Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.
A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.
The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.
The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.
An attempt by state Rep. Chris Hagenow, R-Windsor Heights, to exclude same-sex couples from a domestic violence bill is drawing outrage from the state’s largest gay-rights organization.
The Des Moines Register reported Wednesday afternoon that Hagenow attempted to amend Senate File 2357, which prohibits a person subject to a protective order or who was convicted of domestic violence from possessing a gun. His amendment essentially would define marriage as between one man and one woman using a portion of Iowa law that the Iowa Supreme Court struck down t last year when it legalized same-sex marriage.
Hagenow’s argument was that the law the court struck down was still on the books.
From The Register:
Hagenow, after the vote, said his intention was to push the legislature to address the issue rather than deny same-sex couples protection from domestic abuse. Same-sex couples would still be protected from being assaulted, he said.
“I think it was just an attempt to reaffirm that” Iowa law “is still on the books and the legislature has still neglected to address the issue,” Hagenow said.
LGBT advocacy group One Iowa called Hagenow’s attempt “shameful.”
“Shame on Rep. Chris Hagenow for playing politics with the domestic abuse bill,” the group said in a statement. “Seeking to exclude married gay couples from equal protections is unconscionable.”
The amendment was ultimately ruled to be not germane to the bill, and thus, not eligible for discussion.
Follow Jason Hancock on Twitter
Do you know where to vote on Election Day? Do you know what to bring with you? Get comprehensive voter information for your state here.
Sign up for our email newsletter