Feb. 20, 2022

Today on this week in Iowa, changes to SNAP benefits, what happened to the proposal during the committee process and why advocates were able to make a change. Then an abortion proposal that women's rights advocates say goes against science will break down what lawmakers want to have happen. Good morning everyone and thank you for being with us here for this week in Iowa. I'm Sabrina Ahmed. Teachers licenses don't always show if a licensed educator pleaded guilty of a crime, including sexual or physical abuse and future employees can't always see if a teacher, coach or paraphera educator is under investigation. A new bill making its way through the Iowa House is working to fix that. Representative Dustin Height, chair of the House Education Committee, says the proposal would help to address concerns that reports haven't been properly dealt with. What you're talking about is a board that we would create at the local level made up of teachers and non-teachers to investigate these complaints because one of the things that we hear a lot is that at the administration level these complaints are not being taken seriously. The legislation would also require teachers to report the names of staff members accused of abuse and require staff members to be mandatory reporters for cases of abuse regardless of student age. Only applied to students under 12 previously. In a statement two local five the Iowa State Education Association pushed back on the proposal saying quote we fully support our existing laws but they must be executed with integrity to ensure the safety and health of our students while not violating the rights of staff. Meanwhile a massive bill was proposed this legislative session to change the supplemental nutrition assistance program or SNAP along with other welfare programs in Iowa. I spoke to the legislator who took that big piece of legislation made it more digestible for public input. Take a listen to my conversation with Representative Ann Meier. As far as SNAP benefits really there's a very minor change that happened. We want people that are custodial parents or non-tustodial parents to participate with child support. What that means is if you have a court order after a divorce decree you need to be at least some type of cooperation with the child support agreement. We have done other states have done this. In fact when Kansas did this their payments for child support increased by 40% of single parents that are taking care of children on their own. We thought that was a very important piece to keep in there. That also I'd like to let you know and let everyone else know that that's the requirement of all of our state benefits. So cash welfare and Medicaid you have to be in that agreement as well. So this just keeps it, this keeps the requirements the same throughout the system. There were a number of other changes that were looked into this talk to me about some of the other pieces of this legislation and what is all a part of this larger bill now. So what this is doing is we as Iowans we want to make sure that if you're someone vulnerable every Iowan that's in need needs a safety net. So whether it is snap benefits which as you explained are food benefits, food assistance. We certainly don't want to deny anyone food assistance. Medicaid the system for providing health care and cash welfare. So those three safety nets. We want to make sure that when someone signing up for them they are number one who they say they are. So there are some identification, there's an identification portion and then there's a eligibility portion which is what your income is. We are already doing this in practice. A DHS is already doing this for Medicaid and for cash welfare. So what we're doing is we're actually just codifying it in into code making sure that these eligibility pieces are put into place because like I said everyone wants people who need a safety net to have that safety net. But we also want to make sure that we're spending tax dollars appropriately and responsibly. One be responsible with your tax dollars. There was one proposal that didn't make it into this bill and that was this asset to text. You couldn't have a certain amount of assets if you wanted to receive these benefits. Talk to me about why that didn't make it out of the city. Well, as you know this originally turned out this was one large bill that came to us that we broke down down in eight pieces. We held eight subcommittees on this bill and that was part of the input from the public and associations that were very concerned about that and people not being able to get the food assistance they need. And so we take that advice in when we hold those subcommittees that was objectionable to a lot of people and that's what we removed it. So this is how the process works, right? You received legislation. You went through subcommittee and you listened to constituent. What is the message that you want Iowans to have moving forward seeing this legislation now kind of in its final form out of your committee. Making shape and moving forward. Absolutely. Again, I mean, it's really just one straight message we want to provide a safety net when needed, but we want to make sure the people that are receiving that safety net are actually eligible and that we're being responsible with your tax dollars. How hunger advocates feel about the changes made to the legislation and why they say the fight isn't necessarily over. As we continue to talk about the changes being considered to snap, we turn our attention now to hunger advocates. I spoke to Natalie Velvhaus who is the chair of the Iowa Hunger Coalition and she says there are still some concerns with the proposals. Absolutely. It's really updating processes that the state has to verify that folks are eligible for the program. And DHS has done a ton of work to really modernize that system. There are a couple pieces of that that we think might pose some extra barriers for families if they need to provide three forms of ID but also fill out an online survey. There's kind of this burden of proving over and over again who you are and that you're really hungry and that can be difficult and cannot be a very dignifying process sometimes. When it comes to the child support piece, really the part of code that's referenced is about custodial parents. So in our view on the Iowa Hunger Coalition, if we are mandating that custodial parents need to be in cooperation with child support to receive snap, there's really no way to implement that that would not take food away from children. So we're concerned about that piece. Finally on the asset test, this really dings families for having meager savings or let's say owning more than one vehicle in a household of maybe four or five people. So we think that this is really a distance incentive for families to get back on their feet and in a lot of ways the asset test doesn't lift people out of poverty, it keeps them in it. So we'll really need to work out or say we'll really need to look out for that on the Senate side and if it's going to get reintroduced. So is there concern that was going to be my follow up question here. The asset test was maybe the one that might disincentivize people to better themselves in the future the most. Is there a possibility of that coming up again? Yeah, we think there is a possibility it could come back up on the Senate side. It's really, you would say the most harmful piece of the bill, the original proposed bill because it really drastically changes how our snap program works in Iowa where the other pieces are kind of little tweaks. So this would really shake up eligibility and what we're really worried about is that it could make it so that families lose their benefits even though they are eligible. A lot of families who were using snaps sometimes are survivors of domestic violence or they have mental illness or they have some form of disability that makes it difficult to keep up with all of the paperwork and all the different pieces that are moving. So it actually causes extra burden to the state when someone gets kicked off who is eligible because then they restart that entire process and then that's more work that DHS is doing. Meanwhile, a family doesn't have food. So there's this whole discussion though of making sure that people who shouldn't be receiving snap benefits or food stamps for lack of a better, you know, more digestible term who shouldn't be receiving them. Don't get them. You know, the goal behind making all of these changes. I know that DHS has worked really hard to modernize their processes and the rate of people who are receiving it who shouldn't has gone down drastically. Now it's in the single digits like 6.7 percent, right? So who loses if it becomes harder to get snap benefits for families who need them? Great. That's a great question. And in referencing that SNAP error rate that has been highlighted, really the SNAP error rate can go both ways. It can be overpayments, but it can also be underpayments. So it's not exactly that families are getting, all the time, getting more benefits than they're supposed to. And really, I think it comes down to this conversation about deservingness, who deserves to receive food assistance, who doesn't, but really in the state of Iowa, we're a pretty low wage state relative to other states and many working households are still unable to meet basic needs on income alone. So supports like SNAP are essential in making sure that Iowans get the nutrition they need. Because even the formula that we use to determine whether people are eligible for SNAP was created in the 1960s and hasn't been updated. So there's a population of Iowans who maybe make a little bit too much to receive SNAP, but they're still using food pantries because the reality is SNAP doesn't even reach everyone who's experiencing food insecurity. So we really encourage Iowans to be pretty empathetic and thinking about how our neighbors, you know, kids down the street, our grandparents need this kind of food assistance and really thinking about how it's really important that we have food. It's important so that we can learn, so that we can work, so that we can thrive. And really, in no way is a lack of food, we're taking food away from people, a hand up, trying to do important things when you're hungry does not go very well. So these proposals made it out of committee once they were combined into one bill. And now they are eligible for debate in the full house if it passes the house that goes through a similar process in the Senate before heading to the governor's desk. An abortion proposal, doctors say, goes against science while lawmakers are pushing for it anyway. Doctors must tell a woman they is a way to stop a medically induced miscarriage after what is often called the abortion pill after taking. And even though there is no medical science to back that up, it's being considered at the state house right now. I spoke to the representative who wants to see this become law. Take a listen to our conversation about the two pieces of the legislation that made it out of committee this week. Sure. You know, the FDA this last year after kind of they made some changes fundamentally through rules during the pandemic allowed abortion drugs to be mailed to people that requested them. In Iowa, we have some pretty strict abortion control laws. One is that we obviously want women to have access to health care first and foremost. Make sure that they're healthy and that any drugs that they would be given in any setting for any reason wouldn't interact with something else going on in their health care. And so this was just a way to say, hey, here in Iowa, we still want those medications to be given in a health care setting where they are seeing a health care practitioner face to face. And then the second piece of legislation, which we did amend together out of human resources is the informed consent piece. And there is the ability now in many instances to reverse an abortion after medication has been given to induce a really it's a medicated miscarriage. I mean, they're forcing a miscarriage on a woman. And what they do is they use progesterone and that progesterone is obviously naturally created in women to help during pregnancy and to protect pregnancy. They give it to women when they are having a miscarriage to try to stop an early miscarriage. So it just makes sense that that drug is also used after the first dose of our U46 is given to induce that miscarriage in an abortion setting. So it is something we've been working on for a couple of years. I feel like we've got some traction this year. And I'm looking forward to seeing how we can get into the hospital. So talk to me a little bit more about that. That's interesting to me. Is that something that is scientifically proven to work to stop this abortion pill from its side effects going into effect in a woman's body? Is that something that you've heard from constituents that they're concerned about? Well, absolutely. I mean, I come from a pro-life district and we're a pro-life state. So anything that we can do in order to protect women from the predatory practice of abortion is a step forward in the state of Iowa. So common sense tells us that if we use progesterone, which is a safe and natural drug that's been used since the 1950s, to stop a miscarriage, the same can be said for a medicated miscarriage, which they call abortion. So a lot of drugs are used for off-label use. We do have a clinic here in the state of Iowa that is using this and it is being touted as being successful. There are doctors all across the country that are using it. There are at least 10 states that have already passed informed consent laws. What it does is it just tells the doctor that if you are prescribing medicated abortion meds, the ability to reverse the abortion may exist. Everybody is different. And then at that point forward, if a woman takes that first dose of the medicated abortion drugs and within a certain time frame, she could go back to her doctor and get progesterone to try to stop that abortion happening. So what a doctor then be required to give this woman progesterone if asked for it? We are going to let the board of medicine set up how that would look and how that would rule. So we will let them direct how they want that prescribed and what that will look like. But at this point, this legislation that is moving forward is the informed consent piece that a doctor has to tell a woman that it does exist. Well, I would be to say there is no science to back up these proposals. Listen to their challenges next. What I spoke to plan parent advocates this week, they told me they are extremely concerned with this type of legislation. Yeah, let me just start by saying that these bills are medically unnecessary and the goal here is to chip away at Iowans right to safe and legal abortion. And we should be not at a way to the point where it could no longer be accessible in Iowa in a short amount of time. The ultimate thing here is that Iowans deserve the ability to exercise their right to make what should be private medical decisions. And you know, plan parent who is proud to provide abortion here and will continue to fight these attempts to chip away at reproductive freedom. But I want to address the bill related to what's so called abortion reversal. And what it actually does is it undermines the informed consent process. It's forcing doctors and abortion providers to give their patients medically unfounded information. And it's dangerous and frankly it's unethical. The key here is that a doctor should stress to patients that they must be certain before proceeding with medical procedure in order to really follow through the informed consent process. And actually this bill undermines informed consent by forcing doctors to provide that misinformation. The other bill related to abortion medication is again at odds with expert medical consensus. And so medication abortion makes abortion available to people that may be lack flexible works schedules or the ability to travel or the ability to find child care. It allows rural Iowans to access abortion in a way that is private. And you know, really, you know, we have health care or excuse me reproductive health care deserts across our state, you know, and this is an opportunity for all Iowans to access abortion care. And this undermines that right. So let's talk about that informed consent bill as they call it, which as we've spoken to representative Lungren about, it requires a doctor to tell a patient that they can reverse a medically induced miscarriage or a medically induced abortion by taking a dress from. Where does that come from? Yeah, you know, it comes from a theory from anti abortion doctors. And so really, you know, in December, let me back up in, you know, December 2019 medical journal of Stedrix and gynecology attempted to address this so called abortion reversal claim. They did a study, a double blind study that was going to hopefully provide some medical fact on this, but they had to stop the study because women's lives were put at risk. And it was deemed too dangerous to proceed with the study. So, you know, there is no evidence, no matter what. medical evidence for this concept that taking progesterone will interrupt a medication or interrupt a medication abortion. Really, you know, what we rely on is the evidence that the two medication protocol for abortion is what works best for patients. And that interrupting that protocol based on these unproven claims by groups who oppose abortion actually puts patients at risk. So what's your message? What do you want people everyday, Iowans to understand when they are hearing this information and you're telling our viewers that this is not backed by science? Ultimately, you know, Planned Parenthood believes that all Iowans should have access to safe and legal abortion if and when they make that decision. Abortion restrictions, whether it's an all out ban or bills like what we see here, when these going to affect, it really just makes it so that people with privilege and means can will find a way around these laws. While far too many Iowans, particularly communities of color, rural folks, women, and people with low incomes will be left with no options at all. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists does not support prescribing progesterone to stop a medical abortion. On the advocacy portion of their website, they have a rather extensive quote, but here's a small portion. Politicians are pushing legislation to require physicians to recite a script. Then a medication abortion can be reversed with doses of progesterone and to steer women to this care. Unfounded legislative mandates represent dangerous political interference and compromise patient care and safety. You're watching this week in Iowa. We'll be right back. [MUSIC PLAYING] Thank you so much for joining us here for this week in Iowa. Don't forget that we also have a podcast. Just search this week in Iowa. Have a great weekend. [MUSIC PLAYING]