Creative Commons photo by jimmywayne via Flick

The bills — Senate File 2219 and House File 2281 — are identical, and both have been approved by their respective legislative committees. Although the House bill passed on a party-line vote, the Senate version has one Republican supporter, Sen. Merlin Bartz of Grafton.

Bartz did not respond to a request for comment concerning his vote. The House version is now ready for full floor debate while the Senate bill has been referred to appropriations.

If passed as currently written, the legislation would expand Medicaid coverage for family planning services to women who meet the income guidelines and who have insurance that does not cover such services. For the first time, men meeting existing income guidelines would also be eligible for family planning services, and income guidelines for all services would be increased to 300 percent of the poverty level. While the existing program arbitrarily cuts off services for women over the age of 44, the new legislation would keep women on the program up to the age of 54.

“The bottom line, from our perspective, is that this is a bill that helps patients,” said Kyle Carlson, staff attorney for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland. “This is a bill that includes a lot of people who are currently excluded from receiving services. For instance, women who have insurance, but are under-insured. Women who are 44, but can still become pregnant. And, of course, men. Why are we excluding men from access to family planning services? That’s what the current program does. We are trying to stop cutting people out [from services], who shouldn’t be cut out.”

To date the only opposition declaration made by a lobbyist against the bill has come from Tom Chapman, representing the Iowa Catholic Conference. Lobbyists for the Family Planning Council of Iowa, Planned Parenthood, Iowa/Nebraska Primary Care Association, AARP Iowa, the March of Dimes and the Iowa Department of Human Rights have all signaled their approval.

The measure received a boost earlier this month when researchers at the University of Iowa’s Public Policy Center and the University of Northern Iowa released a study showing the cost of unintended pregnancy in the state. The researchers — Dr. Belinda Udeh, Dr. Mary Losch and graduate student Erica Spies — determined that publicly funded family planning services are cost-effective for women who would use Medicaid and other public assistance programs if they became pregnant and gave birth. Using data from women being served by Iowa’s publicly funded family planning clinics during 2009, the study reported a weighted average of $3.78 saved for every $1 spent on family planning services in the first year for women newly eligible for assistance, and $15.12 when the savings are forecast for five years.

The savings are even more significant given that funds used by the Iowa Family Planning Network (IFPN) are assigned via a waiver request to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and carry a 90-10 federal match. That means that for every $1 invested into the program by the state, the federal government kicks in $9. If the state puts in $1 million, the federal government contributes $9 million, making the total investment $10 million.

Using the study’s weighted average, that $10 million could then be translated to a total cost savings of$37.8 million in the first year alone.

“This is not just a little cost-savings initiative,” Carlson explained. “This is a major cost-savings initiative.”

In its fiscal review of the bill, the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency estimated that an additional 35,491 women would be eligible, and that roughly 75 percent of those eligible would use the services during the first two years. The additional cost to the state’s general fund would be $332,000 in fiscal year 2011, and $901,000 in fiscal year 2012 — both well below the estimated cost savings.

“According to the Congressional Budget Office, providing family planning services to women between the age of 15 to 44 with incomes under 200 percent of the federal poverty level saves more than the program costs,” wrote analyst Jess Benson. “It is difficult to quantify what the savings will be by expanding age and financial eligibility requirements, but if there are fewer unintended pregnancies there will be some cost avoidance in the future considering Medicaid currently covers pregnant women and infants up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level.”

According to The Iowa Initiative, a program that aims to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancies among Iowa women ages 18 to 30, roughly half of all pregnancies in Iowa are unintended.

“Approximately one-half of the 52,000 women who will become pregnant in Iowa this year will become pregnant unintentionally,” said Christie Vilsack, executive director of the Iowa Initiative. “Helping low-income or uninsured women to avoid unintended pregnancy can save taxpayers thousands of dollars in health care costs, food assistance and child care assistance for women, infants and children.”

Vilsack notes that more than 170,000 Iowa women and teenage girls qualify for publicly funding contraceptive services. However, only 41 percent of them are served by family planning clinics. The Guttmacher Institute estimates the 72 clinics operating in 49 Iowa counties help women avoid as many as 16,000 unintended pregnancies annually. Yet the state ranks 48th nationally in the availability of family planning services. Patients who qualify for services under IFPN are free to access services from any Iowa provider that accepts Medicaid funding.

Federal law mandates that taxpayer funds, which include Medicaid assistance, cannot be use for abortion services.

The legislation, Senate Joint Resolution 2001, would amend the state’s constitution to say “marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state.” In order to amend the constitution, the legislature must pass the resolution in two separate General Assemblies. The measure would then go to a public vote. If advocates of a same-sex marriage ban are unsuccessful in 2010, it would likely be 2014 at the earliest before the public would weigh in.

The resolution was sponsored by all 18 Republican members of the Iowa Senate. There are 32 Democrats.

State Sen. Merlin Bartz, R-Grafton, told the Mason City Globe-Gazette that Republicans will try everything to force a vote on the issue, but it likely won’t matter due to opposition from Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs. In an interview with The Iowa Independent, Gronstal vowed to stop the amendment at every turn and block a vote on the measure.

The joint resolution has been turned over the the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which is chaired by Grontsal.

The Iowa Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage last April in a unanimous decision. During the closing weeks of the 2009 General Assembly, Republicans attempted numerous procedural moves to force a vote on a constitutional ban on gay marriage, all of which were thwarted by Democrats.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs (file photo)

Republicans may try to force a vote on an amendment, the Democrat from Council Bluffs said, but he will not allow any bill banning same-sex marriage to come to the floor.

“I will not write discrimination into the constitution of the State of Iowa,” Gronstal said. “I’m going to block that at every opportunity. There will be no vote on the constitutional amendment.”

Republican legislative leaders have said repeatedly that they will work to ensure a vote on same-sex marriage takes place during the session. Republican state Sen. Merlin Bartz of Grafton, who garnered headlines earlier this year when he called for local officials to ignore the state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, told the Mason City Globe-Gazette that he will sponsor the marriage amendment in the Senate.

In the closing days of the 2009 legislative session, Republicans in both the House and Senate attempted numerous procedural moves in the hopes of forcing a vote on an amendment, including attaching it to a tax proposal and the state’s Health and Human Services budget. Democrats successfully blocked the efforts.

But now Republicans will have an entire legislative session to work with, causing some to fear progress on other issues, such as fixing the state’s ballooning budget deficit, will come to a screeching halt.

Gronstal said he can’t control what his Republican colleagues do. But on this issue and many others the General Assembly will be faced with that could slow down the process, his message remains the same: the session will end in 80 days.

“It doesn’t get any easier to say ‘no’ to people the fourth time,” Gronstal said. “Why not say ‘no’ to them right off the bat, say it once and mean it.”

In order to become a constitutional amendment, a bill must pass two General Assemblies and then be put on the ballot for the public. If Republicans are unable to pass a ban this year, the earliest it could go before the public would likely be 2014.

In 2004, the Senate barely rejected a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on a 25-24 vote, with four Republicans joining all 21 Democrats to kill the measure. The next year, the Republican controlled Iowa House passed a gay marriage ban, but an evenly divided Senate never took up the bill.

Now, Democrats have a commanding 32-18 edge in the Senate, making the chances of Republicans succeeding in passing a marriage ban very unlikely.

“I think Iowans want us to focus on the budget and what we can do to create good-paying jobs. So that’s what we’re going to focus on,” Gronstal said. “This is one of those issues that is generational. Overall, if you look at the public’s reaction to the decision, if you’re under the age of 35 you probably don’t care that much about the issue. I think people fighting this are on the wrong side of history.”

Gronstal said the issue comes down to whether the state should recognize two people who “simply want to profess their love for each other. It’s hard for me to get worked up about something like that.”

The complaint was filed by former Democratic state Rep. Ed Fallon and his wife, Lynn. Bartz used the resources of the Senate Republican caucus to ask county officials not to issue marriage licenses to couples of the same gender in defiance of the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage. To date no same-sex couples in Iowa have been denied a license.

In dismissing the complaint, the committee concluded Bartz was simply exercising his right to free speech.

The complaint, filed by former state Rep. Ed Fallon and his wife Lynn, alleges Bartz used his office and public resources to encourage other elected officials to disobey state law.

Bartz used the Web site of the Republican Party’s Senate caucus to urge opponents of same-sex marriage to collect signatures and deliver them to county recorders demanding that they refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in direct defiance of an Iowa Supreme Court decision. Attorney General Tom Miller instructed county recorders that doing so would be illegal, and to date no same-sex couples in Iowa have been denied a license.

Ben Stone, executive director of Iowa ACLU, said the ethics complaint is a threat to Bartz’s free speech.

The ethics committee, which is chaired by Senate President Jack Kibbie, will convene Tuesday at noon at the Iowa Capitol.

Conservatives contend that leadership in the state senate did not push as hard as Republicans in the state house to overturn the court’s decision.

Christian radio host Steve Deace criticized Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley, R-Chariton, during his drive-time program on Iowa’s largest radio station for “feeding constituents a line of bull” about doing everything possible to stop same-sex marriage.

He continued the assault on his blog.

“McKinley’s stubborn refusal to push the Senate rules for a vote on marriage like what was done in the House is either a classic case of Bob Michel disease, or a classic case of the smartest guy in the room not wanting to do the right thing because it wasn’t his idea,” Deace said.

Robert Michel is a former member of the United States House of Representatives from Illinois who was criticized by conservatives for being too easy-going and not fighting hard enough for Republican goals in the House during its long period of Democratic control.

Deace said that when the Republican caucus in both chambers decided on new leadership this year, many social conservatives considered McKinley one of their own and House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, a “puppet of the establishment.”

“Turns out the exact opposite, at least during the 200[9] session, was true,” he said.

The liberal blog Bleeding Heartland reports anti-McKinley fliers were being distributed in Pella paid for a Virginia-based conservative group called Public Advocate of the United States.

“Like a chicken, Sen. McKinley refuses to do what it takes to get a vote on the Iowa Marriage Amendment. He says he supports it, but he won’t force those who support the destruction of Iowa families to make their position public,” the flier says.

Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn also received criticism from Deace, who wondered why Strawn sent out an “Action Alert” e-mail to supporters on Friday that did not mention same-sex marriage.

“There is a disconnect,” Deace said. “Why in the world would you put a plank in your platform, and when that plank is under assault from your political opponents, and it is the number one story in the state, why wouldn’t you want to alert people that this is what we stand for and this is what we believe?”

Deace also questioned why McKinley and Strawn would not speak out in support of state Sen. Merlin Bartz, R-Grafton, during his push to encourage county recorders to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses as an “act of conscious.”

When contacted last week by the Iowa Independent about Bartz’s efforts, a spokesman for McKinley declined to comment and said all inquiries should be directed to Bartz.

Republican leadership seemed to respond to Deace’s admonishment Monday, with Strawn, McKinley and Paulsen issuing a joint statement on same-sex marriage blaming Democrats for the lack of action.

“Republicans in the Iowa Legislature made repeated attempts to begin the process of bringing to Iowans a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman only to be stopped cold by Democrat obstructionism and a lack of executive leadership from Governor Culver,” they said. “Whether it be the pursuit of a constitutional amendment to give Iowans the right to vote on this issue; the establishment of residency requirements to obtain marriage licenses; or the appointment of future judges–none of these options are possible as long as Chet Culver remains Governor and Democrats control the Iowa Legislature.”

In the House, Republcian lawmakers tried several times to force a vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, with each attempt ruled out of order. Rep. Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, even attempted to insert language in a Democratic tax plan defining marriage as between one man and one woman. In the Senate, McKinley made one attempt at forcing a vote on a constitutional amendment, requesting that Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, joining him in crafting the legislation. Gronstal refused and the matter was dead.

Borrowing from Voltaire, Iowa ACLU Executive Director Ben Stone said in a statement, “This is another instance where the ACLU is literally acting out the old adage: We may disagree with what you are saying, but will vigorously defend your right to say it.”

Bartz has been using the resources of the Senate Republican caucus to ask county officials not to issue same-sex marriage licenses, even after the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision legalizing them goes into effect Monday. That prompted former State Rep. Ed Fallon and his wife, Lynn, to file a formal complaint against Bartz with the Senate Ethics Committee. The Iowa ACLU sees Fallon’s charges as a threat to Bartz’s free speech rights.

That said, the Iowa ACLU, which has long supported marriage rights for same-sex couples, also believes that county recorders are required to comply with the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision regardless of their personal beliefs. If any couples are denied same-sex marriage licenses, the Iowa ACLU will be equally willing to represent them in court, Stone said.

The Alliance Defense Fund, an organization founded by evangelical activists to counterbalance the ACLU, has already offered to defend county recorders against same-sex couples should they choose to defy the court.

Attorney General Tom Miller has issued stern threats that any county recorders who do not comply with the court’s decision will face legal consequences.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a legal advocacy group founded in 1994 by Focus on the Family’s James Dobson and the late Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ, sent an e-mail to each of Iowa’s county recorders asking them to tell their staff that they “shall not be required to issue or process a marriage license, or to perform, assist or participate in such procedures, against that individual’s religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

The e-mail, which was sent out in conjunction with the Iowa Family Policy Center, says Iowa law protects citizens from being forced to “violate his or her conscience.”

The ADF then offers to “provide free legal review and defense” for any county recorder that adopts a “conscious clause” and is challenged “on the basis of its content.”

“Government employees who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman should not be penalized for abiding by their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Doug Napier.

The e-mail comes on the heals of a petition drive pushed by Republican state Sen. Merlin Bartz asking opponents of same-sex marriage to collect signatures and deliver them to county recorders demanding that they ignore court’s decision and deny marriage licenses to couples of the same gender. Bartz has since had an ethics complaint filed against him saying he is trying to pressure local elected officials to break the law.

Attorney General Tom Miller has repeatedly warned county recorders that they do not have the authority to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and “recorders do not have discretion or power to ignore the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling,” Miller said.

The court’s ruling goes into effect Monday.

Iowa law says that an elected official can be removed from office for refusal to perform duties of the office or for willful or habitual neglect.

The ADF promotes itself as a response to the American Civil Liberties Union. In its 2007 fiscal year, it spent nearly $30 million, according to Guidestar, with the goal of protecting what it regards as the place of Christianity in public life. The group has taken on cases involving embryonic stem cell research, religious displays on public grounds, the Boy Scouts of America’s policy barring gay scout leaders and efforts to stop the husband of Terri Schiavo from disconnected from her life-sustaining feeding tube.

Bartz has begun a petition drive asking opponents of same-sex marriage to collect signatures and deliver them to county recorders demanding that they ignore the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage and deny marriage licenses to couples of the same gender. The court’s ruling goes into effect Monday.

“For a state senator to use his office and public resources to encourage other elected officials to disobey a unanimous ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court is unconscionable, and possibly a violation of state law,” Fallon said.

The complaint has been filed with the Senate Ethics Committee inquiring as to whether Bartz’s actions constitute a violation of his oath of office.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller has already warned county recorders that refusal to issue a marriage license to same-sex couples would be a violation of the law and could result in being removed from office. Asked by The Des Moines Register if he was asking county recorders to engage in acts of civil disobediance, Bartz replied “I have to decide whether or not it’s civil disobedience. If you look at the code book, it hasn’t changed.”

In a statement to the Iowa Independent, Bartz said the petition drive is simply a way for Iowans to have their voices heard on the issue.

“They should have the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, affirming the state law Defense of Marriage Act,” he said. “We have tried in the Senate on four occasions to let the voices of Iowans be heard on this issue and have been denied the opportunity all four times by obstructionist Democrats. This petition is a way for Iowans to finally let their voice be heard on this monumental issue.”

Ultimately, county recorders do not have the authority to decide whether to follow the court’s ruling, Miller said. The court’s ruling concluded that language “limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the [state] statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.”

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller

Miller was responding to a petition drive being pushed by Republican state Sen. Merlin Bartz and the Iowa Family Policy Center that is trying to convince county recorders to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses in defiance of a recent Supreme Court ruling.

“We expect duly-elected county recorders to comply with the Iowa Constitution as interpreted unanimously by the Iowa Supreme Court, the highest court in Iowa,” Miller said in a statement to the Iowa Independent. “Our country lives by and thrives by the rule of law, and the rule of law means we all follow the law as interpreted by our courts — not by ourselves. We don’t each get to decide what the law is; that would lead to chaos.  We must live by and follow what the courts decide.”

Bartz is asking citizens to deliver signed petitions to Iowa’s 99 county recorders on Monday, the day the Supreme Court’s verdict goes into effect and same-sex couples can legally obtain marriage licenses. Any county recorder that doesn’t abide by the Court’s ruling would be in violation of the law and face removal from office.

“Recorders do not have discretion or power to ignore the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling,” Miller said, adding: “If necessary, we will explore legal actions to enforce and implement the Court’s ruling, working with the Iowa Department of Public Health and county attorneys.”

For several days his office has advised county recorders around the state that they are required to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision, Miller said, which means they must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as they have in the past to opposite-sex couples.

Last week, Bartz attempted to insert language into a bill that would have allowed county recorders to refuse to issue a marriage license as a “matter of conscience” without fear of prosecution. The language was ruled out of order. Later, a clerk to Republican state Rep. Kent Sorenson was found to be contacting county recorders asking them why they were willing to follow the Supreme Court’s ruling, since “it’s not a law, it’s an opinion.”

But the Court’s ruling concluded that language “limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the [state] statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.”

County recorders do not have the authority to ignore the Court’s ruling, Miller said.