Iowa

Worried about losing in 2024, Iowa's Republican voters are less interested in talking about abortion

Published

2 years ago

January 12, 2024

Worried about losing in 2024, Iowa's Republican voters are less interested in talking about abortion

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A man in Iowa stood up at a recent town hall and told Ron DeSantis he had an “easy” question: How would the Florida governor address abortion when it’s sure to be a big issue in the coming 2024 presidential election?

DeSantis said he’d talk about it “the same way I did in Florida. I just articulated kind of, you know, where we were, what we do.”

He continued for nearly four minutes without using the word “abortion.” He instead criticized his rival Donald Trump for failing to appear in debates and Nikki Haley for her campaign trail gaffes.

Abortion has largely been absent as an issue in the lead-up to this year’s Iowa Republican caucuses, a remarkable change in a state that has long backed religious conservatives vowing to restrict the procedure. Part of the change is because Republicans achieved a generational goal when the Supreme Court overturned a federally guaranteed right to abortion. But it also underscores a pervasive fear among Republican candidates and voters alike that vocalizing their desire to further restrict abortion rights in 2024 has become politically dangerous.

Democrats outperformed expectations in the 2022 midterms and several state races last year campaigning on the issue. And President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign plans to make abortion rights central to its strategy this year.

“At this stage, if we’re going to continually lose elections because of that issue, I’d say dump the whole damn thing and let God be the judge,” said Greg Jennings, a 68-year-old retired painting contractor from Clear Lake, Iowa, who was attending a rally for Trump.

In interviews with more than two dozen GOP voters around the state in the past week, almost none cited abortion as one of their top issues this election year, instead pointing to concerns about the border, the economy or America’s standing in the world. That’s not to say there aren’t strong exceptions among some evangelical voters who represent a core segment of the Republican base.

Brian Downes, a Winterset Iowa resident, said abortion is a “huge” issue for him. He said he would only change his plans to caucus for Trump next Monday if the former president reversed course and embraced the pro-choice movement.

Downes urged his party not to ignore their opposition to abortion rights.

“Pro-life presidents have won going, let’s say, going back to Ronald Reagan. Always pro-life. The Bushes, pro-life. Trump pro-life,” he said. “They won. That didn’t cancel any of them. So that’s just an old story that just won’t die.”

But Downes appears to be in the minority.

Cindy Leonhart, a 68-year-old wearing a DeSantis button on her shirt after she heard the governor speak last Friday, said she doesn’t believe that abortion should be legal but said: “It’s not a decisive issue for me.”

Earlier in the Iowa campaign, DeSantis and some others in the primary criticized Trump for refusing to endorse a national abortion ban. Trump has at times highlighted his role as president in appointing the Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade. But he’s also argued Republicans shouldn’t lock themselves into positions that are unpopular with a majority of the public and argued that the Supreme Court gave abortion opponents the right to “negotiate” restrictions where they live.

DeSantis and other GOP hopefuls now increasingly speak of a need for “compassion” for women. Asked about a six-week ban he signed in Florida, DeSantis this week on Fox News defended the law as protecting life and that it was “compassionate to be able to respect that and to be able to protect that going forward.”

Haley, the former U.N. ambassador and South Carolina governor, has repeatedly said that she would sign any national abortion restrictions passed by Congress if elected president, but that Republicans are unlikely to have enough seats or supportive members in their ranks to pass them.

“The fellas just don’t know how to talk about it. Instead of demonizing this issue, you have to humanize this issue,” she said in a separate Fox News event this week. Haley is the only woman in the Republican primary field.

Trump, in a Fox News town hall of his own Wednesday night, took credit for having “terminated” Roe and told a woman who opposed abortion and asked about the issue that he “loved” where she was coming from but “we still have to win elections.”

He blamed DeSantis’ ban at six weeks for the governor’s stagnant poll numbers and said, “If you talk five or six weeks, a lot of women don’t know that they’re pregnant in five or six weeks. I want to get something where people are happy.”

Angela Roemerman, who attended a Haley event last week, described herself as pro-life but said she doesn’t like how ugly the politics of abortion have become.

“It used to be an issue for me,” said the 56-year-old from Solon, Iowa. “I guess it’s not a real hot-button issue today.”

“Women in general are getting smarter about birth control and about how everything works,” she said.

At a campaign rally in Newton on Saturday, Trump didn’t dive into the issue on stage, but his campaign handed out fliers that touted his appointments to the court and spotlighted a 2020 quote from his former Vice President Mike Pence, calling him “the most pro-life president in history.” Pence, whom Trump has repeatedly attacked for refusing to try to overturn his former boss’ 2020 election loss, dropped out of the primary last year after criticizing Trump for not endorsing a national abortion ban.

Steve Scheffler, the Iowa GOP’s Republican National Committeeman and president of the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, said that if the Supreme Court hadn’t overturned Roe, the issue would probably be more pressing in this presidential race.

But Scheffler said Iowa voters may feel that with the court’s ruling and a law signed by GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds last year banning abortion after six weeks, the state’s Republicans may feel they’ve “kind of addressed that.”

“It’s an issue that’s very important to these evangelical voters but because that’s where we’re at here in Iowa, I suppose maybe there’s other issues that are really important right now,” Scheffler said.

Dan Corbin of Cedar Falls, the voter who put DeSantis on the spot at his town hall, said afterward that whether Republicans want to talk about it or not, Democrats have made it clear they will press the issue in 2024.

Corbin, who plans to caucus for Haley, said he likes the way she speaks about the issue and that Republicans overall “need to have a strategic approach” and not “demonize women that are having to make that decision.”

“I don’t believe in abortion in any way, shape or form,” he said, “But I think it’s going to make the Republicans less attractive.”

___

Associated Press writers Meg Kinnard, Jill Colvin and Nathan Ellgren in Des Moines, Iowa and Jonathan Cooper in Phoenix contributed to this report.

Source link

Click to comment

Iowa

Iowa Great Lakes businessman Butch Parks dies at 81

Published

5 hours ago

January 9, 2026

Press Room

Iowa Great Lakes businessman Butch Parks dies at 81

SPIRIT LAKE, Iowa (KTIV) – The Iowa Great Lakes community is remembering Leo “Butch” Parks, a longtime lakes-area businessman and founder of Parks Marina.

He died Tuesday, Jan. 6, at the age of 81.

Parks established the marina on East Lake Okoboji in 1983, growing it from a small fishing boat operation into a business with marinas, sales, service, rentals, storage, and popular destinations like the Barefoot Bar.

Parks and his wife, Debbie, also owned Okoboji Boat Works for 23 years.

Funeral services are set for Friday, Jan. 16, at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Spirit Lake. It will be followed by a celebration of life at Snapper’s restaurant in Okoboji that evening.

Want to get the latest news and weather from Siouxland’s News Source? Follow these links to download our KTIV News app and our First Alert Weather app.

Source link

Iowa

Iowa woman accused of pandering for prostitution and harassment after incidents at Casey’s and a daycare

Published

17 hours ago

January 8, 2026

Press Room

Iowa woman accused of pandering for prostitution and harassment after incidents at Casey’s and a daycare

AURELIA, Iowa (KTIV) – A Northwest Iowa woman is facing charges of harassment and pandering for prostitution after two incidents took place in December 2025.

Forty-seven-year-old Kristal Miller of Odebolt was taken into custody on an arrest warrant and faces three charges: one count of pandering for prostitution and two counts of first-degree harassment, according to court documents.

Kristal Miller(Cherokee County Jail)

The charges stem from two separate incidents that took place on Thursday, Dec. 18. 2025.

According to court documents, at 6:15 a.m., Miller reportedly went to the Casey’s General Store, located at 100 Pearl St. in Aurelia. Documents state Miller approached an employee and customers, requesting money from them.

Authorities state Miller claimed she was wanted by the FBI and told people, if anyone called the police, “she would kill them.”

During this encounter, she also allegedly asked an employee to remove the string from her hooded sweatshirt. Documents state when the employee refused this request, she threatened to strangle them.

That same day at 7 a.m., Miller reportedly approached a female employee outside an Aurelia daycare and asked them for money.

Court documents stated Miller suggested the unnamed employee leave her boyfriend. Miller reportedly told the employee, if she did, then she and Miller would both be paid.

Authorities say when she was told no by the employee, Miller became upset and started yelling at them.

Miller also allegedly threatened to “steal her car” and ”take her away to her guys to start a new life.”

She was booked into the Cherokee County Jail on a cash-only bond of $5,000. A preliminary hearing has been scheduled in Cherokee for Friday, Jan. 9, at 10 a.m.

Want to get the latest news and weather from Siouxland’s News Source? Follow these links to download our KTIV News app and our First Alert Weather app.

Source link

Iowa

Iowa law on police appeals ‘constitutionally vacuous,’ prosecutor says

Published

1 day ago

January 8, 2026

Press Room

Iowa law on police appeals ‘constitutionally vacuous,’ prosecutor says

The Iowa Supreme Court is reviewing a 2024 law that allows law enforcement officers to appeal their placement on a Brady-Giglio list.
A dispute between Jefferson County’s attorney and sheriff led to the sheriff being placed on the list, which identifies officers with credibility issues.
The county attorney argues the law is unconstitutional because it lets judges interfere with a prosecutor’s duty to disclose evidence to defendants.

A feud between two Jefferson County officials has landed before the Iowa Supreme Court, which must decide if a 2024 addition to Iowa’s Rights of Peace Officers law is unconstitutional.

Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding is asking the state’s high court to overturn what he calls the “constitutionally vacuous” law, which allows officers to petition the courts to be removed from their county’s Brady-Giglio list.

Named for two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the lists compiled by prosecutors identify law enforcement officers and others whose credibility is in question, and it can provide grounds for questioning their testimony in court.

After a dispute over a case involving a sheriff’s deputy’s use of force, Moulding in 2024 notified Jefferson County Sheriff Bart Richmond he was placing him on the Brady-Giglio list. Richmond petitioned a court to reverse Moulding’s decision, and a district judge did, finding Richmond’s actions in connection with the case, while unprofessional, did not bring his honesty or credibility into question.

In his appeal, Moulding argues that’s not up to the court to decide, and that the law lets judges improperly intrude on prosecutors’ professional judgment and, ultimately, defendants’ rights.

“The practical real application of (the 2024 law) is to create a Kafkaesque scenario where a criminal defendant could face the prospect of criminal charges involving a State witness who is so lacking in credibility that the State’s attorney has qualms about even calling him to testify, but is prevented from disclosure,” Moulding wrote. “Such a situation is unconscionable, and underlines the constitutional vacuousness of the statute itself.”

The court has not yet scheduled arguments for the case, which could have impacts far beyond Jefferson County. Attorney Charles Gribble, representing Richmond, said this is just one of three Iowa Brady-Giglio appeals he personally is involved in.

What is a Brady-Giglio list?

Under the Fifth Amendment, criminal defendants are entitled to due process of law. In Brady v. Maryland in 1963 and in subsequent cases the U.S. Supreme Court held that due process requires a prosecutor to disclose any known exculpatory evidence to the defense. That includes anything giving rise to doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses, including law enforcement officers.

In 2022, Iowa formalized that process by mandating prosecuting agencies maintain a Brady-Giglio list of officers whose credibility can be questioned due to past dishonesty or other misconduct. The law requires agencies to notify officers when they are being put on a list and allows them to seek reconsideration.

Being placed on a list can damage or destroy an officer’s career, as prosecutors generally will decline to call them as witnesses or to bring charges that would depend on their testimony.

2024 law gives courts a role in Brady-Giglio lists

Iowa’s 2024 law went beyond requiring officers be notified of their placement on a Brady-Giglio list by giving them the right to appeal to a district court if their prosecuting agency refuses to take them off a list. The law requires judges to confidentially review evidence and allows them to affirm, modify or reverse an officer’s Brady-Giglio listing “as justice may require.”

In less than two years, courts have reversed local prosecutors on several Brady-Giglio placements, including a messy Henry County dispute in which prosecutors accused a sheriff’s deputy of making misleading statements on a search warrant application.

What happened in Jefferson County?

The lawsuit before the Iowa Supreme Court involves an April 2024 traffic stop by a Jefferson County deputy. As laid out in a subsequent memo by Moulding, video recordings show the deputy handling the driver roughly and, when the man complains, telling him “I can do whatever I want” and, “You’re not going to tell me what I can and can’t do. … You’re going to learn what respect is, young man.”

After learning about the incident, Moulding wrote, he repeatedly emailed Richmond, asking if the deputy’s actions had violated any county policies. Richmond did not respond. Concerned about possible litigation against the county, Moulding then asked another county to conduct an investigation. While the details are disputed, Moulding accuses Richmond of stonewalling both his office and the outside investigators and instructing his subordinates also not to cooperate.

“A county sheriff ordering deputies not to cooperate with an inquiry into a deputy’s use of force represents a fundamental lapse in judgment and raised serious concerns regarding the Sheriff’s honesty, candor and ethics as a law enforcement official,” Moulding wrote.

He scheduled a meeting that Richmond did not attend and then placed him on the county’s Brady-Giglio list. In an emailed statement, Moulding called the entire matter “unfortunate.”

“Frankly, I am shocked that instead of attempting to address this matter with my office cooperatively, the Sheriff instead decided to stonewall an investigation, stonewall the Brady-Giglio investigation, and then take this matter to court instead of sitting down and addressing the matter like an adult and an elected official,” he said.

In a letter, Moulding warned Richmond that he would no longer be called as a law enforcement witness and advised him to limit his involvement with criminal investigations, as “your engagement in such activities could likely negatively impact the outcomes in court.”

Judge disagrees with sheriff’s placement on list

After Moulding denied Richmond’s request for reconsideration, Richmond filed suit. In February 2025, Judge Jeffrey Farrell ruled Richmond should be removed from the list.

Farrell’s order criticized both parties, finding that Moulding had failed to comply with some procedural elements of the law but that Richmond could have avoided the whole situation with “basic and professional” responses to Moulding’s emails. Nonetheless, he found Richmond’s actions did not demonstrate dishonesty or deceit that would justify placement on a Brady list.

“This is not a case in which an officer lied to a court, was convicted of a crime, manufactured or destroyed evidence, or committed some other act that would serve as the basis for impeachment in any criminal case,” Farrell wrote. “Game-playing the county attorney is not the standard of professionalism that Iowans expect of our elected county sheriffs,” he added, but does not constitute grounds for a Brady-Giglio listing.

Prosecutor appeals, argues law is unconstitutional

In his appeal, Moulding does not address Farrell’s factual findings, instead asking the court only to decide whether the law is constitutional.

“The most glaring constitutional defect in (the 2024 law) is that it impedes a criminal Defendant’s substantive and procedural due processes of law, and right to a fair trial,” the appeal says. “These fundamental rights constitute the bedrock raisons d’être for the entire body of Brady-Giglio jurisprudence in the first place.”

Iowa appears to be the only state with a law allowing officers to sue to be removed from a Brad-Giglio list, but Moulding cites a recent federal lawsuit where a judge rejected a South Dakota officer’s attempt to get removed from a list, finding the request “in essence, asks this Court to require a State’s Attorney to violate the constitution.” He further argues that the law violates the constitutional separation of powers and is “so poorly drafted as to be unenforceable and void for vagueness.”

Sheriff’s attorney says single lapse of judgment is not grounds for listing

Gribble, Richmond’s attorney, argued in his Supreme Court brief that the law is constitutional and that the sheriff’s actions fall well short of Brady-Giglio standards.

“Under (the 2024 law), placement on the Brady-Giglio list results not from a single lapse of judgment but rather from repeated, sustained, intentional and egregious acts over a period of time,” he wrote. “Thus, while a singular act of bad judgement may undermine a police officer’s credibility in a particular case, placement on the Brady-Giglio list places a permanent and unreviewable scarlet letter on the officer that he/she is unlikely to be able to ever overcome.”

He also suggests that a court order removing an officer from a list “does not in any way alter the prosecuting attorney’s duty to provide exculpatory evidence in all cases.” In an interview, he argued there should be a legal distinction between prosecutors disclosing concerns about an officer’s conduct in the case in which it occurred, and doing so in every future case involving them.

“To me, that’s what Brady-Giglio is for, not for occasional or first-time wrongs, even if established of a police officer, but those that have a history of that sort of thing,” he said.

The Supreme Court has not yet set a date for arguments in the case.

William Morris covers courts for the Des Moines Register. He can be contacted at wrmorris2@registermedia.com or 715-573-8166.

Source link