Des Moines anti-abortion activist Dave Leach appears in one of a series of Web videos arguing that killing doctors who perform abortions is justified, and that judges should allow the theory to be argued in court.

Shelley Shannon, who is serving time at the Federal Correctional Institution in Waseca, Minn., for shooting and wounding Tiller outside his clinic in 1993, sent Des Moines anti-abortion activist Dave Leach an e-mail to give to the press Tuesday. In it, she decried the judge’s decision to instruct the jury that it would not be allowed to to consider any lesser charges than first-degree murder.

Roeder shot and killed Tiller last May. He openly admitted to the crime in order to use the necessity defense, which says it is permissible to commit a crime if it stops a greater harm.

Leach drafted the necessity defense legal brief for Roeder, who was planning to argue he killed Tiller to stop him from performing abortions. Legal experts said because abortion is legal, the defense was not possible, and if allowed, would open the door to violence against abortion providers. Ultimately, the judge agreed.

“The claim was made that if Scott had been allowed to use the true defense of his actions, it would lead to more abortionists being killed,” Shannon said in her e-mail. “I believe Scott’s judge was influenced by that and other media/pro-abort pressure to change his mind and not allow Scott his defense. Abortionists are killed because they are serial murderers of innocent children who must be stopped, and they will continue to be stopped, even though Scott didn’t get a fair trial. May God bless Scott for his faithfulness and brave actions and stand.”

Leach, who publishes a newsletter that advocates the doctrine of justifiable homicide in the case of abortion doctors, said the defense should have been allowed since “Scott Roeder had no quarrel with George Tiller other than his commission of infanticide.”

“God indicated what he thought the trial was about by arranging for it to begin on the 37th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade,” Leach said. “God is relevant, and what he commands is legal, though the whole world opines otherwise.”

Before the trial began, Leach said it was disingenuous to argue that using the necessity defense in this case would lead to more violence. The fear of violence from anti-abortion activists would end abortion, thus end the need for violence to stop them, Leach argued.

“Let’s get real here: the 60,000 notches on Tiller’s scalpel of whom he boasted on his Web site constitute ‘violence.’ Anything that reduces abortion reduces ‘violence,’” he said. “But my vision is to reduce all the violence: against babies and against abortionists. Abortionists will be unemployed, but safe”

As The Iowa Independent reported last week, mental health care advocates were upset that language removing protections for psychiatric medications purchased through Medicaid was included in the state reorganization bill. It was later discovered the language first emerged in a consultant’s report to the governor. They argued that the changes would result in small short-term savings but far greater long-term costs and unnecessary human suffering.

In light of their concerns, the Iowa Senate amended the bill Monday night, grandfathering in current patients receiving state assistance and adding a buffer period where patients can get medications while waiting for a state waiver.

“We are very pleased that the language was amended by the Senate for the consumers that rely on the Medicaid program for their psychiatric medications,” said Margaret Stout, executive director of the Iowa chapter of National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI).

An amendment to the nearly 300-page government reorganization bill was co-sponsored by Sens. Jack Hatch, D-Des Moines, and David Hartsuch, R-Bettendorf, two legislators who are not only from separate political parties but from vastly differing ideological perspectives. Their amendment specifically says that NAMI and other mental health patient organizations should and will have a voice in future policy development.

“Because these drugs have significant impact on disabled individuals, we allowed NAMI to be invited to participate in the rulemaking authority — which they could normally, of course, but we wanted to specifically invite them,” Hatch said while introducing the amendment.

Hartsuch acknowledged to his fellow senators that policy decisions regarding psychiatric medications should be as open as possible due to their impact on society.

“I think we all agree that those individuals with mental health problems be able to get their medications in a very expedited fashion, and I believe this amendment brings input from the mental health community in a manner that it should,” said Hartsuch, a Scott County Republican.

The amendment was approved by voice vote, and no dissenting votes could be heard in the chamber.

“This is one of the first times that I’m aware of in Iowa that actually allows for direct consumer/family input into the decision of psychiatric medication formulary for mental illness treatment for the Medicaid population,” Stout said. “It goes without saying that we are very pleased. Quite frankly, the consumer/family voice is missing in most areas of medication formularies for mental health care that is delivered in our state.”

A bill now requires the state to continue to pay for medications of any Medicaid mental health patient that had a drug regiment in place prior to Jan. 1, 2011, the effective date of the changes, regardless of whether the prescribed drug appears on the preferred or non-preferred list. Although previous language was rigid, requiring every manufacturer of psychiatric medications to enter into a rebate program with the state or have its medications automatically placed on the non-preferred list, new language provides greater flexibility in this area.

“The purpose [of adding more mental health drugs to the preferred drug list] is to save public money without undermining the availability of mental health medications for people receiving Medicaid,” said Roger Munns, spokesman for the Iowa Department of Human Services. “We know that some people worry about losing drugs that they believe are working, which is why we support the amendment to grandfather current prescriptions. The change would apply only to new prescriptions.”

Legislators also allowed physicians to prescribe a 7-day supply of mental health medications while awaiting prior authorization from state authorities, and made direct note that if an “approval or disapproval is not received by the physician or other prescriber within 48 hours of the request, the request is deemed approved.”

Munns previously told The Iowa Independent that the process for obtaining prior approval was not cumbersome, and often took less than two hours. Advocates, however, cautioned that the process could become more intense and labor-intensive as more medications lost their existing waiver and were placed on non-preferred status by the state. Due to the direct language of the bill, both mandating that mental health advocates have a seat at the policy table along with state agencies and automatically issuing approval if the process is lengthy, it is much less likely that budget constraints will dictate access to these medications.

State officials have estimated that roughly $400,000 in yearly savings could be obtained by eliminating an existing waiver and subjecting psychiatric medications to preferred and non-preferred drug lists. Medications for the treatment of cancer, organ transplant and HIV/AIDS will continue to be granted a waiver and will not be placed on preferred drug lists by the state.

The amended bill now goes before the Iowa House where it could face additional scrutiny and changes. If so, it will come back before the Senate for re-approval before being sent to the governor’s desk.

Cedar Rapids Gazette columnist Todd Dorman got the opportunity to sit down with former Gov. Terry Branstad to talk about his return to politics, covering subjects from same-sex marriage to “the confrontational right” to the size of government.

Branstad, who’s had trouble winning over social and religious conservatives since unofficially entering the gubernatorial campaign last October, clarified his position on a constitutional convention, saying it’s an option but he isn’t advocating it to overturn the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage. He believes the proper way to deal with it would be to amend the state’s constitution.

From Dorman’s column:

What is it about gay and lesbian marriage that you’re not comfortable with?

“Well, it’s got to do with the whole structure of the American society. And, uh, a lot of people say when other ancient societies have gone this direction, it was the beginning of the end of their society. Because, the building blocks of really having stable culture is really having one man, one woman marriage. So I think that is an important part.

“Even children who grow up in a stable relationship where they have both a father and a mother are more likely to succeed, not to say single parents can’t raise children that end up being successful, but the, if you look at anything, juvenile delinquency, teenage pregnancy, just about any factor, drug abuse whatever, is less likely to occur if you have a stable, what we call normal home situation where you have a father and a mother to nurture the children.”

Branstad then more or less came out in support of civil unions for same-sex couples, saying he has no problem “with people that want to live together and raise a child and things like that,” it’s just not marriage. He also took the opportunity to attack his chief rival, Bob Vander Plaats, saying his idea to overturn legalized same-sex marriage with an executive order is not plausible since a governor is not a “dictator.”

The entire interview is well worth a read, as it’s the most in-depth look at Branstad since he joined the race.

The Cedar Rapids Gazette reports that House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Shomshor, D-Council Bluffs, re-assigned the bill, House File 807, to a subcommittee Wednesday. While Democratic leadership has said the legislation is probably not going anywhere this session, the move to assign the bill to committee has rattled those opposed to the changes, including Ed Failor Jr. of the Iowans for Tax Relief.

From the Gazette:

Assigning the bill, which was approved by Ways and Means last year, to a subcommittee might be procedural, he said, “but that’s the first thing that has to happen to take away Iowans’ right to deduct their federal taxes.”A year ago, Failor added, leaders said ending federal deductibility wasn’t on their agenda, but they made a run at it.

“So we have to be on guard and assume that’s what’s going to happen this year,” he said.

Failor’s group led an all out assault on the legislation during the 2009 session. The Muscatine-based tax watchdog organization aired television and radio ads attacking the plan. Their opposition culminated during a public hearing on the bill, when anyone speaking in support of the legislation was greeted with boos and hisses from the rowdy crowd, organized by Iowans for Tax Relief. The situation got so disruptive that House Speaker Pat Murphy, D-Dubuque, ordered state troopers to clear the public from the chamber.

In addition to ending federal deductibility, which has been described by at least one economist as “an archaic holdover from a long ago time that nobody really knows why it exists anymore,” the Democratic plan would also reduce overall tax rates across the board, increase the tax credits for elderly and blind individuals, increase the amount of the earned income tax credit, and adjusting the eligibility for the child and dependent care tax credit and early childhood development tax credit.

The National Taxpayers Union Foundation has released a survey of Iowa voters that says 77.2 percent want federal deductibility to remain part of the Iowa tax code. The poll, conducted by Iowa-based Victory Enterprises Inc., has a margin of error of 3.42 percent.

The poll stands in stark contrast to another survey conducted last month by Selzer and Associates which found 63 percent of those polled favored changes to Iowa’s tax code that included ending federal deductibility.

Democrats proposed a tax plan last year that would have done just that in addition to lowering the overall tax rate for every citizen. But those making more than $125,000 a year would have begun paying slightly more under the new system, up to $1,400 a year for Iowans making $250,000 or more a year.

Republicans vehemently opposed the changes, with conservative group Iowans for Tax Relief calling the legislation a “tax on a tax.”

Ultimately, the proposal was abandoned, and Democrats have made no mention of rekindling the idea this year.

One of Iowa’s top economists has characterized federal deductibility as “an archaic holdover from a long ago time that nobody really knows why it exists anymore.” Iowa is one of only three state’s that allow residents to write off their federal taxes on state returns.

For the groups that provide services to the state’s most vulnerable populations — from those with disabilities to those most affected by the economic downturn — the hard reality is setting in. Without real leadership in Des Moines more cuts could be inevitable and services could be at risk.

“Historically we have been able to get by with putting our finger in the dike,” explained Dale Todd, a Cedar Rapids resident who serves as chairman of the Iowa Mental Health, Mental Retardation, Developmental Disabilities and Brain Injury Commission. “We’ve seen in the last year that when we plug one hole, another piece pops out. It is becoming apparent to me that we are going to need real leadership to make change happen.

“The problems [emerging now] have been out there, but they are becoming more visible,” he continued. “They’ve always been out there, but now it has gotten to the point that you can’t hide them anymore. It’s obvious that things are happening, and that social services for those with disabilities or those in need of assistance are taking some hits — hits that we really can’t afford because we have a moral and ethical obligation as Iowans to make sure that we do the best we can to help the folks that need help the most.”

Organized groups like the commission Todd leads attempt to speak on behalf of and advocate for safety net policies for segments of society not in a position to hire lobbyists or personally rally at the statehouse.

“One of the problems, at least in my eyes, is that when it comes to mental health issues there really seems to be no unified voice that can speak to the degree that other special interest groups speak,” he said. “I’m the father of a kid with a disability and, I’ll be honest, when we meet as a group — those folks that provide care for someone with special needs or those who are coping with mental illness — there simply isn’t a lot of political clout in that room when you compare it to a room filled with lobbyists for the insurance companies or other special interest groups.”

Lutheran Services in Iowa is one of the state’s largest nonprofit human service agencies that provides preventative care, crisis intervention, education and outreach to tens of thousands of Iowans. According to Amy Juhnke, director of marketing communications, the organization’s total revenue and support stream was $34.4 million prior to budget cuts mandated by Gov. Chet Culver. More than 90 percent of the money it receives comes from payment for the services it provides, and roughly 8 percent is received through donations.

“I want you to know that we have amazing donors,” Juhnke said. “We have been able to, even during these economic times, increase our donations this year over last year. That’s amazing, but it is not enough to cover the reduction in payment rates. And, as we look ahead to the 2010-2011 state budget it is pretty likely that we are going to see another dip.”

Impacting the state’s most fragile

Lutheran Services, like many providers in the state, receives its payments through the Iowa Department of Human Services, an agency that is the heart of most safety net programs. Roger Munns, a department public information officer, said the department has “bent over backwards to provide the needed cuts in a way that would least impact the state’s most fragile.”

The department was able to lessen the impact of mandated cuts during this fiscal year by shifting funds, including monies earmarked for next year. Despite the fact that Iowa already has one of the lowest Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates in the nation, the department has also decided to reduce the rate it pays local providers in an attempt to keep as many Iowans as possible with health and other coverage.

The DHS, like most state agencies, elected not to fill existing employment vacancies, but still had to terminate more than 50 employees, Munns said. The agency also made other “basic” reductions, such as limited travel, and streamlined department duties and oversight.

The governor’s office also intervened and was able to offer certain programs a 50 percent backfill from the originally mandated reductions, Munns said, adding: “The legislature could decide that there is something so out of proportion that they must act to rectify the situation, but the truth is that not very many [of the cuts already made] will be visited again. What we do want to stress is that, despite the cuts, all eligible people will receive full benefits. The criteria hasn’t changed and the benefits haven’t changed. If you need help and you are eligible, you’ll receive the benefits.”

At least for now, full benefits do remain available through Lutheran Services and other providers because they are continuing to offer those services despite payment decreases. Exactly how long they can continue to operate in that fashion, or, more aptly, how long the same level of service can be provided, is one of the big unknowns these groups face.

“As far as gaps in services go, we worry about that every single day,” Juhnke said, noting that nonprofits in general and LSI in particular has become very good at filling such gaps. “But when your financial resources get slimmer and slimmer how much can you continue to do? We absolutely are worried about the children that won’t have access to certain services — and we don’t just treat the child. When we have a child in one of our residential treatment programs, for instance, it is a family approach. We are bringing those families on campus and teaching them how to deal with situations and environments. So not only will that child not be getting services, it could be the entire family.”

In order to continue to offer a full range of services, LSI has cut internal expenses, including letting go of its paid lobbying staff, a move that could have ramifications on future funding.

“We continue to have organizations like the Coalition for Children and Family Services in Iowa, but they have to make their priorities and can’t advocate on behalf of or watch over all the programs,” Juhnke said. LSI will continue to hold its once-a-year rally day at the statehouse and legislative advocacy forums at service sites throughout the state.

“We invite legislators to come in, and we try to communicate directly with local legislators,” she said. “We need all the organizations, and not just LSI to do that. … When someone isn’t talking about this, we aren’t the squeaky wheel.”

Todd agrees, and believes it will come down to “how much political muscle” the organizations can muster.

“Talking about a mental illness or taking care of someone with a behavioral health issue is a often very personal, complex and delicate,” he said. “But now more than ever, we need to be able to talk about these issues with members of our legislature and the people responsible for the decisions that impact our loved ones.”

Revenue problem

According to a December survey commissioned by nonpartisan Iowa Fiscal Partnership, six out of 10 Iowans favor using some tax and fees mix in an effort to resolve the state’s current budget crisis, with 51 percent favoring a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases. Charles Bruner, executive director of the affiliated Child & Family Policy Center, said this means that “voters understand the state budget includes both spending and revenues, and that we need to address both to meet our challenges.”

Taking a balanced approach to the budget crisis by addressing both revenue and expenditures is one that not only makes sense to Peter Fisher, research director at the Iowa Policy Project, but one that he believes can help stem the flow of revenue away from programs viewed as necessary by the majority of residents.

“One of the things that we’d like to see is the maintenance of services to people who are already hurting because of the recession — those who have lost their job and fallen into poverty,” Fisher said. “It will be difficult to to continue to serve those groups because the demands for social services and child care are going to go up as the recession drags on.”

In the past year, according to figures from the Iowa Department of Human Services, the number of residents seeking assistance through the Family Investment Program has blossomed. Of the current enrollment of roughly 17,000 Iowans, which is higher than even one year ago, most of those new to the program have never previously needed public assistance.

“We’ve had cuts two years in a row and everybody is saying that this year will be even worse,” Fisher said. “It is hard to see how we are going to get by without further cuts unless the legislature shows some willingness to do something on the revenue side in closing loopholes and cutting tax credits. I’m optimistic that they will do something to rein in that part of the budget. Hopefully that will patch some holes in other parts of the budget where the expenditure cuts might be coming, but that remains to be seen.”

Both Todd and Juhnke want to be clear that they understand the financial realities faced by the state, and that they also understand that legislators can’t appropriate what they don’t have. They are also cautiously optimistic that the inability by some groups to have a consistent presence at the statehouse won’t place them at a disadvantage during the budgeting process. Todd, specifically, says he will be asking Culver to show leadership on this issue.

“It is like a stool with four legs — organizations and commissions with similar goals, the department, the legislature and the governor’s office,” Todd said. “All of these entities need to be on the same page. Deep down inside I think that everyone wants to see that we make progress on this issue, but we have not yet reached a consensus on what progress is or how to get there. January will be an interesting month.”

The poll, commissioned by the non-partisan Iowa Fiscal Partnership (IFP), found that 63 percent of those polled favored changes to Iowa’s tax code that would result in three-quarters of Iowans paying lower taxes and an end to a provision that allows state residents to write off their federal taxes on state returns.

Democrats proposed an end to federal deductibility last session in a bill they said would lower the overall tax rate for every citizen. But those making more than $125,000 a year would have begun paying slightly more under the new system, up to $1,400 a year for Iowans making $250,000 or more a year.

Republicans vehemently opposed the changes, with conservative group Iowans for Tax Relief calling the legislation a “tax on a tax.”

Ultimately, the proposal was abandoned.

The poll, which sampled 500 Iowa voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points, also found about six in 10 voters favor some increase in taxes and fees to balance the state’s budget rather than cuts alone.

By almost 4-to-1, voters believe that average-income working Iowans, the working poor and small businesses saw little or no benefit from tax cuts over the last 20 years. By 4-to-1 or more, these respondents believe that those taxpayers — working families making $80,000 or less, and small businesses — pay either the right amount now or more than they should.

“This survey confirms that Iowa voters expect everything should be on the table in dealing with this current budget crisis,” said Charles Bruner, executive director of the Child & Family Policy Center, which along with the Iowa Policy Project makes up IFP. “Voters understand the state budget includes both spending and revenues, and that we need to address both to meet our challenges.”

The State Police Officers Council (SPOC) has agreed that its 640 members will take five furlough days during the remaining 7 months of FY2010, a move that will create approximately $847,435 in savings.

The state would also suspend contributions to a deferred compensation retirement plan, according to the agreement. The governor’s office estimates this provision will create approximately $226,232 in savings.

The agreement mirrors one reached by the state and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 61 last week that saved 479 jobs.

By agreeing to these measures, SPOC members will be safe from layoffs during the current fiscal year, which ends July 30, 2010.

Next week , the SPOC Board will submit the agreement to union members for a full vote. An announcement on the outcome of the vote is expected close to the AFSCME vote on Nov. 25.

“I want to thank the leadership at SPOC for joining with us to protect essential public safety jobs,” Culver said in a statement. “This understanding will help to keep Iowans safe while meeting our obligation to balance the state budget.  I am very pleased by the agreement and I encourage the membership to vote yes on this measure.”

Last month, Culver ordered a 10 percent across-the-board cut to the state’s budget. Initial budget cut proposals called for more than 800 layoffs. Culver announced that unions representing employees from the Department of Public Safety and Department of Corrections would have to open up their contracts in order to avoid layoffs. Two of the three unions have now come to understandings with the state government, with the third, Iowa United Professionals (IUP), deciding to accept 55 layoffs.

IUP represents 3,000 members, including social workers and corrections counselors.

According the report, Iowa families earning less than $20,000 a year — the poorest fifth of Iowa non-elderly taxpayers — pay 11 percent of their income in state and local taxes. Middle-income families — those earning between $37,000 and $56,000 — pay 10 percent of their income in Iowa state and local taxes.

The richest Iowa taxpayers, with income averaging $989,200, pay 7.4 percent of their income in state and local taxes.

When a state tax law that allows residents to write off federal taxes on state returns is factored in, the wealthiest Iowans pay only 6 percent of their income in state and local taxes. Low-income taxpayers see no benefit from the deduction.

“No one would ever design an income tax with lower tax rates for the best-off taxpayers,” said Matthew Gardner, executive director of the D.C.-based Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and lead author of the report. “But that is exactly what Iowa’s tax system overall does. It allows the very wealthiest individuals to contribute less of their income, on average, than middle- and lower-income families must pay. In other words, Iowa has an unfair, regressive tax system.”

Peter Fisher, research director of the Iowa Policy Project, said the report shows the need in Iowa for dramatic income-tax reform. He said the report confirmed Iowa’s reliance on “regressive” taxes — sales, excise and property taxes — which fall heavier as a share of income on lower-income families, and the weak progressivity of the state income tax.

During the 2009 legislative session, Democrats proposed to end federal deductibility and rework the tax code to lower the overall tax rate for every citizen. However, those making more than $125,000 a year would have ended up paying slightly more under the new system, up to $1,400 a year for Iowans making $250,000 or more a year.

Fierce opposition from conservative groups like Iowans for Tax Relief ultimately killed the proposal. The Muscatine-based group, which helped derail a similar proposal in the 1980s when it was pushed by former Republican Gov. Terry Branstad, said ending federal deductibility “flies in the face of common sense Iowa values and is simply unfair.”

Iowa State University economist David Swenson told the Iowa Independent during the session that federal deductibility was an “archaic holdover from a long ago time that nobody really knows why it exists anymore.”

Iowa, Alabama and Louisiana are the only states that allow federal taxes to be deducted on state returns.

Des Moines anti-abortion activist Dave Leach appears in one of a series of Web videos arguing that killing doctors who perform abortions is justified, and that judges should allow the theory to be argued in court.

Leach told the Iowa Independent in an e-mail that he was not expecting to hear a decision from Roeder until Tuesday.

“But right after I got your e-mail he called and confirmed,” Leach said Monday afternoon.

Leach has been advocating to Roeder for months to use the necessity defense, even going so far as to draft a legal brief on his behalf. Roeder is charged with one count of first-degree murder in Tiller’s death and two counts of aggravated assault for threatening two ushers at the church where he shot Tiller on May 31. Roeder has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go to trial in January.

Roeder confirmed in an interview with the Associated Press that he murdered Tiller but that it was necessary to stop him from continuing to perform abortions.

By stipulating to the facts of the case, Leach said the judge will have no choice but to allow the jury to hear the necessity defense, which says it is permissible to commit a crime if it stops a greater harm. Legal experts disagree, saying it is unlikely a judge would allow an argument that murder is justified to stop something that is protected by law.

Leach said now that Roeder has made his intentions clear, the public can begin to see how important this case is.

“Now, hopefully, the public can begin to hear about how essential this defense is to the Rule of Law in America,” he said. “Our everyday lives would become insane if the letter of every law were enforced even in situations where that would cause tragedy and death.”

Scott Roeder (mugshot)

In addition to crafting the defense, Leach, who is not an attorney, redrafted a document called “Defensive Action Statement 3^rd Edition,” which states the belief that juries should be allowed to rule on whether Roeder was justified in killing Tiller.

“We further declare that Scott Roeder’s jury, but not his judge, is qualified to weigh the fact question of ‘when life begins,’ which determines whether lethal force is justified to defend the lives of unborn children,” the document states.

The statement is signed by 21 anti-abortion activists, three of whom are serving prison sentences for actions against abortion providers.

Leach publishes a newsletter called “Prayer & Action News,” which advocates the doctrine of justifiable homicide in the case of abortion doctors. Roeder was a contributor to the newsletter. Following Tiller’s murder, Leach’s association with Roeder garnered attention from the national media.

But Leach’s history of anti-abortion activism goes back more than a decade. In the mid-1990s, Leach’s association with the accused killer of a Florida abortion doctor helped persuade U.S. marshals to guard the Planned Parenthood clinic in Des Moines.

In the January 1996 issue, Leach published the Army of God manual, which advocates the killing of the providers of abortion and contains bomb-making instructions. Because of this, he was fired from his job as a writer for an Ankeny newspaper.

In 2002, he tried to air videotape of patients entering a local Planned Parenthood clinic on public-access cable TV. Mediacom Communications Corp. decided it would not allow him to air the footage.