Iowans spoke out this week against legislation advanced by House Republican lawmakers that would make it easier for the state to funnel $2 million to pregnancy crisis centers that promote childbirth and discourage abortion.



The state has failed to find an Iowa nonprofit to oversee and administer a network of crisis pregnancy centers and maintain a record of the services provided to Iowans.


Lawmakers in 2022 created the More Options for Maternal Support — MOMS — program and last year approved $2 million for the stalled program. The state has failed twice to find a third-party administrator with at least three years of experience managing a statewide network of providers of pregnancy support services.





Abortion rights advocates oppose state funding for the pregnancy resource centers, saying they mislead women about their options and misrepresent themselves as legitimate medical providers.


The centers, which are usually religious-affiliated organizations that encourage childbirth or adoption and discourage abortion, are not fully licensed medical facilities. They typically offer ultrasounds, counseling, diapers and other baby items without cost.


An Iowa House subcommittee earlier this week advanced House File 2057 that would allow the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services to administer the program directly. The state could still opt to contract with an administrator, but the bill removes the requirement it have three years of experience managing a similar program.


Subcommittee members approved the bill 2-1, with Rep. Heather Matson, D-Ankeny, voting against.


“I do not think that it is a good idea to continue spending taxpayer dollars on programs that, first of all, are not moving forward because we cannot find an administrator that’s qualified, but also does not meet the needs in a genuine, completely honest way that every single Iowan deserves,” she said. Matson added that it is clear the program exists to exclude groups like Planned Parenthood that provide a range of reproductive health care, including abortion.


In 2017, Republican lawmakers chose to withdraw from a federally funded family planning program in favor of a state-run version that barred Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. The year after it launched, the state’s Family Planning Program saw an 85 percent drop in use of services, which included those that provided birth control and information on how to prevent pregnancy, The Gazette previously reported.

​

Sign up for On Iowa Politics

Subscribe now and receive a roundup of Iowa politics news sent directly to your inbox.​

Reps. Michael Bergan, R-Dorchester, and Tom Jeneary, R-Le Mars, voted to advance the bill to the full House Health and Humans Services committee.


"I'm interested in moving this bill forward to increase the discussion among a broader group of our Health and Human Services committee," Bergan said.


Tom Chapman, with the Iowa Catholic Conference, said the bill provides needed adjustments to the original law to allow the stalled MOMS program to move forward with the state taking on the role of program administrator.


"HHS, as you know, over the past couple of years has been performing their due diligence with groups that they didn't think were up to the job and we support them in that," Chapman said. "So we think this adjustment will help it be an Iowa-base program."


He said “pregnant women deserve more access to meaningful assistance and support when she needs it.”


Opponents said the bill would loosen accountability requirements for the state and third-party contractors administering the program, and could result in “illegitimate organizations” being eligible to receive millions of taxpayer dollars.


Representatives for the Family Planning Council of Iowa and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Iowa said the bill also reduces transparency for the public by removing the requirement for program administrator and subcontractor criteria to be published on the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services website.


“My concern here is that when we are unable to find a suitable administrator for the program, I don’t believe that answer is making it easier to become the administrator,” Mazie Stilwell, public affairs director for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Iowa, told lawmakers.


Lawmakers voted to advance the bill after hearing the personal stories of Iowans who said they had harmful experiences with anti-abortion centers, including using deceptive tactics and religious guilt to pressure them into not having an abortion and providing inaccurate medical advice.


Mica Chase, of Cedar Rapids, said 14 years ago at the age of 19 they went to a crisis pregnancy center that counsels against abortion. Chase said the option of a free pregnancy test and counseling “lured me in.”


“I faced moral judgments, shaming for uncertainties about the father, guilt-tripping and even attempted proselytization,” Chase told lawmakers. “Far from receiving factual reproductive health care, I encountered misinformation and lies. Leaving that place, self-proclaimed as a non-judgmental safe space, left me embarrassed.”

Congrats to Drake for beating all comers since his early season loss and now sitting atop Flo rankings!

Login to view embedded media
Not posting this on the gambling thread in the Iowa Football section simply because it is directed to an adjacent issue.

Can someone explain to me why Brenna Bird - if her office had no involvement in the DCI investigation or bringing criminal charges against those who were charged - thought it would be a good idea to agree to a video recorded interview where she basically concluded . . . "if you have questions about the investigation, go the the Department of Public Safety."

You need to set up the camera, she got mic'd up, took time away from whatever else she may be doing to effectively say "not my department." Strikes me as odd.

And, FWIW, I don't disagree with her. DPS/DCI is not under the auspices of the AG's officer or the Iowa DOJ.

What I will be watching is, if (and I stress IF) these officers are found to have engaged in unlawful conduct, will the the Governor and/or the AG's office pursue charges? Or, will it be brushed under the rug?

The Doomsday clock remained set at 90 seconds to midnight in its newest update Tuesday morning — the latest iteration of a decades-old international symbol meant to illustrate how close humanity is to reaching "global catastrophe" as of January 2024.

This year's figurative clock reading was unveiled during an announcement by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a nonprofit organization based at the University of Chicago that tracks man-made threats to the world as we know it, focusing on three primary hazard areas: nuclear risk, climate change and disruptive technologies. Bill Nye, the science educator and television personality, also joined the latest announcement.

Scientists and experts at the helm of the Bulletin said their decision to hold the clock at 90 seconds to midnight in 2024 — the same position it held in 2023, the closest to midnight it's been in its history — came as "the risks of last year continue with unabated ferocity" to pose "an unprecedented level of risk" to societies everywhere.

The group said the major factors informing the position of the clock were: the continued war in Ukraine; the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza; and dangerous new environmental milestones, as Earth in 2023 experienced its hottest year on record with little substantive action by world leaders to address climate change. Among other chief issues that the Bulletin deemed threatening to safety world over were advances in artificial intelligence, which they said "raise questions about how to control technology" that could either improve or damage humanity.

In a statement issued alongside Tuesday's announcement, the Bulletin noted how the Russian war on Ukraine has unfurled to such an extent that a vital nuclear weapons treaty between Russia and the U.S. potentially hangs in the balance. That could "heighten the possibility of a nuclear exchange," the statement read, citing a comment from U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres last August where he described the present as "a time of nuclear danger not seen since the height of the Cold War." The statement also pointed to the war in Ukraine's far-reaching climate consequences and the ways in which it has "hampered international efforts to deal with other global concerns."

In 2023, the hands of the Doomsday clock inched forward for the first time in three years to show 90 seconds to midnight — up from 100 seconds to midnight, where they had remained since 2020. The foreboding leap by 10 seconds was motivated by the ongoing war in Ukraine, which at the time was nearing the one-year mark since Russia's invasion, as well as the continued climate crisis, among other human-caused threats.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 by Albert Einstein and University of Chicago scientists who helped develop atomic weapons for the Manhattan Project. They originally created the Doomsday clock two years later, in 1947, as a tool to represent the ways in which humanity's actions and decisions put its own health and future at stake. Back then, they deemed the rise of nuclear weapons technology to be the world's greatest threat, and the early versions of the clock portended potentially catastrophic consequences of a nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. The clock was initially set at seven minutes to midnight, and has moved 25 times since then — at times closer to midnight, and at times farther from it, representing the possibility for people to make positive changes, in effect "turning back the clock." Climate change has been a leading concern dictating the hands of the Doomsday clock since 2007.

"The Doomsday Clock is a design that warns the public about how close we are to destroying our world with dangerous technologies of our own making. It is a metaphor, a reminder of the perils we must address if we are to survive on the planet," reads a description shared to the website for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

The clock is set to a particular time each year that is decided by members of the Bulletin's Science and Security Board, which meets twice annually "to discuss world events and reset the clock as necessary." The board consists of scientists and other experts in the field of nuclear technology and climate science, who "consult widely with their colleagues across a range of disciplines" as well as members of the organization's sponsoring board, which includes 10 Nobel laureates, according to the Bulletin.

​

The Iowa Secretary of State's office has filed a bill that would prevent Iowans from challenging Donald Trump's place on the 2024 general election ballot on 14th Amendment grounds.

The former president, who won victories in Iowa and New Hampshire this month, is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2024.

But Trump has faced challenges to his candidacy in several states, including Colorado and Maine, which have said he should be removed from their primary ballots under Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment that bars officials from holding office again if they "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States.


The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Trump's appeal of the Colorado challenge, which revolved around his actions leading up to and during the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and the court's decision could determine what happens in other states.

How would the Iowa bill limit ballot challenges for Trump?​

The bill filed by Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, a Republican, would limit the grounds for any challenges to a presidential candidate in the general election.

Political parties are required to submit a certificate with the names of their presidential and vice presidential candidates to the Iowa Secretary of State's office 81 days before the general election.


Under the bill, challenges to presidential candidates would be limited to whether that certificate meets all the legal requirements.

"It would pretty clearly foreclose any challenge to a presidential candidate for being not qualified under the United States Constitution," Derek Muller, an election law professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School, said of the bill. "So it would be designed to foreclose a challenge like those filed in Colorado in Maine."

gotta go alphabetical of course

Kennedy

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

Democrats

Ask what you can do for your country and ask what your country can do for you.

Republicans

Ask neither what your country can do for you nor what you can do for your country.

Trump Republicans

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what you can get away with.

Must love the QB. Horrible franchise lol..No fan base

More than 21 million people have signed up for health plans through the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance marketplaces, the Biden administration announced Wednesday. The record level of enrollment comes as former president Donald Trump, seeking the GOP nomination, is again vowing to repeal the program if elected.


Sign-ups in the health insurance marketplaces — a jump of 5 million since last year and the third straight year of record enrollment — were partly driven by states “unwinding” pandemic-era protections in Medicaid, with millions of people culled from the safety net health program, said Biden officials and outside researchers. The enrollment figures reflect a roughly 80 percent surge in sign-ups for the ACA since President Biden took office in 2021 and expanded the subsidies available to consumers.
“[T]he American people have made it clear: they don’t want the Affordable Care Act weakened and repealed — they want it strengthened and protected,” Biden said in a statement.



The sweeping health program — which includes marketplaces for consumers to shop for health coverage, federal incentives for states to expand Medicaid and protections for people with preexisting health conditions — was viewed as former president Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement. It was immediately ensnared in political fights after its 2010 passage, as Republicans campaigned on pledges to “repeal Obamacare” and used the issue to help retake the House in 2012, the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016.
But the program survived multiple repeal efforts during Trump’s four years in office, and congressional Republicans have been wary about renewing their overhaul attempts, with polling on the issue strongly favoring Democrats. Many voters in recent elections have credited the health program for helping them gain coverage, and its favorability has steadily risen. About 6 in 10 Americans now say they have a favorable view of the program, according to polling by KFF, a health policy research group, compared with fewer than half of respondents to similar surveys between 2010 and 2017.
That has not dissuaded Trump, the front-runner for this year’s GOP presidential nomination, from resurrecting attacks on the health program.



“I don’t want to terminate Obamacare, I want to REPLACE IT with MUCH BETTER HEALTHCARE. Obamacare Sucks!!!” Trump wrote in a November 2023 post on Truth Social, his social media platform. Trump — who has spent the past decade pledging to repeal and replace the ACA — has yet to produce a health plan that would provide comparable health coverage at the same or less cost, analysts have said.

The Biden campaign and its allies have embraced the issue, running ads that highlight Trump’s recent attacks, point to the Affordable Care Act’s health benefits and incorporate Obama himself.
“At a time when more Americans are enrolling in the ACA than ever before, it is outlandish that the likely GOP nominee is even considering another attempt at repeal,” Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care, a Democrat-aligned health-care advocacy group, said in a statement.



About 3 in 5 voters — including 1 in 5 Republicans — trust Democratic politicians more than Republicans to handle the future of the Affordable Care Act, according to polling released last month by KFF. Seventy percent of Democratic voters said the health program is a “very important” issue for political candidates to discuss, compared with 45 percent of independents and 32 percent of Republicans, KFF found.
One reason for the Affordable Care Act’s growing popularity is its Medicaid expansion, which is separate from the private insurance sold on the marketplaces and has been credited with helping millions of low-income Americans gain coverage through government heath programs. Overall Medicaid enrollment also ballooned to nearly 95 million people during the pandemic because of provisions that prevented participants from being disenrolled while the covid-era public health emergency was in effect.
Federal officials projected that about 15 million people would lose their Medicaid coverage after the Biden administration ended the public health emergency, and that nearly 3 million of those people would be eligible for subsidized coverage on the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges.



According to data through September, at least 1 million people who lost Medicaid coverage last year had signed up for Affordable Care Act health plans — a substantial number that was “still falling short of the expected pace” and meant that many Americans were becoming newly uninsured, Edwin Park, a Georgetown University health professor, wrote this month.
Under Biden, health plans in the Affordable Care Act have become more affordable. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, or ARPA, contained provisions that expanded the number of people who were eligible for Affordable Care Act health plan subsidies by about 20 percent, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 extended those subsidies.
About 80 percent of shoppers on the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance marketplaces can find coverage for less than $10 per month, the White House said.
Republicans said the program has become too generous in its subsidies.
“The main takeaway of ARPA: if people don’t have to pay anything for an ACA plan, they will finally enroll,” researchers at the Paragon Institute, a conservative health policy think tank, wrote in a post last week. “This seems more an indictment of the ACA than a victory.”

Pretty sure he's learned his lesson...




















Then he said he mainlines olive juice. Back you go loser...

Biden said, "If you come after women, you'll see the benefit."

What does that even mean?

JFC

Login to view embedded media

Login to view embedded media
Login to view embedded media

So earlier today as I was noting the melting snow here in VA on my morning dog walk, my mind wandered back to memories of sledding, and then, to what was probably the greatest sled ride in human history (and yet probably not even the greatest leg of the most extraordinary trip in human history). I give you, Shackleton, Worsley, and Crean in South Georgia:


At the end of the first day, the trio had ascended 3,000ft and could see Possession Bay to the north. They realised they needed to get to the bottom of the valley before nightfall, which brought devilish fog and rapidly dropping temperatures, spelling certain death. They attempted to cut steps into the ice to make their way down, but Shackleton quickly determined that this was hopeless. He then suggested the unthinkable – they would step off the precipice in front of them and slide down.

They could see very little and the slope could have easily led to a sheer drop of thousands of feet but they were out of options. The three men coiled up their pieces of rope into three ‘pads’, Shackleton sat in front, Worsley straddled his legs around Shackleton, and Crean sat behind Worsley doing the same. Without pausing, they launched themselves into the unknown below. In Worsley’s own words:

“We seemed to shoot into space. For a moment my hair stood on end. Then quite suddenly I felt a glow and knew that I was grinning. I was actually enjoying it. It was most exhilarating. We were shooting down the side of an almost precipitous mountain at nearly a mile a minute. I yelled with excitement and found that Shackleton and Crean were yelling too. It seemed ridiculously safe. To hell with the rocks!”

The slope began to level out and their speed slowed to a stop. Worsley estimated they had travelled approximately 3,000ft down the slope in about three minutes. The men shook hands, and Shackleton wryly commented, “It’s not good to do that kind of thing too often.”

Cooper going #17 to Jacksonville just behind JJ McCarthy at #16 to Seattle.

In the rapidly evolving world of automotive technology, electric vehicles (EVs) are often heralded as the future of transportation. With their sleek designs and eco-friendly appeal, they’re gaining popularity by the day.

But let’s take a step back from the hype and look at the real-world implications of owning an EV. From the long charging times that can’t yet match the convenience of a quick gas station fill-up to the scarcity of charging stations, especially on those long road trips, the shift to electric isn’t without its hurdles.

1. Long Charging Time
Imagine you’re at a gas station, quickly filling up your car’s tank and ready to go in just a few minutes. Now, think about an electric vehicle (EV) where charging can vary from a brief 20 minutes to over six hours, depending on the power source and car model. This time difference is quite stark compared to the swift convenience of refueling a gas car. Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) offer a quicker charging solution, but Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) often require more patience. However, the future looks bright with the advent of solid-state batteries, potentially speeding up charging times for EVs.

2. Insufficient Charging Infrastructure
Imagine planning a road trip in your electric car, only to realize there aren’t enough charging stations along your route. That’s the reality for many EV owners. Sure, you can charge at home, but it’s a slow process. Despite over 56,000 charging stations in the U.S. and 375,000 in Europe, we’re still playing catch-up to match the growing number of EVs on the road. It’s especially tricky in places where charging spots are few and far between, turning what should be a fun journey into a strategic mission to keep your car juiced up.

3. Limited Range of Most EVs
Range limitation remains a big issue for EVs. While EVs have made some progress in this area, most electric cars still fall short of the range offered by conventional vehicles. High-end models like the Lucid Air and Tesla Model S boast ranges over 400 miles, but these are exceptions. The average EV range generally remains below 300 miles, which is a concern for potential buyers.

4. Battery Longevity Concerns
The lifespan of EV batteries raises questions, especially in varying climates. Typically, a quality battery can last 12-15 years in temperate zones and 8-12 years in extreme climates. Manufacturers like Tesla and Hyundai offer warranties up to 100,000 miles or 8-10 years, but the long-term reliability of EV batteries is still a topic of discussion.

5. Higher Purchase Cost of EVs
Electric cars currently have a higher purchase cost compared to equivalent ICE vehicles. This price gap, attributed mainly to expensive batteries and research investments, is slowly narrowing. But on the bright side, EVs offer lower maintenance and operating costs, potentially offsetting the higher initial price over time.

6. Costly Battery Replacement
Imagine it’s time to replace your electric car’s battery, and you’re hit with sticker shock. Prices for these battery packs, which had been getting cheaper, have suddenly shot up – blame the rising costs of lithium. Even though we hope these prices will go down again, for now, shelling out big bucks for a new EV battery is a reality that can put a dent in any car owner’s wallet.

7. Environmental Impact of EVs
EVs may not be quite as eco-friendly as one might suggest. The environmental friendliness of EVs is somewhat contested. While they reduce greenhouse gas emissions during operation, the production of their batteries involves processes that can lead to air and water pollution, habitat degradation, and health risks. The mining of lithium and other heavy materials for batteries, mainly in countries like Chile and Bolivia, has significant environmental and social impacts.

8. Top Speed Limitations
Picture this: You’re eyeing that sleek, new electric car, dreaming of zipping down the highway. But here’s the catch – most EVs can’t match the top speeds of traditional gas-powered cars. Sure, you’ve got fancy models like the Maserati GranTurismo Folgore setting records, but they’re the exception, not the norm. Why? Because EVs are built with a focus on making batteries last longer and run more efficiently, not necessarily on breaking speed records.

9. Specialized EV Maintenance
Ever tried finding a good mechanic for your electric vehicle? It’s like searching for a needle in a haystack, especially if you’ve bought a used one or are on a road trip far from home. These high-tech cars need mechanics who really know their stuff, and they’re not as common as the regular car repair shops. So, owning an EV sometimes means you’ve got to do a bit more homework to find the right expert for those pesky repairs and maintenance checks.

10. Other Better Options
While EVs are a significant part of the future automotive landscape, they aren’t the only new kids on the block. Other technologies like hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are gaining popularity, offering quicker refueling times and other perks. Companies like Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai are investing in this technology, suggesting a large and diverse future for eco-friendly vehicles.

11. Temperature Sensitivity of EVs
Electric vehicles (EVs) are much like us when it comes to extreme weather – they’re not big fans. In scorching heat or freezing cold, EVs can struggle with reduced range and power, unlike traditional cars with internal combustion engines (ICEs) that chug along steadily regardless of the weather. This can be a real headache if you’re relying on your EV for a consistent performance throughout the year, as battery life and power can dip just when you need it most.

12. EV Compatibility with Apartment Living
The rise in apartment living causes a few challenges for EV owners due to the lack of charging infrastructure. Most apartment complexes lack the facilities for EV charging, making it difficult for residents to conveniently power their vehicles. This limitation can be a significant barrier to EV adoption among apartment dwellers.

13. Limited EV Selection
The current electric vehicle (EV) market offers limited variety, with many manufacturers having yet to fully convert their lineups to electric. This scarcity in options can be a source of frustration for consumers looking for specific types or features in their EVs, constraining choice in a field that’s still evolving.

14. Towing Capacity and Range Impact
Electric Vehicles (EVs), like the Ford Lightning, offer towing capabilities but at a cost to their range efficiency. Typically, an EV’s range might decrease drastically when towing. The Ford Lightning, for example, sees its range plummet from a standard 240 miles to approximately 100 miles while towing, posing challenges for extended travel and practical utility.

15. Electricity Costs and Global Supply Issues
The cost and availability of electricity to charge EVs are often overlooked. The increased demand for electricity to power EVs can strain already burdened power grids, leading to challenges like rolling blackouts in some regions. This reliance on the power grid can be a drawback for EV adoption in areas with unstable electricity supply.

I'd love to hear this from a trump supporter (someone who supports Trump over Nikki Haley).

I believe Nikki Haley is Republicans best chance to defeat Joe Biden. Change my mind:

I don't believe anyone who voted for Biden in 2020 is going to vote for Trump in November.

What makes me wrong? Why is Trump a better option for a general election than Nikki Haley?

Curious if people really know what happened. Overhearing a conversation at a table next to me last night at the restaurant, I heard 6 people discussing that Nixon was impeached out of office.

Great ****ing movie

Someone just told me he gave a speech and denied the Virginia Governor race?

WHO: Maryland Terrapins (11-8, 3-5 Big Ten)
WHEN: 6:00 PM CT (Wednesday, January 24, 2024)
WHERE: Carver-Hawkeye Arena (Iowa City, IA)
TV: BTN
RADIO: Hawkeye Radio Network (Gary Dolphin, Bob Hansen)
MOBILE: foxsports.com/mobile
ONLINE: foxsports.com/live
FOLLOW: @IowaAwesome | @IowaHoops | @IowaonBTN
LINE: Iowa -5.5
KENPOM SPREAD: Iowa -5 (Iowa 78, Maryland 73; Iowa 70% chance of winning)

Iowa enters this mid-week game off an 84-70 loss to Purdue on Saturday, but this game against Maryland is also the end of a stretch of a friendly stretch of the schedule. This game will be Iowa's fourth home game in five games, with the lone road trip being a short jaunt to Minnesota.

On paper, this stretch of games -- home to Rutgers and Nebraska, away to Minnesota, back home to Purdue and Maryland -- looked like a prime opportunity for Iowa to reset after an 0-3 start to Big Ten play. Indeed, that's how it's worked out in practice too -- Iowa picked up home wins over Rutgers and Maryland as well as a road win over Minnesota that got them to 3-3 in league play. A win over Maryland tonight would give Iowa a very respectable 4-1 record over this five-game span.

MORE HERE:

Terrible in game coaching... bad lineups, bad subs and doesn't know when to call the right timeouts. Good riddance!