Oh, what a relief it is

Let's face it. Some bills before the Iowa Legislature stink. So it's kind of a relief when they're flushed away and nobody has to think about what to do with this awful legislation anymore. Lawmakers just finished "Funnel Week," which eliminated a long list of bills from consideration. The Funnel is the deadline for most legislation to clear at least one House or Senate committee. Among those that didn't make it are a bunch purely designed to push a political agenda, largely proposed by Republicans in the House. For example, a measure to ban most abortions. If it became law, the legislation would have been immediately challenged. Plenty of states have placed restrictions on abortion. But opponents would like to make a broad challenge to abortion with the hope of overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized it. An Iowa Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage is the reason for another bill which would have changed the process of choosing judges in Iowa. Other bills would have allowed businesses to deny services to people due to religious beliefs, required drug testing for welfare recipients and eliminated the requirement to get a permit for carrying a handgun. The first two would have been laws that promoted hate and fear, writing discrimination into our legal code. The handgun proposal is part of a continuing push by the gun lobby. Proponents suggest the only way to understand the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution is to erase every regulation and restriction related to gun ownership. They have been successful with a law that went into effect taking away a sheriff's discretion in approving gun permits. I don't buy the argument that requiring a permit to carry a handgun is in any way infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

Justice-hating freedom fighters?

Bob Vander Plaats is using a little spin to sell the idea behind his organization Iowa For Freedom. He is campaigning against the three Iowa Supreme Court justices who are up for retention because they were part of the unanimous 2009 decision that legalized gay marriage in the state. His outrage  against the justices is fueled by a belief that the courts overstepped their bounds with the ruling. Vander Plaats wants to punish the justices for their role in redefining marriage, which he deems as "judicial activism." Still, he says the campaign is about freedom, not marriage. The opportunity to vote out the justices may essentially be a "check and balance" on the courts, as Vander Plaats suggests. But he seems to ignore the larger system of checks and balances between the legislative, judicial and administrative branches of Iowa's government. An independent judiciary --- free to make interpretations of the state's laws and constitution --- is a vital part of that. He'd like the courts to restrain themselves from all that freedom and just base their rulings on laws the Legislature approves and governor signs. That rubber-stamp approach eliminates their role as a check and balance on the other branches of government. The group really only advocates greater freedom for one person: the governor. They'd like to reform Iowa's system for appointing justices by eliminating the commission that is central to the process. Instead, Iowa For Freedom says the governor alone should make the choice.