Excerpts from recent Iowa editorials

Iowa City Press-Citizen. Feb. 8, 2010.

Time to update state laws on reproduction

The Iowa Legislature is taking steps toward updating Iowa's 19th-century inheritance laws to address 21st-century innovations in reproductive technology. A legislative subcommittee approved a bill Thursday that would grant inheritance rights to Iowa children born as late as two years after a parent's death.

If ultimately approved by the Legislature, the measure would mean Iowa children conceived through medical advancements would be entitled to such things as Social Security benefits if they meet strict criteria — including proof that the parent gave consent to such a process prior to death.

The current bill was inspired by the case of Brynn Beeler, a 6-year-old from West Branch. When Brynn was born, her mother, Patti Beeler, knew that Brynn's father would not be a daily presence in the child's life. But she also knew the father wanted to have children — and wanted to have children with her. (Patti's husband, Bruce Beeler, had died of leukemia on May 4, 2001 — nearly two years before Brynn was born.)

The couple had been planning to marry on Memorial Day weekend in 2001. And when Bruce discovered he would have to undergo chemotherapy, he banked sperm before beginning his treatments so that he and Patti could have children after he recovered. ...

After Bruce died, Patti underwent intrauterine insemination in July 2002. It was a decision supported by Bruce's parents, Ken and Mildred Beeler, who live next door to Patti and her daughter in West Branch. Patti became pregnant on the first try, and nine months later, Brynn was born.

Now Brynn is one of a small number of cases of posthumously conceived children who are applying for survivor benefits from Social Security. Her claim, however, was held back by a 150-year-old Iowa inheritance law — written long before such technological advances were even dreamed of.

A federal judge last year ruled that Brynn is entitled to Social Security benefits. The ruling will set a legal precedent in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — which hears cases from Iowa, Arkansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota — if it is not reversed upon appeal.

In the meantime, with the time limits included and the requirement for consent, the bill before the Legislature is a workable compromise between the status quo and providing unlimited inheritance rights. We're glad the legislation is moving forward in a legislative session otherwise dominated by budget issues.

___

Quad-City Times. Feb. 8, 2010.

Drop nostalgic bill to change dates for school calendar

Iowans have many reasons to consider changing the start dates of compulsory public education.

Sustaining the state's tourism industry should never be among them. Yet that's the primary rationale of a new bill that would lock all state schools into starting the last week of August.

We're hoping the idea gets quickly weeded out by Rep. Polly Bukta, D-Clinton, a floor manager of the bill.

Supporters of this bill lament that Iowa tourist destinations and the state fair suffer when kids are learning in August. Nostalgia seems to be the sentiment driving this anachronism, as Bukta attests.

"I taught for 33 years, and I know what it's like to sit in a sweltering classroom in early August, mid-August, and there's very little learning done," she told Times Des Moines reporter Charlotte Eby.

Most students today can't relate. They're learning in air-conditioned classrooms designed to get the most value out of these public buildings. These students are following calendars meticulously worked about by local school boards and their paid professionals. Those experts took into account academic data and curriculum needs to find the schedule that works best in their communities.

They didn't consider the economic impact on businesses competing for students' attention. Nor should they. The school board treated these young people as students, not customers. Had they caved to summertime tourism business needs, we'd have to wonder what other recreation businesses would come calling for equal consideration. Movie houses, ski slopes and shopping malls all might prosper if kids' attention wasn't continually diverted by public education.

This bill came up and was dropped last year. State lawmakers should drop this nostalgic bill once and for all. Local districts have done a terrific job of establishing calendars that fit academic needs. And that's the only need they should consider.

___

The Gazette. Feb. 6, 2010.

Iowa's state lawmakers are tinkering again with the state's seat belt law

The Senate Transportation Committee voted unanimously this week for legislation that would require kids under 18 to wear seat belts in the back seat. Current law requires back-seat belting only for kids 10 and under. All front-seat passengers must wear restraints under Iowa law.

Committee approval sends the bill to the full Senate, where passage is expected. We think this is a good idea. But we also think lawmakers should stop tinkering around with the law and simply vote to require that all passengers must use seat belts, regardless of their age or what seat they occupy.

"I don't think this bill goes far enough," said Sen. Bill Heckroth, D-Waverly. We agree. The evidence is clear that seat belts save lives. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that the use of restraints saved more than 15,000 lives nationally in 2007. And 100 percent usage would have saved more than 5,000 additional lives. Seat belt use reduces the risk of serious injury in a crash by 50 percent, according to the safety administration.

If that kind of data makes it smart state policy to require seat belt use for front-seat occupants and young children, it also underlines the benefits for back-seat adults and older kids who are, for now, not required to buckle up.

Certainly, children need special attention. Lawmakers argue that requiring all children to buckle up also would have educational value. But requiring everyone to wear seat belts makes the lesson even clearer for everyone.

According to the latest federal figures available, 18 states and the District of Columbia require seat belt use by all vehicle occupants. Iowa should join those ranks.

We understand the reluctance on the part of some lawmakers to expand the reach of government regulation any further. But Iowa's seat belt law has been around for many years. We've invested untold dollars to enforce it with hopes of cutting injuries and fatalities. Completing and simplifying the law now would not mean a significant expansion of governmental authority.

Traffic safety measures are not only to guard individual safety. Roadway injuries and deaths have larger ramifications for society. That's why the current law is on the books. And that's why it should be expanded once and for all.

___

Des Moines Register. Feb. 8, 2010.

Labor deal not worth backlash

Gov. Chet Culver fanned the flames of union controversy without accomplishing anything much with his executive order encouraging state agencies to negotiate controversial Project Labor Agreements.

Although union groups cheered, the governor's executive order stopped short of mandating state agencies use the union-friendly construction agreements; he only suggested agencies in the executive branch "consider" them on projects over $25 million. Yet, it ripped open an old wound with non-union contractors who immediately denounced the move.

Indeed, more is being made of this executive order on both sides of the issue than is warranted for what, at the core, is a political question. And the governor is on the wrong side of that question: For a high-profile state-government project in Iowa, a state that is fiercely divided over unions, any advantage from Project Labor Agreements is not worth the inevitable backlash.

There is a case for Project Labor Agreements, especially on major construction projects involving multiple contractors. These agreements have been used in both government and private-sector construction at least as far back as the New Deal in the 1930s. There is conflicting evidence on whether the agreements end up costing more, or save money. The strongest argument is that the agreements buy peace among organized labor, which means projects won't be delayed by strikes.

The price of that peace is steep, however, especially for government projects. The agreement effectively converts the construction project into a union site by setting union-scale wages, benefits, hours and working conditions, and requiring laborers — union or non-union — to be hired through union halls.

Although most laborers on big projects are union members, these agreements tilt the playing field in favor of unions, and give them access to new opportunities to grow. Which explains why union groups have worked so hard to get these agreements accepted in Iowa and why some contractors object to them so strenuously. ...

The governor's executive order was calculated to win support from Iowa labor groups, and it appeared to do that, but the question is whether the state will actually follow his suggestion. The biggest projects on the horizon are two state prisons that will cost nearly $200 million. The Iowa Department of Corrections will have to choose whether harmony on the construction site is worth the disharmony of a major political battle. It would seem not.