as he complies with the program. I’m all for abusers getting counseling, in addition to facing legal consequences for their actions. Rice’s deal seems way too lenient, given the evidence prosecutors had on videotape. The Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office says Rice “received the same treatment in the court system that any first-time offender in similar circumstances has received,” which doesn’t inspire confidence in the court system.

Rice is lucky that he’ll probably never serve a day in prison for this assault, yet football legend Mike Ditka noted sympathetcally yesterday that Rice is “not a bad guy” who has seen his life “ruined” and his earning power “destroyed.” Right-wing media darling Ben Carson loves to talk about “personal responsibility.” But when asked about Rice yesterday, Carson said, “Let’s not all jump on the bandwagon of demonizing this guy. He obviously has some real problems. And his wife obviously knows that because she subsequently married him. […] let’s see if we can get some help for these people.” In what other context would a conservative show such sympathy for a man who had beaten someone unconscious? Yes, Rice has problems. Let him get help while he faces responsibility for his crimes.

By the way, Carson spent a few days in Iowa during the last week of August. The possible 2016 presidential candidate headlined fundraisers for the Polk County Republican Party and GOP Congressional candidates Rod Blum (IA-01) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-02). I hope that Blum, Miller-Meeks, and Polk County GOP Chair Will Rogers will repudiate Carson’s comments about Rice. Domestic violence is the most prevalent form of violent crime in Iowa, affecting tens of thousands of people every year.

UPDATE: Worth reading Vice President Joe Biden’s comments on Rice and our cultural attitudes toward violence. Biden was the lead author of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act.

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.

Democratic Congressional candidate Staci Appel’s campaign started running its second television commercial today.  “Independence” focuses on the candidate’s work in the Iowa Senate from 2007 through 2010. I’ve posted the video and my transcript after the jump. As in her first commercial, the announcer refers to the candidate as “Staci”–ever since Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, this approach seems to be a trend with women candidates.

The script includes key words that resonate with conservatives and moderates (“business,” “finance,” “balance budgets”) as well as with progressives (expanding pre-K, raising the minimum wage, approving pay equity). That makes sense in a swing district like Iowa’s third. Appel mentioned the same set of issues in her soapbox appearance at the Iowa State Fair. I’ve posted excerpts from the news coverage after the jump.

Groups backing Republican candidate David Young are sure to portray Appel as a liberal Nancy Pelosi clone, so it makes sense to pre-empt that message with an ad about bipartisanship. To my knowledge, neither Young nor the National Republican Congressional Committee have run television ads in IA-03 since the primary. The NRCC ran a web ad bashing Appel, while U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley recorded a radio spot supporting Young.

In related news, Appel’s press release announcing today’s new tv spot took a swipe at Young for backing a “flat tax” at the Iowa State Fair (video here). At the end of this post I’ve enclosed excerpts from the Des Moines Register’s coverage of Young’s soapbox speech.

Appel is one of eight great women candidates for U.S. House, according to a feature in the latest edition of Elle magazine. The piece described Appel as a “mother of six and fierce pro-choice advocate,” who wants to bring “less bickering” and more “Iowa-mom common sense” to Washington.

IA-03 contained 153,285 registered Democrats, 164,984 Republicans, and 156,626 no-party voters as of August 1.

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.

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 ruled 5-4 today in favor of Hobby Lobby’s right not to provide contraception coverage in its health insurance package for employees. The Obama administration had already exempted some religious organizations and non-profits from the contraception mandate in the 2010 health care reform law. Today’s ruling allows a closely-held (that is, not publicly traded) for-profit corporation to claim religious rights that override the rights of their employees, not to mention the need to comply with federal law.

You can read the full text of the Supreme Court’s decision and dissents here (pdf). Justice Samuel Alito wrote the “opinion of the court,” joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy. Strangely, Kennedy wrote a separate concurring opinion “in an attempt to show how narrow the Court’s decision was.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer dissented. The majority ruling appears to apply only to contraception health care services, as opposed to other medical procedures to which some groups have religious objections (such as vaccinations or blood transfusions). Still, Ginsburg seems on track when she warns that the court “has ventured into a minefield” by “approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation.” Analyzing today’s decision, Lyle Denniston predicted more litigation will be needed to clarify the limits of the new religious exemption for closely-held companies.

For background on the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case (formerly Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius) and the implications of the ruling, check the Alliance for Justice and SCOTUSblog websites.

After the jump I’ve posted comments from various Iowa elected officials and candidates. So far Iowa Democrats have been quicker to respond to the Hobby Lobby ruling than Republicans. I will update this post as needed.

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.”  

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jack Hatch announced today that Cedar Rapids City Council member Monica Vernon will be his running mate. In addition to following the Iowa tradition of female lieutenant governors, Vernon balances the ticket geographically and ideologically. An elected official in Iowa’s second-largest city for seven years, she has been campaigning around northeast Iowa since last summer as a Democratic candidate for Congress. She carried Linn County and finished a strong second to Pat Murphy district-wide on June 3.

Some Democrats are grumbling that Vernon is a longtime Republican who joined our party just five years ago. But frankly, Hatch isn’t running in a Democratic primary. He needs to appeal to a statewide electorate including thousands who have become disaffected from the GOP, just like Vernon did. Anyway, she is arguably more progressive than Governor Chet Culver’s running mate, lifelong Democrat Patty Judge. Despite the complaining, there shouldn’t be any major snags when the Iowa Democratic Party’s statewide convention officially nominates Vernon for lieutenant governor this Saturday.

After the jump I’ve posted background on Vernon and other recent news from the Hatch campaign, including his first television commercial for the general election and highlights from his weekend appearance on Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press” program.

Past time for a post-mortem on the five-way Democratic primary in the open first Congressional district. Here are the unofficial results from June 3:

A few thoughts struck me as I reflected on this campaign and looked more closely at the results.  

Forty men and ten women currently serve in the Iowa Senate. No senators are African-American, Latino, or Asian-American.

Seventy-five men and 25 women currently serve in the Iowa House. Five state representatives are African-American and none are Latino or Asian-American.

Time for a look at how those numbers might change after the November election, now that primaries have determined the major-party nominees in all state legislative districts. Click here for the June 3 unofficial election results and here for the full list of candidates who filed to run in the primaries.

What’s on your mind this Memorial Day, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread.

I’ve posted Memorial Day-related links in past years at this site, but I learned only last year that Memorial Day became an official federal holiday only recently, in 1971. That’s surprising, given that the tradition of remembering American war dead on a special day in May goes back to the 1860s. The Iowa National Guard’s website includes brief histories of Iowa soldiers’ involvement in U.S. wars since the mid-19th century and a stunning photo of thousands of men standing in the shape of the Statue of Liberty.

The horrendous shooting rampage in Santa Barbara on Friday night has prompted a wave of new commentaries about mental health, violence against women, and gun violence generally. It’s so upsetting to know that the authorities couldn’t do a thing to disarm the perpetrator, even though his family had been trying to get him help and warned police weeks ago that he was posting YouTube videos about his murderous and misogynistic fantasies.

For many people, Memorial Day marks the unofficial beginning of summer, so I’m re-posting a link to a piece that’s worth re-reading every year: Drowning Doesn’t Look Like Drowning.  

More than three-quarters of Iowa mothers are breastfeeding their newborns at the time of discharge from the hospital, according to the latest figures released by the Iowa Department of Public Health. A chart near the bottom of this page shows data compiled through the Iowa Newborn Metabolic Screening Profile Feeding Report since 2000. Statewide, about 63 percent of newborns were receiving some breast milk in the year 2000, but by 2013 the rate had risen to 77.7 percent. This chart shows the breastfeeding incidence for about two-thirds of Iowa counties between 2006 and 2013. (Counties with fewer than 20 recorded births per year were not included in the analysis.) Almost every county saw the breastfeeding rate increase during that period, but there was wide variation among counties. Howard County in northern Iowa started out above the statewide average in 2006 and had the highest breastfeeding rate in 2013 at 95.2 percent. Nearby Chickasaw County had the lowest rate at 54.5 percent and is one of the few Iowa counties where the newborn breastfeeding rate has declined in recent years.

Small changes in hospital policies can make a big difference in breastfeeding rates. This slide show created by Dr. Nils Bergman discusses how skin to skin contact in the first hours after birth promotes more breastfeeding. Toward the middle of the presentation, he discusses a study at one California hospital, where an hour of skin to skin time for babies in the first three hours of life dramatically increased the percentage of mothers who were breastfeeding at the time of hospital discharge.

The new Iowa statistics only reflect the percentage of babies receiving some breast milk in the hospital. For many women, the most difficult period for breastfeeding is the week or two after bringing baby home. (That was my experience.) In-person help from certified lactation consultants or accredited volunteer breastfeeding educators can be crucial. Sometimes a small change in how a woman holds her baby or her breast can make a huge difference in baby’s ability to transfer milk. Free breastfeeding support is available through Iowa chapters of La Leche League and Breastfeeding USA. After the jump I’ve posted information about other free breastfeeding resources for Iowa mothers.

Knowing what to expect during the early weeks of breastfeeding is critical. It’s typical for newborns to nurse every hour or two around the clock, or to go through a period of “cluster feeding” for a few hours each day. In our culture, many women wrongly interpret those and other normal behaviors as a sign that they are not making enough milk. Again, seeking advice in person or over the phone can be helpful. Good online sources for breastfeeding information, including trouble-shooting, include Kellymom, La Leche League, and Breastfeeding, Inc. Among the many good books that have been published about breastfeeding, the best short read in my opinion is Breastfeeding Made Simple by Nancy Mohrbacher and Kathleen Kendall-Tackett. The best book for trouble-shooting is The Ultimate Breastfeeding Book of Answers by Dr. Jack Newman and Teresa Pitman. The best overview of typical breastfeeding behavior is The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding, published by La Leche League International.  

State Senator Joni Ernst told the Washington Post last week, “I consider myself the front-runner” for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination. I agree, for reasons Bleeding Heartland discussed here–and that was before I knew Ernst had snagged one of the ultimate conservative establishment endorsements: from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In what must be a painful blow to Mark Jacobs, who has made business prowess a cornerstone of his Senate campaign, Chamber of Commerce National Political Director Rob Engstrom said in today’s press release,

“Joni understands that big government is an impediment to job creation, and that the best way to turn the economy around and create jobs is through pro-growth economic policies. The U.S Chamber is proud to stand with Joni and highlight her work removing regulatory barriers and encouraging competition in Iowa. In today’s economy, that’s the type of leadership we need in Washington.”

I don’t know what work they’re talking about–as a first-term state senator in the minority caucus, Ernst hasn’t been in a position to remove regulatory barriers or encourage competition. More likely, the Chamber of Commerce settled on Ernst as the most credible alternative to Jacobs.

Over at The Iowa Republican blog, Craig Robinson reviews recent tv ads and campaign spending in the IA-Sen primary. By June 3, Jacobs will have spent more than $1.4 million on broadcast and cable television, plus about $24,000 on radio spots. Based on ad time Ernst has reserved up to now, she will close out the primary race having spent just under $240,000 on broadcast and cable tv. She and her strategists must feel very confident; otherwise they would allocate more campaign funds ($427,201 cash on hand as of March 31) to paid media.

In their Washington Post piece about how Ernst’s debut tv ad “transformed Iowa’s U.S. Senate race,” Philip Rucker and Dan Balz quoted Jacobs supporters Nick Ryan and Doug Gross criticizing Ernst’s ads. Her media consultant Todd Harris shot back, “People should remember that Joni is a mom, a grandmother who has volunteered at a crisis hotline, and that part of her bio will be told.” Thanks for the preview of Ernst’s general election transformation: the pig castrating, Harley-riding, leather-wearing “farm girl” who’s going to “unload” on Obamacare will become a mom and grandmother who volunteered at a crisis hotline. I’m surprised anyone with experience comforting victims would use “Make ‘Em Squeal” as the main slogan on her t-shirts, bumper stickers and campaign bus. Many Americans instantly recognize that phrase from a rape scene in the movie “Deliverance.”

Any comments about the IA-Sen race are welcome in this thread.

P.S. – I think Balz and Rucker should have acknowledged the convenient timing of Ernst’s tiny ad buy for the “Squeal” spot. I find it hard to believe that a campaign endorsed by Mitt Romney didn’t get any advance warning from the Romney-connected outside groups America Rising and Priorities for Iowa, which dropped a bomb on Bruce Braley just as Ernst launched that attention-getting ad.

UPDATE: The National Rifle Association announced its endorsement of Ernst on May 13. The press release is after the jump.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread: all topics welcome. I’ve enclosed a few links in honor of Mother’s Day.

The Pew Research Center posted “5 questions (and answers) about American moms today.”

Annie Fox, who has a great website for teens, tweens, and their parents, shared her perspective on “What makes a good mom?”

Mother’s Day can be a difficult holiday for many people, especially women who have experienced the death of a child. State Senator Janet Petersen wrote about her stillbirth and her work since then to educate parents on monitoring their babies’ movements during the third trimester. I’ve posted excerpts after the jump.

Mother’s Day can also be challenging for those whose mothers have died. Hope Edelman, the author of the book Motherless Daughters, shared her experiences and advice on how to spend the day when your mother is gone.

Finally, Mother’s Day can stir up painful feelings for those who never received the emotional support they needed from their mothers. Dr. Laura Markham, who runs my all-time favorite parenting website and writes one of the best parenting blogs, recently re-shared her excellent post on “How to Give Unconditional Love When You Didn’t Get It Yourself.”

Speaking of great advice, Froma Harrop’s latest syndicated column urges college students who are the victims of rape or sexual assault to call 911, rather than reporting to campus authorities. “Rape is a violent crime, and when violent crimes occur, the police should be called.” Parents of college students should pass along these wise words. My only quibble with Harrop is that she assumes all such victims are women. Men can also be assaulted sexually, and if that happens to a male college student, he should call 911 as well.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

The non-profit advocacy group Secularity USA brought world-famous evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins to Des Moines on Saturday. I couldn’t make it to the event; if you were there, please share your impressions. The mission of Secularity USA is to raise public awareness “of the dangers of religious bias in government and promoting the traditional separation of church and state.” While Dawkins is a well-known atheist, Secularity USA seeks to unite “religious and nonreligious supporters of church-state separation.”

Governor Terry Branstad signed a proclamation this week inviting “all Iowans who choose to join in thoughtful prayer and humble repentance according to II Chronicles 7:14 in favor of our state and nation to come together on July 14, 2014.” I wouldn’t go so far as one blogger, who declared that Branstad “signed away separation of church and state,” but it does seem inappropriate for the governor to lend his support to such a specific religious movement. The “Prayer 7-14-14” group, which is calling for the national day of prayer, sounds pretty far out there. Endorsing this project is different from routine appearances by governors at prayer breakfasts, or the prayers that typically open daily sessions in the Iowa House and Senate.

I wonder whether the governor’s staff sensed that he crossed a line, because I didn’t see any announcement of this event on the governor’s official news feed. Normally that feed highlights several proclamation signings each week. It mentioned more than half a dozen other documents Branstad signed this past week–including, ironically, a proclamation for Muslim Recognition Day. Perhaps Branstad viewed inviting Iowans to pray on July 14 as nothing more than empty pandering to the FAMiLY Leader contingent, which is promoting the national prayer day. The governor hasn’t elevated social conservative goals in most of his public speeches or in his legislative agenda.

Former Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan headlined an Iowa GOP fundraiser in Cedar Rapids last night. O.Kay Henderson posted the audio at Radio Iowa. As usual for Ryan, he said little about social conservative priorities, focusing instead on federal budget and tax issues, Obamacare, and the need for Republican unity. But he did nod to his religious heritage by urging his audience to give up “infighting,” “tunnel vision,” and “acrimony” for Lent.

Last month I never managed to post a thread on one of this year’s biggest news stories related to church-state separation: the U.S. Supreme Court considering what has become known as the Hobby Lobby case. After the jump I’ve posted six links on the oral arguments in that case, which will determine whether two corporations are entitled to a religious exemption from the 2010 health care reform law’s contraception mandate.  

What’s on your mind, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread.

Calling any Iowa women who have considered running for office: a free two-day seminar with helpful advice for you will take place on April 8 and 9 at the Iowa State Capitol. I’ve enclosed details below on the agenda and how to register. The group “50-50 in 2020” is organizing the seminar in collaboration with The Iowa State Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics and The University of Iowa N.E.W. Leadership.

Earlier this month, the Democratic Activist Women’s Network (DAWN’s List) announced its annual award-winners, including State Representative Mary Mascher of Iowa City. The full list is at the end of this post.

Yet another good idea has fallen victim to the U.S. Senate’s rules requiring a super-majority to advance legislation. Although 44 Democratic senators and eleven Republicans supported a bill that would have taken sexual assault cases outside the military chain of command, backers fell five votes short of the 60 needed to pass a cloture motion yesterday. Iowa Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley both voted for cloture (roll call) on the bill sponsored by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Pentagon leaders and Democratic Senators Dick Durbin and Claire McCaskill lobbied against the measure. A weaker sexual assault prevention bill proposed by McCaskill advanced after senators rejected cloture on Gillibrand’s bill.

After the jump I’ve posted the key arguments for both sides in the debate, as well as comments from Grassley and Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01). In the floor statement I’ve enclosed below, Grassley urged colleagues, “We need a clean break from the system where sexual assault isn’t reported because of a perception that justice won’t be done.” Braley has long supported reforms along the lines of Gillibrand’s bill, and yesterday he promised to keep pushing on the issue, saying opponents are “on the wrong side of history.” Braley is the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate seat Harkin will vacate at the end of this year.

P.S. – Of the Republican senators considered most likely to run for president in 2016, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul voted for cloture on Gillibrand’s bill. Marco Rubio voted against it.  

Friends of Iowa Midwives has worked with legislators to present companion bills in the House and Senate that would allow for safe and legal access to Certified Professional Midwives (CPMs) in Iowa.  For 15 years Friends of Iowa Midwives has worked toward licensure for CPMs. In 1999 the Iowa Legislature conducted a scope of practice review, the result of which was a recommendation to the legislature that the CPMs should be licensed through the Iowa Department of Public Health.  The bills propose that a license be created for the already trained and nationally certified midwives who seek to provide quality and safe care to Iowa women.

Every year in Iowa, more than 500 women choose to give birth outside of the hospital.  This number is on the rise both in Iowa and nationally.  A study published last month in the Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health again demonstrated that for low-risk women out-of-hospital birth with skilled providers is a safe option.  This study found that almost 94% of the nearly 17,000 participants had a spontaneous vaginal birth.  The cesarean rate for this study was 5.2%.  The national average cesarean rate is 33%.  The in-labor transfer rate for this study was between 8-23%.  The most common reason for a transfer of care was prolonged labor or what is commonly called failure to progress. This study was one of among several that have demonstrated that out-of-hospital birth is a safe option for low-risk women. 

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.

Time for a new thread on other Democrats who may join former State Senator Staci Appel and Gabriel De La Cerda as candidates for Congress in Iowa’s third district. Right now my best guess is that State Senator Matt McCoy will throw his hat in. He was planning to run for Congress in IA-03 way back in 2001, but he stood aside when Representative Leonard Boswell decided to move to Des Moines. McCoy has said previously (and confirmed again this week) that he would consider running for an open Congressional seat. He could raise substantial money as the chair of the Iowa Senate Commerce Committee and is well-known in the LGBT community as our state’s first out gay legislator. One complicating factor for McCoy: he is up for re-election next year in Iowa Senate district 21, covering parts of Des Moines and West Des Moines. He would have to give up his Senate seat in order to take a chance on IA-03.

Several other prominent Democrats contacted by the Des Moines Register indicated directly or through associates that they are thinking about this race, but I just don’t see former Governor Chet Culver, Polk County Democratic Party Chair Tom Henderson, former Des Moines City Council member Michael Kiernan or Dr. Andy McGuire following through.  

Any new Democrat who enters this primary will be playing catch-up. As of September 30, Appel’s campaign had nearly $200,000 cash on hand. Perhaps more important, her campaign sent out a press release on December 18 highlighting more than a dozen groups that are standing by their endorsements of her candidacy. I’ve posted that release after the jump. The loyal Appel endorsers include several labor unions, Planned Parenthood Voters of Iowa, EMILY’s List, and the LGBT advocacy group Human Rights Campaign.

Democrats who have ruled out a candidacy in IA-03 include Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, State Senator Janet Petersen, and Boswell’s 2008 Democratic primary challenger Ed Fallon. The Des Moines Register’s Jennifer Jacobs mentioned Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie and both Tom and Christie Vilsack as possible candidates, but I would be shocked if any of them ran for Congress next year.  

President Barack Obama finally settled on Janet Yellen to succeed Ben Bernanke as the next chair of the Federal Reserve. No woman has previously held that position, nor has any previous nominee for the job been as qualified as Yellen. Binyamin Appelbaum’s profile of Yellen for the New York Times is excellent. Some other good links about her views are here. She is commonly described as an “inflation dove,” meaning that in her opinion, reducing unemployment should be a higher priority than keeping inflation low (the traditional obsession of Fed chairs). A few years ago, Bleeding Heartland user PrairieBreezeCheeze discussed why it’s time for a Fed chair willing to prioritize employment. Even now, long-term unemployment is still near historically high levels.

Nobody’s perfect, and Zach Carter offers a more negative take on Yellen, focusing on her support for NAFTA, a chained Consumer Price Index, and repealing the Glass-Steagall Act during the 1990s. Nevertheless, Yellen is a much better person to run the Fed than Obama’s first choice for the job, Larry Summers. Credit goes to the coalition that came out early against Summers, convincing five Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee to oppose him.

Despite today’s news, President Obama’s record on appointing women to cabinet-level positions remains worse than Bill Clinton’s–and not for lack of qualified women to choose from.

UPDATE: After the jump I’ve added some remarks from President Obama and Yellen at today’s press conference. SECOND UPDATE: Added Senator Tom Harkin’s official comment.