They’re about dropping the most controversial proposals at 5:30 a.m., hoping the minority party will finally give in and think, “They’re going to do it anyway. We’re too tired to keep fighting.”

But that’s not how this works.

On days when I suspect a shutdown is coming, I prepare. I wear my Nikes. I bring real food — fruits and vegetables, hoping to avoid fast food and vending machine snacking. I make sure there’s ibuprofen in my desk drawer.

Earlier in the week, I was cleaning out my desk drawer and found three new toothbrushes, a travel-size tube of toothpaste, and some floss. I almost took them home. But something told me to leave them.

I was right.

By the time the marathon stretched on, those small things mattered. I was able to hand out toothbrushes to three of us, toothpaste to four. It’s funny what becomes essential at 3 or 4 in the morning.

That’s the part people don’t always see.

We come prepared with Nikes, snacks, and ibuprofen. We share what we have, things we’ve stashed away over the course of a session, sometimes over years of serving.

Because when the hours drag on and the pressure builds, it’s about endurance and solidarity.

One of our newer members said, “This is only my second overnighter, and they are both miserable but also a way to bond with my colleagues.”

And then, at 5:30 a.m., the moment came.

The majority party placed on the agenda a controversial constitutional amendment that would make it extremely difficult to raise income taxes on corporations and the wealthiest Iowans. It felt like a punch to the gut. I wondered: would we cave? Would we decide we didn’t have it in us to keep fighting?

We regrouped.

In caucus, Minority Leader Brian Meyer laid it out clearly: we had two amendments ready — and he asked, “What other amendment ideas do you have?”

So we got to work.

By around 6 a.m., we had filed nine amendments. They were meant to expose the real implications of the proposal. Representatives Dave Jacoby, Angel Ramirez, Aime Wichtendahl, Larry McBurney, and Jennifer Konfrst all stepped up to file, study, and prepare to run them on the floor.

Among them:

• Requiring a supermajority to raise taxes on anyone making less than $1 million a year — while preserving the ability to raise them on corporations and the ultra-wealthy

• Requiring a supermajority to tax food, highlighting the risk that Iowa could shift toward more regressive taxation

• Requiring a supermajority to increase funding for private schools

• Requiring a supermajority for increases on sales taxes, fees, and health care-related taxes

• Even requiring a supermajority to raise legislative salaries or create corporate tax credits

The point was simple: if we are going to lock in barriers to revenue, Iowans deserve to understand exactly what that means.

Behind the scenes, there’s another layer. Every amendment has to go through the Legislative Services Agency (LSA) to be drafted, reviewed, approved, signed, and formally filed. We estimated it would take about two hours.

And all of this was happening while LSA staff, who had already been working for nearly 24 hours, were also drafting major bills for the majority party.

After requesting the amendments, we were still in the caucus room, running on fumes.

That’s when Representative Adam Zabner said, “If anyone wants McDonald’s, text me your order and Venmo me — I’ll go pick it up.”

By then, my healthy food was long gone. I took him up on it.

On the drive home later that day, that moment stuck with me. The simple act of someone making sure we could eat. I hadn’t slept in nearly 48 hours, but it meant a lot.

After eating, I found a few minutes to step away. I went to my car, pulled a jacket over my head, and managed a 20-minute nap. When I came back, I told Representative Angel Ramirez how much better I felt. She laughed and said, “Keep saying that — maybe it’ll make the rest of us feel better too.”

At 11:10 a.m., we finally gaveled back into debate.

In between, time blurred. There were bagels and cream cheese dropped off by Representative Josh Turek. Bits and pieces of the property tax and budget bills started to surface, sparking quiet concern and conversations in the room. Representative JD Scholten had missed some of the overnight hours due to prior obligations, but he showed up Sunday morning ready to help, offering to make food and coffee runs and carry the load while the rest of us were running on empty.

We didn’t win the battle on HJR 11, but we won the messaging. Targeting income taxes will force future legislatures into difficult decisions about how to fund basic services. This amendment does not protect Iowans from tax increases; it only protects them from income tax increases. Furthmore, the last time the income tax was raised was in 1975 and the last time the corporate income tax was raised was in 1982. Since then there have been many reductions to both.

There were many people who spent that night and the next day at the Capitol working: the press, House and Senate caucus staff, doorkeepers, pages. At 8 a.m., when it became clear we had another full day of work ahead, the Chief Clerk’s office reduced the doorkeeper staff to two pages and sent everyone else home.

That’s what these marathon sessions really are.

Exhaustion. Strategy. Small acts of kindness. Moments of doubt — and a few small victories.

See my last newsletter for more on HJR 11

Beth speaking in opposition to the medication abortion bill.

As we look ahead to the FY 2027 budget, Iowa is already facing at least a $1.2 billion revenue shortfall just to maintain a bare-bones budget. We are already struggling to meet basic obligations.

We’ve seen the consequences. To patch a Medicaid shortfall, lawmakers raised taxes on HMOs which is not a long-term solution. Next year we will need to find another source of revenue.

At the same time, critical needs are going unmet.

• We have no dedicated funding for a statewide clean water initiative, even as cancer rates rise across Iowa.

• We are underpaying judges, and fewer qualified applicants are willing to serve which puts a strain on our courts and justice system.

• Our public schools remain underfunded, leaving students, teachers, and communities behind.

And that’s just the beginning. The list goes on.

Now, instead of addressing these challenges, SJR 11 would make it dramatically harder to respond to them.

This proposal would amend the Iowa Constitution to require a two-thirds super majority vote to raise income taxes or create new ones. In practice, that hands veto power to just over one-third of lawmakers regardless of what the majority of Iowans want or need.

SJR 11 creates permanent gridlock.

When the next economic downturn hits or when these existing problems worsen lawmakers won’t be able to act, even if a clear majority agrees on a solution. A small bloc of legislators will be able to block any effort to stabilize the budget or invest in Iowa’s future.

Over the past several years, corporations and the uber rich have already seen significant tax cuts. SJR 11 would cement those decisions into place, ensuring future legislatures cannot revisit them. What happens in the case of the next emergency, natural disaster, pandemic or something we cannot foresee today?

States with similar super majority requirements have faced chronic budget crises, underfunded schools, and crumbling infrastructure. When lawmakers can’t adjust revenue, they are forced into deeper cuts or shift costs onto working families through higher fees and regressive taxes.

This will not lead to lower taxes, just fewer options and fewer tools to govern responsibly.

Alarms should be sounding. SJR 11 would write these restrictions into the Constitution, meaning it would take years and another statewide vote to undo the damage. We would be locking future generations into today’s political decisions, no matter what emergencies lie ahead.

Iowans expect their elected officials to make tough decisions and not avoid them. SJR 11 does the opposite. It ties the hands of future legislatures and shifts power toward a small minority of politicians.

This is not about protecting taxpayers. It is about controlling the future.

Iowa deserves better than political games. SJR 11 is a step in the wrong direction and it’s moving closer to the ballot.

Beth opposing SF 2422 which makes puts up more roadblocks for Iowans to access Medicaid and SNAP.

The HPV is common, and when left unaddressed, it can lead to multiple forms of cancer, including cervical, throat, anal, and other cancers. In Iowa alone, HPV is linked to hundreds of cancer cases each year. Public health officials estimate that more than 80 percent of these cancers are preventable through vaccination.

The HPV vaccine has been widely studied and is strongly recommended by major medical organizations, including the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics. It is most effective when given before exposure to the virus, which is typically in early adolescence.

Supporters of the bill argue that parents should be involved in all medical decisions. But that argument ignores why the current law exists. Iowa already requires parental consent for nearly all vaccines. The existing exception for HPV and hepatitis B was designed specifically to ensure minors can access care related to sexually transmitted infections areas where parents frequently do not communicate well.

There is little evidence that large numbers of Iowa minors are receiving the HPV vaccine without parental involvement. What the data does show is that vaccination rates are still not where they should be. Even in recent years, only about half of Iowa teens have completed the HPV vaccine series, which is well below public health goals.

That gap matters. Lower vaccination rates translate directly into higher cancer risk over time. Medical professionals and cancer prevention advocates have warned that restricting access even incrementally could reverse progress and lead to more preventable cancers in the future.

This bill creates new barriers at exactly the wrong time. Adolescents who cannot safely or comfortably seek parental consent may simply forgo vaccination altogether. Unlike many other health decisions, the window for optimal HPV vaccination is limited. Delays can reduce effectiveness and leave young people vulnerable later in life.

This policy shifts the focus away from prevention and toward restriction. Iowa already faces significant cancer challenges. Reducing access to a proven, safe, and effective cancer prevention vaccine does not solve that problem, it makes it worse.

Lawmakers should be focused on increasing vaccination rates, improving education, clean water, radon mitigation and tobacco cessation, and limiting young people from access to tanning beds. Instead, this bill moves Iowa in the opposite direction of cancer prevention.

When it comes to cancer prevention, the stakes are too high to get this wrong

Front row: Rep. Jenifer Konfrst, Former Rep. Sharon Steckman, Beth. Back row: Reps. Adam Zabner and Aime Wichtendahl. Former Rep Sharon Steckman was visiting for the day!

When I asked how this proposal addressed the systemic failures that led to the starvation deaths of Sabrina Ray and Natalie Finn, her response reflected a broader concern I have heard too often — a sense that responsibility for child safety is diffuse rather than clearly owned.

That moment stayed with me. At the end of the day, this division is responsible for responding to child abuse and neglect reports and overseeing children in state care. When accountability feels unclear, it raises real concerns about whether we are doing everything possible to protect Iowa’s most vulnerable children.

Since then, concerns about accountability have only grown. Senator Tony Bisignano pressed for answers on the Senate floor, asking why the court-ordered task force created to examine these tragedies had not met in over two years and why there were no meaningful records from the few meetings that did occur. Those questions went unanswered.

Two things happened regarding foster care this week. First, the Governor signed SF 2096, which allows the state to waive or reduce the 30-hour training requirement for foster parents based on prior experience or other circumstances. While flexibility may help recruit foster parents, training is essential preparation for caring for children who have experienced trauma, loss, and instability.

Second, SF 473 was brought to the House floor for debate. The bill:

• Prioritizes the beliefs of foster and adoptive parents over the needs of children in state care

• Expands legal rights and creates new litigation risk

• Introduces broad, unclear language that could affect how children are raised in foster homes

• Limits the state’s ability to ensure placements meet a child’s full needs

Representative Aime Wichtendahl and I offered an amendment to require the court-ordered task force to reconvene and report its findings and recommendations back to the legislature before the next session. Shortly after, SF 473 was pulled from the debate calendar and has not returned.

I have serious concerns about weakening protections for children in state care when we have not yet addressed the failures that cost lives. A recent article in the Cedar Rapids Gazette highlighted continued questions surrounding the inactivity of the Sabrina Ray task force. While new committees and processes may be created, they cannot replace a full and honest examination of past systemic failures.

Sabrina Ray and Natalie Finn did not die because of a lack of laws. They died because the system failed to act. Reports were missed. Warning signs were overlooked. Accountability broke down. Until we fix those failures, we should not weaken safeguards or create new uncertainty in foster care. Here are links to the State Ombudsman’s reports on both deaths if you are interested in more details

Natalie Finn: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/CI/1130515.pdf

Sabrina Ray:https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/CI/1150911.pdf

We owe these children and every child in state care better.

On March 25, I was inducted into the Iowa Pioneer Lawmakers.

These are not state tax dollars. Endowments are private donations from alumni, families, and supporters who expect their contributions to support scholarships, research, and the long-term strength of these institutions. Senate File 2453 blurs that line by requiring universities to invest at least one percent of those funds into state-certified innovation funds.

Across the regents institutions, that adds up to tens of millions of dollars being redirected—not based on investment performance, but based on geography and political priorities. The state is micromanaging how Iowa State, the University of Iowa, and UNI invest their funds, all while attempting to fill a budget gap created by poor fiscal management.

This is a mandate to “invest in Iowa,” whether it is a sound investment or not. It undermines a core principle of endowment management: diversification. Universities invest globally to reduce risk and maximize long-term returns. Limiting investments to a narrow, in-state pool increases exposure and reduces flexibility.

With a tightening state budget, this bill is a way to shift financial responsibility for economic development onto university assets. Instead of making tough budget decisions, lawmakers are effectively saying: let’s use university-connected dollars to stimulate the economy and hope it fills the gap.

But that risk doesn’t disappear—it gets transferred to the long-term stability of these institutions.

The enforcement mechanism makes this even clearer. If universities don’t comply, they face penalties, including the withholding of state appropriations. Institutions are being boxed into less desirable investments under threat of losing critical funding.

There’s also a trust issue. Donors give to universities with the expectation that their contributions will be managed responsibly and used to advance the institution’s mission. When the state steps in and directs how those funds are invested, it risks chilling future donations. Why give if your gift could be redirected by political mandate?

If investing in Iowa innovation funds is truly a strong financial decision, universities already have the authority to do it. The difference is that those choices should be made based on merit and not mandates.

Iowa should support innovation and economic growth. But it should do so transparently, through its own budget and priorities not by reaching into university endowments and reshaping their purpose.

Senate File 2453 sets a dangerous precedent. Today it’s one percent from public university endowments. Tomorrow, it could be more. Once that door is open, it will be hard to close.

Other tax increases being considered this legislative session include a tobacco tax and a fuel tax. Stay tuned.

Working at my desk at the Capitol.

The bill removes a tool of local control: the ability for cities to operate their own public health departments. City health departments would be dissolved; public health decisions would shift away from city governments; and services like infectious disease response and local health programming would be delivered at the county level.

The bill also pushes counties to formalize relationships with hospitals by requiring agreements to share facilities, services, and administrative resources.

If a child care center reports a sudden outbreak of norovirus, a city health department can respond immediately with on-site guidance and containment measures. Under this bill, that response could be delayed while the county prioritizes multiple communities at once.

Targeted programs such as lead testing in older neighborhoods or mobile vaccination clinics could be eliminated if counties lack the resources. Required partnerships with hospitals may also shift attention toward treatment instead of prevention, meaning fewer resources for education and early intervention.

This will weaken local responsiveness, especially in cities that currently operate health departments tailored to their communities.

Library policy overhaul (proposed amendment)

A proposed amendment to this bill would restructure public library governance and restrict minors’ access to books, raising serious concerns about censorship.

Libraries must adopt policies restricting minors’ access to materials deemed inappropriate. Any material containing descriptions or depictions of sex acts would be excluded from what qualifies as age-appropriate.

Parents would have access to their teen’s borrowing activity, approve access to specific restricted materials, and request removal of materials available to their teen. Libraries that fail to comply with these policies risk losing state funding.

Under this amendment, city councils would take direct control over libraries, including authority over budgets, policies, and power to appoint library directors. Libraries would be required to publish detailed policies online, create formal processes for challenging materials, and allow public comment and appeals to elected officials.

Books commonly found in teen sections covering topics such as puberty, mental health, or relationships could be restricted or removed unless parents give permission for each individual title. This is censorship in practice, limiting access to information many young people rely on.

A single complaint about a book could trigger a formal review process, public hearings, and city council involvement, turning routine library decisions into political debates. Libraries will have to spend significant time reviewing collections, tracking parental permissions, and managing challenges instead of running literacy programs, story times, or community events.

If a library is found out of compliance, it could lose state funding. And because parents can access their child’s borrowing records, teenagers may avoid checking out books on sensitive topics like abuse, sexuality, or mental health, cutting off a critical, private source of information.

Once again, this proposal centralizes power, politicizes local institutions, and would limit access to information. Instead of decisions being made by local health professionals and trained librarians, authority shifts to elected officials often further removed from day-to-day community needs.

This bill is eligible for debate in the House but so far is not on a scheduled debate calendar.

League of Women Voters visit the Beth at the Capitol.

House File 2739 raises taxes on health care premiums to plug a growing Medicaid budget hole. By taxing health care premiums, Iowa will draw down $70 million more in federal dollars to cover a shortfall created by privatized Medicaid and years of tax cuts benefiting corporations and wealthy Iowans. Insurance industry representatives have warned that individual premiums will rise under this proposal.

Additionally, HF 2739 raids nearly $300 million from the Taxpayer Relief Fund.

Iowa’s privatized Medicaid system costs taxpayers an estimated $200 to $300 million more each year than a publicly managed Medicaid system would. Instead of saving money, privatization has added administrative costs and profit margins, and now the state is scrambling to cover the difference.

Rather than fixing the underlying problem (privatized Medicaid), this bill shifts the burden onto you. Even then, it is only a temporary fix. Current projections show another Medicaid funding gap emerging by 2028, with no long term plan to address it.

At a time when Iowans are still paying more for groceries, facing high gas prices, and seeing little wage growth, lawmakers are choosing to increase health care costs instead. They continue to defend both the privatized system and years of tax cuts that have reduced state revenue, creating a fiscal squeeze of their own making.

Instead of lowering costs or improving care, this proposal will make health care more expensive. It only solves the problem through FY27. The problem starts all over again in FY28. If we went back to a publicly managed Medicaid system, we would lessen the hole. As Scarlet O’

Hara said “Afterall, tomorrow is another day!”

Iowans deserve a system that works, not one where policy failures are quietly paid for through higher premiums on you.

Ames residents advocating for Constitutional rights.

A wide ranging bill that would reshape several of Iowa’s public assistance programs is moving through the legislature. The proposal would make changes to food assistance, Medicaid, and the Iowa Health and Wellness Plan, programs that help hundreds of thousands of Iowans access groceries, health care, and essential services. The provisions of the bill would tighten eligibility rules, increase verification requirements, and limit how future governors and lawmakers can adjust these programs as needs change.

One part of the bill directs the state to use a federal database called the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to verify immigration status for public benefits. However, federal law already requires eligibility verification for these programs. As a result, it remains unclear what practical change this provision would create beyond current practice.

The bill also includes changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps. Under this proposal, the state would be required to count the income and financial resources of all members of a household when determining eligibility, even if some members of that household are themselves not eligible to receive SNAP benefits.

Here is one example of how this change could affect Iowans. Imagine an adult daughter who works full time and lives with her elderly mother. The mother receives Social Security and earns about $1,100 per month, which qualifies her for SNAP. The daughter earns $3,200 per month. If they buy and prepare food together, SNAP rules consider them a single household. Under the bill, the daughter’s income would be fully counted when determining eligibility. The combined income would push the household above the eligibility threshold, causing the elderly mother to lose her food assistance. Older adults who rely on family support could lose access to help putting food on the table.

Iowa already uses private managed care companies to administer most Medicaid services, but the bill would make it more difficult for future governors to change that model. Earlier this year, the state moved pharmacy benefit management back under state control, a change projected to save approximately $71 million. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Iowa could save between $200 million to $300 million by moving away from privatized Medicaid administration and returning to a publicly administered system. Writing managed care into state law would make it much harder for Iowa to pursue those potential savings in the future.

One of the most significant changes in the bill involves retroactive Medicaid eligibility. Currently, Medicaid can cover medical expenses incurred up to three months before someone applies for the program if they were eligible during that time. This policy exists because many people only apply for Medicaid after experiencing a medical emergency or unexpected hospitalization.

Under the bill, retroactive eligibility would be reduced to two months for pregnant women, children, and nursing facility residents beginning in 2027. For most other adults, the state would be required to seek federal permission to eliminate retroactive coverage entirely. That could leave some patients responsible for medical bills incurred before their application was processed, even if they ultimately qualify for Medicaid. If that happens, who will be responsible for those emergency charges? The hospital? Or the already low income Iowan who needed care in the first place?

Finally, the bill creates new requirements for Medicaid waivers and future coverage expansions. Before proposing changes that expand coverage to additional groups, the Department of Health and Human Services would have to determine whether the proposal is cost neutral. If the proposal would increase state spending, the legislature would need to approve it before the request could be submitted to federal regulators.

At the House subcommittee meeting, we heard from a food assistance advocate who said the SNAP provisions may not even be necessary because federal law, including recent federal legislation, will already override state law. We also heard powerful testimony from families struggling to obtain services for their severely disabled loved ones under Iowa’s privatized Medicaid system.

Their stories highlighted a troubling reality. Many families feel the current system is not working for them. It also raises an important question for lawmakers. If families are struggling to access care under privatized Medicaid, why would we lock that system permanently into state law?

Public assistance programs exist to help Iowans during difficult moments, when a medical crisis strikes, when a parent loses a job, or when an older adult struggles to afford groceries on a fixed income. As lawmakers consider this legislation, we should ask whether these changes make those moments easier for Iowans or harder.

Parents advocating for their children who are on Medicaid. They brought many stories from other parents also.

Under the federal Clean Water Act, states are required to identify “impaired waters” that do not meet basic safety standards. In Iowa, that responsibility belongs to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

When testing shows unsafe levels of fecal bacteria in a waterway, the DNR can place that water on the state’s impaired waters list. That listing is about recognizing there is a problem so that work can begin to fix it and protect Iowans health.

House File 2530 would block that process.

The bill says the DNR cannot list a waterway as impaired due to fecal contamination unless it first determines exactly which animal species caused the pollution. In other words, before we can say the water is unsafe, the state would have to break down how much bacteria came from hogs, how much from wildlife, and potentially other sources. Currently, according to the DNR the science does not exist to make these determinations.

This requirement creates delay and continues to stall our efforts for clean water. This delay has consequences.

Subscribe now

If bacteria levels are unsafe, families deserve to know that before they take the kids to the beach. Clean water efforts should not be put on hold.

This bill shifts the focus from fixing pollution to debating its source. The implication is that wildlife is the source of bacteria contamination in our water, not livestock.

Listing a waterway as impaired does not accuse anyone. It simply acknowledges reality. It opens the door to solutions. Preventing that listing until we have perfect information does not protect Iowans.

For years, Iowans have said they want clean water. Farmers, anglers, business owners, and families all understand that clean water is essential to our health, our economy, and our quality of life. We should be strengthening our ability to identify and address pollution, not weakening it.

House File 2530 does not make our water cleaner. It makes our process slower and raises new hurdles before we can even admit there is a problem.

We cannot fix what we refuse to recognize.

If we are serious about improving Iowa’s water, we must increase our monitoring and address the issues when they are identified. Clean water should not be partisan.

House File 2530 is on the debate calendar for today. I will vote no.

Students from Ames Christian School visit with Beth

A college education opens doors many students never knew were possible. It helps them discover their voice, build confidence, and find a sense of purpose. College challenges students to think critically, engage with people from different backgrounds, and wrestle with complex ideas.

Unfortunately, Republicans have failed to invest in our public universities for years. Since taking control of the House, Senate, and Governor’s office, funding for Iowa’s Regent institutions has consistently lagged behind inflation. When increases have occurred, they have been steered toward narrow, politically favored projects instead of the core academic needs that directly support students—faculty, advising, research, and classroom instruction.

House File 2242 continues this pattern. While it is framed as a feel-good tuition freeze, and while I supported it because students need immediate relief, it strips significant revenue from our universities. A tuition freeze without meaningful state backfill is not a long-term affordability solution. It shifts costs onto institutions and, ultimately, back onto students in less visible ways.

The financial impact is severe. According to the non-partisan Legislative Services Agency, over the five-year freeze Iowa’s public universities will lose:

Iowa State University: $27.9 million
University of Northern Iowa: $11.5 million
University of Iowa: $25 million

That money comes directly out of course availability, advising offices, libraries, labs, and student services. Universities will respond with fewer course offerings, delayed maintenance, reduced academic support, and increased pressure on already overstretched faculty and staff. Students may struggle to graduate on time because required classes are unavailable. Support services for first-generation, rural, and disabled students will be stretched even thinner. Research that drives innovation and economic growth in Iowa will suffer.

If we truly want to make college more affordable, the solution is straightforward: invest public dollars in public education. Tuition restraint must be paired with real state support. Iowa’s students deserve better.

And HF 2242 does not stand alone.

Taken together, the following actions (which are all still alive for debate) represent unprecedented political control over Iowa’s public universities. Students deserve institutions driven by educational excellence—not political agendas.

Political control over what you can learn

• Banning or restricting coursework related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and so-called “CRT,” limiting what faculty can teach and students can study.

• Mandating specific general education requirements, inserting politicians into curriculum decisions traditionally made by academic experts.

• Elevating ideologically driven admissions testing alternatives.

• Imposing politically branded academic “compacts” on Regent universities.

Targeting who gets to attend

• Prohibiting enrollment of certain international students—particularly from China—directly harming research labs, graduate programs, and campus diversity.

• Requiring rigid in-state enrollment quotas in specific programs.

• Allowing vaccine exemptions in medical education while penalizing institutions that uphold public health standards.

Financial pressure that weakens campuses

• Making universities financially responsible for a portion of student loan defaults.

• Imposing new taxes on endowments.

• Tying funding to “performance” metrics that can be shaped by political priorities.

• Denying state tuition grants to private colleges that maintain diversity programs.

Political interference in leadership

• Restructuring presidential search committees to increase political influence over who leads Regent institutions.

• Limiting professional education pathways and restricting access to licensure exams.

Reshaping Iowa’s higher education system

• Overhauling apprenticeship, career academy, and concurrent enrollment programs.

• Allowing community colleges to pilot bachelor’s degree programs, fundamentally altering Iowa’s higher education landscape.

Graph showing how tuition has increased as state support has decreased.

Student from Wartburg visits to discus SNAP legislation.

Dr. Amanda Fales-Williams visiting with two first year students.

“How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.
“Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”
— The Sun Also Rises, Ernest Hemingway

For decades, Iowa was known as a national leader in education. I know that firsthand. I went to school when Iowa was ranked first in the nation under Governor Robert D. Ray. I am a Democrat. He was a Republican. What mattered was that Iowa made education a priority.

Governor Ray understood that strong public schools were the backbone of our state. During the 1970s and 1980s, Iowa significantly increased the state share of school funding and worked to equalize resources across districts so that a child’s ZIP code did not determine opportunity. State aid increases during that era frequently outpaced inflation and enrollment growth, allowing districts to expand programming, maintain reasonable class sizes, invest in teachers, and plan with stability. Education was treated as a long-term investment in Iowa’s people and economy, not as a budget obligation to be minimized.

That bipartisan commitment built something extraordinary. Iowa rose to the top of national rankings because the state made a conscious decision to fund excellence.

Today, the contrast is stark.

A 2.25 percent increase in school funding does not outpace inflation. It barely keeps up, and in many districts it does not even do that. Actual cost growth in wages, health insurance, utilities, transportation, special education services, and state and federal compliance requirements routinely exceeds 3 to 5 percent annually. When Supplemental State Aid is set at 1.75 percent, 2.00 percent, or even 3 percent, districts are forced into structural deficits. Over time, those gaps compound.

Read the articles about cuts in Boone, Cedar Rapids, and Des Moines Public Schools. Underfunding schools means:

• Larger class sizes

• Fewer course offerings

• Reduced extracurricular opportunities

• Deferred maintenance

• Greater strain on teachers

• Fewer resources devoted to workforce readiness programs that connect students to careers

Public schools educate the overwhelming majority of Iowa’s future workforce. When funding fails to match real costs, it directly limits programming, staffing stability, career preparation pathways, and student opportunity.

At the same time, K-12 schools face legislation that could further destabilize the profession. House Study Bill 682, now HF2512, would give the Board of Educational Examiners authority to deny or revoke teaching licenses for certain public expressions made outside the classroom. While intended to protect public trust, many education advocates warn it could chill teachers’ free speech and make recruiting and retaining educators even more difficult in an already tight labor market.

When Governor Ray led this state, Democrats and Republicans agreed that strong public schools were essential. Funding reflected that belief. If we are serious about becoming first again, we must return to that bipartisan understanding that education is a long-term economic strategy.

Iowa did not lose its standing overnight. It happened gradually. A funding increase here that did not meet real costs. A program cut there. A teacher who left and was not replaced. A little less investment each year.

But decline never stays gradual forever.

If we continue to underfund our schools and destabilize the profession, the consequences will be sudden and undeniable. Classrooms without teachers. Programs gone for good. Businesses unable to find the skilled workforce they were promised. Communities asking how we let something so strong erode so quietly.

We once chose to lead. We once chose to invest. We once chose to be first.

We can choose that again.

Or we can keep telling ourselves 2.25 percent is enough, and wait for “suddenly.”

John Klaus and Ed McCracken from Ames visited.

Ames High School Political Action Club visited the Capitol.

House Republicans are advancing two bills, HSB 704 and HF 2332, that expand government control over private medical decisions and insert politics directly into the exam room.

HSB 704 tightens state control over medication abortion and exposes physicians to discipline for providing evidence-based care. When Republicans rewrite medical definitions and include ambiguous judgments about intent, it does not improve safety but creates fear. Doctors will consult attorneys instead of acting swiftly to save lives. Patients face delays.

Medication abortion has been used safely for decades and is backed by major medical organizations. HSB 704 does not reflect a medical crisis. It reflects a political agenda that makes access harder, especially for women in rural Iowa who already struggle to find care.

HSB 704 passed out of subcommittee and committee on Thursday, February 12.

HF 2332 goes even further.

HF 2332 declares that life begins at conception. That single sentence carries enormous legal consequences. By redefining a fertilized egg as a full legal person, the bill opens the door to sweeping and unpredictable outcomes.

It puts in vitro fertilization (IVF) at risk because IVF involves the creation and storage of embryos. If every embryo is treated as a legal person, what happens to unused embryos? What happens to families struggling with infertility?

It threatens certain forms of contraception, particularly those that prevent implantation. If the law treats conception as the legal beginning of life, common birth control methods would be restricted.

HF 2332 imposes an extreme penalty: life in prison without parole. Life without parole — for conduct tied to pregnancy outcomes. Even if supporters claim that prosecution would be limited to providers, the plain language creates chilling consequences across the entire medical community.

When criminal law replaces medical judgment, doctors hesitate. In complicated pregnancies such as miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and severe fetal abnormalities, hesitation can mean hemorrhage, infertility, or death. We have seen in other states what happens when providers wait until a patient is at the brink of collapse before intervening because they fear prosecution.

This bill is gambling with women’s lives.

A subcommittee is scheduled for HF 2332 on Tuesday, February 17 at 8:30 am in Room 103.

These bills take control of your visit to the doctor’s office:

• Control over whether a woman can make her own medical decisions.

• Control over how doctors practice medicine.

• Control over fertility treatment.

• Control over contraception.

Iowans believe in limited government and personal responsibility. HSB 704 and HF 2332 contradict both values. They assume women cannot be trusted. They assume families facing infertility cannot be trusted. They assume physicians cannot be trusted.

Instead of criminalizing care, we should be strengthening maternal health, expanding access to prenatal services, protecting rural hospitals, and supporting families with childcare and paid leave.

These bills do not make Iowa safer. HSB 704 and HF 2332 move Iowa backward. We should reject them.

Don Wirth visiting me at the Capitol this week.

Local control is a principle many Iowans claim to support: Decisions should be made closest to the people they affect. Recent actions in the legislature suggest that principle is being applied selectively.

In 2025, the Iowa Legislature removed gender identity protections from the Iowa Civil Rights Act, stripping transgender Iowans of anti-discrimination protections in housing, employment, credit and public accommodations.

In response, the Ames City Council took action to protect residents locally. On a 5–1 vote, the council directed staff to draft an ordinance to add gender identity as a protected class under the city civil rights law. Under the proposal, the city would investigate discrimination based on gender identity and set local penalties, and incorporate voluntary mediation into the process.

This local move reflects a community judgment that all residents deserve fair treatment and that cities have the legal authority to extend protections beyond the state. City Attorney Mark Lambert noted the Iowa Civil Rights Act allows local governments to enact broader protections, even when state law does not include them.

At the same time, the Legislature is considering whether VEISHEA should return to Ames. As a native of Ames, I have fond memories of the parade, cherry pies, plant sales and more. I also have memories of waking up on a beautiful VEISEA weekend to the sounds of rioting from my south of campus home. Rather than respect the community’s decision to end the event after successive years of safety challenges, lawmakers have directed the Board of Regents to study the feasibility and impact of reinstatement. That study will come back to legislative committees later this year.

These two actions expose a troubling contradiction.

When a community steps up to protect vulnerable residents, the state restricts it. When a community decides to end a large event for public-safety reasons, the state steps in to reconsider. That is not local control — it is selective interference.

Ames has shown it can make responsible, difficult choices. It chose to end VEISHEA when it could no longer be managed safely. It is now choosing to extend protections where state law no longer does. Local control means respecting those decisions, not overriding them based on political winds in Des Moines.

If Republicans believe in local control, they must apply that principle consistently. Trust cities and counties when they act to protect their residents, and trust them when they decide what their community events should look like. Anything less is state interference — not local control.

At moments like this, silence is not an option. I was honored to speak at the Power to the People rally in Ames on January 10, and to attend a cold vigil in memory of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. These gatherings were reminders that civic engagement and collective grief are often intertwined and it is important to gather with those who share your values. I encourage you to do so also.

As a member of the Iowa House Public Safety Committee, I am watching House File 2041. This bill would require local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration authorities regardless of local laws and priorities, constitutional concerns, or the impact on community trust. I believe this is a dangerous path. Public safety and civil rights are inseparable. Policies that instill fear in entire communities do not make us safer; they make cooperation with law enforcement harder and erode trust. The scheduled subcommittee meeting for HF 2041 was canceled. I will continue to monitor this bill closely and will oppose it if it moves forward.

Never did I imagine a moment when our courts would be stacked so clearly in favor of presidential power, or when the legislative branch would so readily surrender its role as a check on that power. Even more troubling is the inconsistency we are witnessing—particularly from those who have long claimed to defend constitutional freedoms, yet now argue that certain rights should depend on political ideology.

Recent enforcement activities in Minneapolis have intensified these concerns. Reports of immigration actions occurring in residential neighborhoods, near schools, and during traffic stops have alarmed residents and local officials alike. Accounts of families separated and individuals detained without due process protections are disturbing. If accurate, these actions fall far short of the standards of fairness, humanity, and accountability we should expect from our government.

These concerns were echoed by a Republican candidate for governor who recently withdrew from his race, citing a crisis of conscience. In his statement, he described hearing from community members, including Asian and Hispanic law enforcement officers, who reported being stopped or detained based on the color of their skin.

When federal agencies operate without transparency or accountability, public trust erodes. That erosion places everyone at greater risk.

As your state legislator, I remain committed to opposing HF 2041, speaking out, supporting evidence-based violence-prevention strategies, and upholding due process and the rule of law. I am heartbroken and angry—but not hopeless. I will continue fighting for a community where everyone can live safely, with dignity, and without fear.

First, may we have a moment of silence for Renee Good. (added today: Now we need a moment of silence for Alex Pretti).

Thank you. I am BWK, state representative from Ames. Again, thank you for showing up today.

The president of the United States is running Venezuela to steal their natural resources. He is also looking at Columbia, Cuba, Mexico, Canada and Greenland. He is serious! I am envisioning gold lettered signs all over the world which state “Property of Donald Trump!”

Congress has ceded all power to the president. The Republican majority has refused to challenge him. The People’s power rests in our elected officials and if they have given up, our job is to show up and demand that the power be returned to the people.

Since early September the President has bombed at least 26 small civilian boats near Venezuela. After the first strike, two Venezuelans were holding onto the remains of the boat…holding on for dear life. Under Pete Hegseth’s orders to “kill them all” our military struck again. Where is the investigation into war crimes?

Where is our moral compass?

The president has offered no proof that these boats were carrying illegal drugs or that these small craft were heading to the US.

This undeclared war with Venezuela is to enrich Trump.

Let me move to what is happening in Minnesota. Fresh in all of our minds is the tragic shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis this week.

“I’m not mad at you” were the last words Renee said before an ICE agent shot her in the head three times. She said those words calmly with no threat in her voice or expression. She was smiling.

Let me be clear:

No matter the circumstances of her violent death, we should all be in mourning. Renee Good was just 37 years old and a mother. The officers involved should be on administrative leave until the conclusion of a thorough investigation.

However, as to be expected by this incompetent administration, the President, Vice President and Secretary of Homeland Security all declared Renee Good a domestic terrorist and the officers were only doing their jobs. No investigation. Despite what we all saw on multiple videos. Where is the justice for Renee?

It is hard to keep up with the bad news today. As soon as we learn about one disaster, something else occurs to deflect our attention.

I have some good news!

• polls show 75% of Americans oppose the use of military force for regime change in Venezuela

• The President is defending his majority in Congress and his approval rating is already under water.

• According to polls, Trump has gone too far in deporting law-abiding undocumented immigrants. Just yesterday, ICE violently arrested 2 US citizens who were working at Target in Minneapolis. Not violent undocumented criminals…law abiding US citizens.

• Other good news: There is a lot of interest in running for office. We have Democratic Primaries in all 4 Congressional districts and the US Senate race.

• In the Iowa House, we’ve found candidates in 77 of Iowa’s House districts. Our leadership has traveled the state searching for candidates who would represent these districts well.

• Democrats have OVERPERFORMED in all of the 6 special elections held in Iowa this year.

What can you do?

Keep showing up and work to turn things around!

Choose a candidate to help.

• Send them a check large or small….every $1 helps….People hate talking about money but we can’t win without it!

• offer to make phone calls,

• host a fundraiser,

• go doorknocking.

• Write postcards. Barb Wheelock has a postcard writing campaign and would love more writers. Her email is bjwheels@gmail.com

In order to flip a red district to blue we must knock on 10,000 doors and we have candidates who have already started.

We can turn things around with your help. Keep the faith and keep showing up! Let’s return power to the people! Thank you!

This week the Health and Human Services Committee had a presentation from two Johnston residents who have too much personal experience with cancer. They have joined forces to create a public/private partnership to pay for cancer detection. Their goal is to make sure that everyone has access to free cancer detection. They had examples of communities where similar programs have been created. When asked how an uninsured person who receives free detection would get treatment, they assured us that the same program would pay for the treatment.

I appreciate the work that these two men are doing. My preference would be to make sure that everyone in Iowa had affordable and quality health insurance and that our health care system was plentiful and accessible to all Iowans. I agree that cancer detection is important but so is prevention, detection and treatment of cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, auto immune diseases, etc.

Cancer is a growing concern in Iowa; we are the only state in the nation with a growing cancer rate. We have the second highest incidence of cancer second only to Kentucky and Kentucky’s numbers are going down.

Our approach to Iowa’s cancer crisis must be multifaceted. Detection and treatment of the disease is important and every Iowan should have access.

It must include regulating tanning beds, radon detection and clean-up, cleaning up coal ash, and reducing tobacco use. We must also clean Iowa’s waterways!

Iowa Healthy Water Act (IHWA)

Iowa House Democrats proposed the Iowa Healthy Water Act (IHWA). The IHWA will expand cover crops, buffer strips and wetlands. The plan establishes a water monitoring system to track progress and ensure accountability. The results will be public on a statewide monitoring system.

Clean water is important to all Iowans, rural, urban and suburban. As the two men presenting to our Health and Human Services Committee said “Everyone has a cancer story.” It’s time for lawmakers to come together and take action to protect our water, our health, and our future.

The Iowa House Democrat’s plan plan funds $600,000 for a water monitoring system to track progress and ensure accountability through a public, statewide dashboard.

IHWA will triple state funding for Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy from $10 million to $30 million to increase best practices to reduce nitrates including wetlands, buffer strips, bioreactors, and cover crops.

Additionally, the plan establishes tax credits for farmers who implement best management practices that improve water quality.

This new program would provide a $5.00 per acre property tax credit for farms that follow an approved nutrient management plan and adopt practices from the Nutrient Reduction Strategy.

Finally, the proposal offers 0% interest loans for equipment and supplies that improve water quality, encouraging the use of advances in agricultural technology that support precision agriculture, including tools that target weeds directly and reduce chemical use.

Cancer prevention is not just a health care issue—it is a water issue, an environmental issue, and a public policy issue. If we are serious about reversing Iowa’s troubling cancer trends, we must be willing to act upstream, invest in clean water, and protect the health of future generations. The Iowa Healthy Water Act is a meaningful step forward, and it is time for lawmakers to come together and take action to protect our water, our health, and our future.

Subscribe now

ered

This year, the House leadership created a committee to attack higher education. Higher education is a target for the conservative movement. Many within the institutions believed if they bowed to the majority party, they would eventually be rewarded with sustainable revenue from the state. Year after year, higher education has been dealt cuts or status quo funding.

The Iowa House Higher Education Committee advanced bills to create a so-called Center of Intellectual Freedom, to redesign general education requirements for undergraduates, and to completely eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

In short, current leadership won’t be happy until our institutions become conservative think tanks. The discussion has focused on free speech for conservatives . Here is an interesting assessment of the difference between free speech and academic freedom.

Although academic freedom in the United States receives some protection—at public universities—under the First Amendment, free speech is not a good model for understanding academic freedom because

• The First Amendment is premised on an “equality of status in the field of ideas.” All expressions are given equal protection under the law.

• Academic knowledge is premised on an inequality of status between differing ideas. Faculty members routinely reject certain ideas as lesser than others, and train their students to do the same. Without this process of designating certain ideas as less worthy than others, knowledge would not progress.

• Academic freedom does not protect some speech that may be protected by the First Amendment—for example, that which manifests disciplinary incompetence.

• First Amendment rights are focused on the individual.

• Academic freedom rights are regulated by the collective—peers determine what constitutes disciplinary competence.

Source: American Association of University Professors

One of the threats to academic freedom, per the above referenced article is legislative interference. For example, in many states, including Iowa, legislators are pushing legislation that would restrict what can be taught about US history.

In addition to undermining academic freedom and micromanaging higher education, Iowa Republicans have been under-funding it for years. These historically low budget years mean students will be paying more in tuition and receiving less for their investment. Parents dream of their children going to college; this is one of the many pocketbook issues we must address.

We should all be concerned about the damage to higher education both in micromanaging and under-funding. ISU, UNI and U of I are treasures, economic engines, and incredible places for young Iowans to learn and grow. I don’t know what the final number will be for higher education, but all of the proposals so far are too low.

It has been nice to see many people advocating for good government at our community events. I am especially excited to see new faces; people I have not seen at events in the past. The League of Women Voters hosted a forum in early April and again, it was great to see a room full of people with serious questions about the direction our state is moving. Thank you for the tough questions and thank you for demanding answers from all of us. This is how a democracy works and we must continue to participate if we want to maintain the right to participate.

It is important for you to continue to communicate with me and/or your representatives. We need to be held accountable for our votes. For example, Thursday (April 24) we are scheduled to vote on a bill to give $1 billion to large corporations and take it away from the unemployment fund. Stay tuned. We continue to pass controversial bills.

The Budget

Iowans love their public pre-k-12 schools, Iowa State University, University of Northern Iowa and University of Iowa. We value public safety, justice, outdoor recreation, clean water, quality health care, and safe roads and bridges.

For FY 26 the state of Iowa is projected to collect $436 million less than we spent in FY25. Over the past 10 years, we have cut corporate and millionaire personal income taxes to the point that we will not be able to finance our priorities with incoming revenue.

Also, over the last 10 years we have underfunded all of the above mentioned programs and stockpiled around $6 billion. Therefore, we have savings accounts which we will rely on to pay for the shortfall. Unfortunately, the savings will only last so long. It is one time money which will be used to pay for ongoing expenses. This form of budgeting is not sustainable.

According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, Iowa has the second worst performing economy in the country. Iowa’s savings accounts and revenue projections are shrinking.

In addition to spending down our savings accounts, we will also be cutting more services. Where, what, and by how much are the questions we are all asking.

Let me give you an example of what a Republican Dentist/lawmaker told me today. It has been 20 years since dentists have received an increase in Medicaid reimbursements. Most Medicaid recipients go to Iowa City for dental care. The current reimbursement rate only covers 20% of what dentists currently charge for services. This year we are finally offering an increase but it will only be a 3% increase which will not solve the problem. Medicaid recipients need access to dental care.

Session is “scheduled” to end on May 1. The first step in the legislative budgeting process is to receive targets for each budget. We do not have these targets yet. There are eight budget bills: Health and Human Services; Education; Agriculture and Department of Natural Resources; Administration and Regulation; Standings; Justice Systems; Judicial System; Transportation; and Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund. The subcommittees considering these bills quit meeting over a month ago.

Over the next several weeks, the budget will consume most of our legislative time. Please watch for programs that are important to you. I suspect these budget bills will be passed quickly and I would appreciate hearing from you if a program important to you is being cut or underfunded.

Teaching must again be valued as a profession if we are to help Iowa regain its national reputation. Let’s recognize the dedication and achievement of those individuals by rewarding their work. Our goal should be to provide meaningful opportunities for our educators to attract and retain the best and brightest leaders in the classroom.

In 1984, the Iowa Legislature created the Iowa Excellence in Education Task Force. The study from this task force is outdated. We need a new study. This year, I cosponsored HF 812 which would create an Iowa Education Summit. The Summit will be directed to provide information related to the best practices in education, including but not limited to: active learning, differentiated instruction, formative assessment, constructive feedback, and using technology, all while encouraging state, family and community participation.

With recent attacks on our education system, it is hard to remain optimistic about its future. We have seen book bans, private school vouchers, legislated curriculum that promotes inaccurate information, and education funding that does not keep up with inflation. The state has micromanaged social science, math and reading education acting as if legislators know more than educators. GOP legislators have ended diversity, equity and inclusion programs which help all our students navigate an increasingly complex world.

One of my favorite books about education is Normal Sucks by Jonathan Mooney. Mooney is dyslexic and has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. School was never easy for him but he was smart and creative. He eventually made it to college and wanted to study British Literature despite his inability to read fluently. He discovered that most literature has been performed and recorded and there are more ways to learn than to actually read a book. Students today are using their cell phones for more than social media and gaming. They are important educational tools. We need to find ways to balance the bad with the good and school districts are working through those challenges locally.

Much of the 1984 report discusses the necessity of defining the roles of state and local governments in education. For example, most educators acknowledge that cell phones in schools are a problem, and many have implemented policies to restrict student access to cell phones during the school day. Educators and administrators are acutely aware of the need to manage technology. They are also mindful of the benefits technology adds to the classroom. I trust our local school districts to make these decisions on their own. However, a bill requiring school districts to restrict cell phone use in schools statewide recently passed. Schools did not need this bill.

It is time to do a statewide review of our educational system. I offered HF812 as an amendment on a homeschooling bill which did not make it to debate. I will continue to look for other opportunities to work toward restoring Iowa’s reputation as the education state.

But conversely the bill severely restricts what Iowans can eat. The bill states: “Only include healthy food based on necessary nutrition for good health, including but not limited to healthy grains, dairy, meat, eggs, peanut butter and nuts, pasta, rice, legumes.”

It is ridiculous to tell people what they should and should not eat. People eat based on special diets, family traditions, religious traditions, allergies, food sensitivities. We have no business micromanaging the diets of Iowans.

Let me give you an example. I enjoy making bread. You could take nearly any recipe in your box and find ingredients that are not explicitly allowed for SNAP recipients. Below, is my favorite recipe for Oatmeal Bread. Under this bill, Snap recipients would not be allowed to purchase the white flour because I don't’ believe it is considered a healthy grain. Yeast is not explicitly listed as an ingredient you can purchase. Maybe DHHS will put it on the list under the “including but not limited to” category. I doubt that anyone would consider brown sugar as “healthy food based on necessary nutrition for good health” but yeast does not work without sugar. No seasonings are included in the list of foods. Perhaps salt would be allowed under “including but not limited to”. We don’t know.

Beth’s Oatmeal Bread Recipe

Makes 2 loaves

350

30-40 minutes

Combine in large bowl

1 c. quick oats

½ c. whole wheat flour

½ c. brown sugar

1 T. salt

2 T. butter

Pour over:

2 c. Boiling water

Stir to combine

Dissolve:

1 pkg. dry yeast

½ c. warm water

When batter is cooled to lukewarm, add yeast:

Stir in 5 c. white flour

When dough is stiff enough to handle, turn onto a floured board and knead 5-10 minutes. Place in a greased bowl, cover, and let rise until doubled. Punch down and let rise again. Shape into 2 loaves and place in greased loaf pans. Bake at 350 for 30-40 minutes. Cool on rack brushing loaves with margarine for soft crust.

From More-with-Less Cookbook

—------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My point in sharing the recipe is to show the absurdity of telling people what they can purchase on SNAP. I will agree that sugar is not healthy but it is necessary for many of us. I challenge you to choose a favorite recipe in your box and try to buy the ingredients under this definition.

SNAP already has restrictions on what can be purchased. This bill goes too far. Iowans who use SNAP purchase very similar groceries to what you and I purchase. They purchase about as many fruits and vegetables as you and I. They also might purchase a cake mix for a birthday celebration. Again, it is ridiculous to micromanage people’s diets. People do best when they have the freedom to make their own food decisions.

When the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) gets cut, kids go hungry. When funding for school meal programs gets cut, kids go hungry. When Medicaid gets cut, a child’s health suffers. Kids are being harmed by reckless ideological policy changes and budget cuts. Children don’t learn when they are hungry. Hunger leads to behavior and learning issues.

A study by the Mid-Iowa Community Action (MICA) states the top challenge for families today is accessing food. Stagnant wages are unable to keep up with the rising food costs.

Children deserve better. Without that position as a foundation for discourse in the way we vote, where does that leave us?