Iowa House Republicans will meet in Des Moines on August 20 to choose a new speaker, Erin Murphy reported earlier this week. Outgoing Speaker Kraig Paulsen surprised mtost Iowa politics watchers when he announced last week that he will step down from leadership before next year’s legislative session and will not seek re-election to the Iowa House in 2016.

House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer and State Representative Josh Byrnes quickly let it be known that they will run for speaker. The rumor mill expects another House Republican to seek the position, but to my knowledge, no one has gone public with that ambition. Several House members have not responded to my request for comment, including Representative Peter Cownie, who was rumored to be interested in the speaker’s post two years ago. I’ve heard rumblings about Representative Guy Vander Linden, but speaking by phone on August 10, he told me, “I don’t intend to run for speaker. I don’t feel prepared to run for speaker.” He said he undecided on whom he will support to replace Paulsen but inclined to back Upmeyer, because “continuity is important.”

House Majority Whip Chris Hagenow is supporting Upmeyer for speaker and formally announced on Monday that he will seek the post of majority leader. Current House Speaker Pro-Tem Matt Windschitl is also backing Upmeyer and does not appear interested in moving up to majority leader.

According to the Des Moines Register’s Kathie Obradovich, over the weekend WHO talk radio host Simon Conway referred to State Representative Walt Rogers (currently one of four assistant majority leaders) as “quite probably the next majority leader” of the Iowa House. However, Rogers told me he will not run for majority leader, because he’s “having fun and working hard” with Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign. Rogers was an early Santorum endorser during the last election cycle, and Santorum in turn supported Rogers’ short-lived Congressional campaign.

Rogers declined to comment when I asked whether he will support Upmeyer for speaker.

As for whether Vander Linden might run for majority leader, he told me, “I haven’t given it any serious consideration,” adding, “I would give a politician’s ‘Never say never.’”

Governor Terry Branstad is wisely staying out of the speaker’s race.

Spin your own scenarios in this thread, and please contact me if you know of another House Republican actively seeking the post of speaker or majority leader.  

Public Policy Polling released its latest Iowa caucus numbers yesterday. As other recent surveys of Iowa Democrats have shown, Hillary Clinton still leads by a considerable margin, but her lead has shrunk since the spring, as Iowans have learned more about other contenders. PPP now has Clinton at 52 percent support among “usual Democratic primary voters,” while Bernie Sanders has 25 percent, Martin O’Malley 7 percent, Jim Webb 3 percent, and Lincoln Chafee 1 percent.

On the GOP side, Donald Trump leads among “usual Republican primary voters” with 19 percent, followed by Ben Carson and Scott Walker (12 percent each), Jeb Bush (11 percent), Carly Fiorina (10 percent), Ted Cruz (9 percent), Mike Huckabee and Marco Rubio (6 percent each), John Kasich and Rand Paul (3 percent each), Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum (2 percent each), Chris Christie (1 percent), and Jim Gilmore, Lindsey Graham, and George Pataki (less than 1 percent).

Dropping to 3 percent earned Paul the “biggest loser” title from Public Policy Polling’s Tom Jensen and was the only topline result that shocked me. Things got way more interesting in the cross-tabs. I enclose below the five findings that struck me most.

As a bonus, I added at the end of this post completely unsurprising numbers from PPP’s survey of registered Iowa voters: Governor Terry Branstad is underwater with 42 percent approval and 47 percent disapproval. Last month’s high-profile line-item vetoes are even less popular.

One of Iowa’s major investor-owned utilities has changed a policy that was impeding new solar power projects, Karen Uhlenhuth reported for Midwest Energy News over the weekend. Follow me after the jump for background and details on this excellent news.

Marking the one-year anniversary of the militarized police crackdown on protesters in Ferguson, Missouri, Molly Redden wrote a fascinating piece for Mother Jones on how local law enforcement agencies have justified their requests for “combat style weapons, trucks, and armor.” Redden noted that in public, representatives of police organizations have cited “hostage situations, rescue missions, and heavy-duty shootouts” to justify the need for military equipment. But when requesting mine resistant ambush protected vehicles through official channels, “very few sheriffs and police chiefs cite active shooters, hostage situations, or terrorism […].” More often, they indicated plans to use the equipment for SWAT raids, drug enforcement, or serving warrants.

Through the Freedom of Information Act, Redden obtained more than 450 local requests for armored vehicles submitted during the past two years. She uploaded the documents here. Ten requests came from Iowa law enforcement agencies (the Iowa State Patrol, five county sheriff’s offices, and four city police departments). Those may not represent all the Iowa requests for armored vehicles; Redden told me she requested only applications with something written in the “special considerations” section of the form. However, I would assume that most police forces seeking to obtain heavy equipment from the military would explain why they need the armored vehicle and/or how they plan to use it.

After the jump I’ve enclosed links to the Iowa documents obtained by Redden and quoted each police or sheriff’s department explanation for requesting an armored vehicle.

President Barack Obama implemented new federal rules in May to prohibit transfers of certain military equipment to local police: namely, “tracked armored vehicles, bayonets, grenade launchers, camouflage uniforms, and large-caliber weapons and ammunition.” All of the Iowa documents Redden obtained requested armored vehicles on wheels (though the Scott County Sheriff’s Office indicated it would also accept tracked vehicles).

On a related note, in June the U.S. House rejected amendments to next year’s military budget that would have “prohibited funds from being used for the Pentagon to transfer flash-bang grenades and armored vehicles to local police departments.” Republicans Rod Blum (IA-01) and David Young (IA-03) voted for the unsuccessful attempt to stop transfers of armored vehicles to police departments. Democrat Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Republican Steve King (IA-04) voted against that amendment.

The first Republican presidential debates did not affect U.S. Senator Joni Ernst’s plans to remain neutral before the 2016 Iowa caucuses.  

What’s on your mind, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

Ryan Foley’s August 3 story for the Associated Press was disturbing on several levels. A “Serious Mismanagement Report” described a “decade of dysfunction” at the Effigy Mounds National Monument in northeast Iowa. Between 1999 and 2010, “78 construction projects costing a total of $3.4 million were approved there in violation of federal laws meant to protect archaeological resources and historic sites.” Also troubling: National Park Service officials have suppressed the report’s publication and recently denied that it existed. They have commissioned another team to write a separate (less critical) review of Effigy Mounds operations. National Park Service deputy regional director Patricia Trap delivered some unintentional comedy when she said, “I’m not denying some serious mismanagement […] But also there were actions taken along the way that were actually appropriate management.” I’m so relieved to know that Effigy Mounds officials handled some matters appropriately in addition to the seventy-eight projects that failed to comply with federal law.

Iowa Public Radio’s Morning Edition with Clay Masters interviewed Foley about the mismanagement and next steps at Effigy Mounds. Click through for the audio and transcript.

The Des Moines Register published a front-page piece by Grant Rodgers on August 5 about the “uncertain future” for Iowa’s regional drug courts. Those courts steer defendants into treatment rather than prison, turning lives around at lower cost than incarceration. “Yet despite their popularity among prosecutors, judges and community leaders, several Iowa drug courts have experienced sluggish legislative funding – so much so that they now are in jeopardy,” Rodgers reports. What a classic case of penny-wise and pound-foolish budgeting by state legislators who brag to their constituents about fiscal responsibility. With an ending balance (surplus) of at least $300 million expected for Iowa’s budget in the 2016 fiscal year, it’s ridiculous that the drug court in Council Bluffs will shut down on October 1, with courts in Burlington and Ottumwa “at risk of closing” later this year.

The front page of today’s Sunday Des Moines Register features a depressing must-read by Tony Leys about former residents of the now-closed Iowa Mental Health Institute at Clarinda, which “cared for some of the frailest and most complicated psychiatric patients in the state.” Of the eighteen people who lived in the Clarinda facility earlier this year, eight

were transferred to four traditional nursing homes, all of which are rated “below average” or “much below average” on a federal registry. The four facilities are in the bottom 29 percent of Iowa nursing homes for overall quality, according to the Medicare registry. Two of those eight patients died shortly after their transfers.

I’ve enclosed excerpts from all of the above stories after the jump, but I recommend clicking through to read the articles in their entirety.

The Iowa Democratic Party announced today that its State Central Committee voted “to begin the process to change the name of the annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner following the 2015 Dinner.” In a statement I’ve enclosed in full below, state chair Dr. Andy McGuire said “it is important to change the name of the dinner to align with the values of our modern day Democratic Party: inclusiveness, diversity and equality.” She promised that all Iowa Democrats will have a chance to suggest new names for what has often been the party’s largest gathering of the year.

One obvious choice would be to name the dinner after longtime Senator Tom Harkin, now that the Harkin Steak Fry is no more. Or, if party leaders want to stick with historical figures whose legacy unites Iowa Democrats, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers?

First, Representative Steve King absurdly claimed a “strong, Christian lawyer” told him the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on marriage means “you could marry your lawnmower.”

In response, Pat Rynard shot a video of himself purportedly attempting to marry his lawnmower. Polk County Recorder Julie Haggerty patiently explained to Rynard why such a marriage would be impossible under the law.

Anyone who watched the video or read the post at Iowa Starting Line would understand Rynard pulled off the stunt to mock King for “insinuating that two loving gay men or women entering into marriage is as bizarre and unnatural as someone marrying their lawnmower.”

Anyone, that is, except several journalists at WQAD in the Quad Cities. In a televised segment, they claimed “a man in Des Moines tried to marry his lawnmower.”  

Republican State Representative Josh Byrnes will not run against Democratic State Senator Mary Jo Wilhelm in Iowa Senate district 26 next year. The Iowa House Transportation Committee chair has thrown his hat in the ring to replace Kraig Paulsen as House speaker. Regardless of how the speaker contest goes, Byrnes confirmed to Bleeding Heartland, “I am not running for Senate.”

The news will lift Democratic spirits, as Byrnes would have been the obvious GOP recruit for this competitive Senate district. Democrats hold a 26 to 24 majority in the upper chamber, and Republicans will almost certainly target Wilhelm next year.

First elected to the upper chamber in 2008, the former Howard County supervisor was the Iowa Senate incumbent re-elected by the narrowest margin in 2012. Redistricting pitted Wilhelm against GOP State Senator Merlin “Build my fence” Bartz, whom she defeated by just 126 votes in a district where Barack Obama carried 55.6 percent of the vote.

Meanwhile, Byrnes was re-elected to the Iowa House by more than 4,000 votes in 2012, even as Obama carried 55.2 percent of the vote in House district 51. Only two other Republican-held House seats went to Obama by a larger margin: House district 91 (Muscatine area) and House district 58 (Maquoketa). Byrnes easily won re-election in 2014 as well. He disagrees with his more conservative House colleagues on some high-profile issues, giving him potentially strong crossover appeal.

I haven’t heard of any other Republicans taking a close look at Senate district 26. I encourage Bleeding Heartland readers who know differently to contact me. Since December 2012, Bartz has run Representative Steve King’s district office in Mason City. I will be surprised if he runs for the Iowa Senate again.

Senate district 26 includes all of Worth, Mitchell, Floyd, Howard and Chickasaw counties, part of Cerro Gordo County (but not Mason City or Clear Lake) and part of Winneshiek County (but not Decorah). A detailed map is after the jump. According to the latest figures from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office, Senate district 26 contains 11,202 active registered Democrats, 11,101 Republicans, and 16,899 no-party voters.

The Republican presidential candidates debated for the first time today in Cleveland. First, the seven contenders who didn’t make the cut for the prime-time event participated in a “happy hour” debate (some commentators called it the “junior varsity” or “kids’ table” debate). I missed the beginning of that event, but from what I saw, Carly Fiorina and Bobby Jindal stood out. Jindal’s closing statement seemed the strongest to me (if I try to imagine how a conservative would receive the messages). Rick Santorum and Rick Perry had some good moments. Lindsey Graham seemed to give rehearsed answers that weren’t always relevant to the question. George Pataki was memorable only for being the sole pro-choice candidate in a field of seventeen. Jim Gilmore failed to provide any good reason for him to be there.

The Fox News panel seemed determined to go after Donald Trump. He didn’t have a convincing story for why he has changed his mind on issues like abortion rights and single-payer health care. His answer to the question about his corporate bankruptcies struck me as extremely weak and weaselly. On the plus side, he deflected a question about his disgusting sexist remarks by beating his chest about political correctness. He also got the most speaking time–twice as much as Rand Paul, who had the least time to speak.

Paul scored a hit by calling attention to the fact that Trump won’t rule out running for president as an independent. Paul also slammed Chris Christie for giving President Barack Obama “a big hug.” Although Christie handled that exchange well, I am skeptical he can overcome his high negatives with GOP base voters. I felt Paul got the better of Christie during their heated exchange over warrantless wiretapping and the Fourth Amendment. UPDATE: As of Friday morning, a “Vine” of Paul rolling his eyes while Christie talked had more than 4 million loops.

John Kasich staked out a moderate-conservative niche that the pundits loved. I’m not convinced he can become a real contender for the nomination, but he certainly has a story to tell.

I don’t understand the hype about Marco Rubio. He doesn’t impress me at all.

Jeb Bush didn’t speak fluidly or forcefully. I read that he didn’t do “live” debate prep with his staff. If that’s true, it was a mistake. Scott Walker was also underwhelming, and I expected more of a splash from Ted Cruz, though maybe they had some better moments in the parts I missed. In contrast, Mike Huckabee is an excellent communicator. Ben Carson didn’t seem to get questions that allowed him to distinguish himself. His tax reform proposal is based on what the Bible says about tithing.

Factcheck.org exposed some false statements from the “happy hour” and the prime time debate.

Any comments about the debates or the Republican presidential race are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: Trump’s further insults to Megyn Kelly of Fox News got him uninvited from this weekend’s Red State forum, prompting a typically outrageous response from the Trump campaign. Meanwhile, sexist tweets about Kelly have exploded since the debate. I believe women watching the debate would have felt deeply alienated by how many in the audience approved of Trump’s answer to the question about his sexism.  

Jim Webb is focused on executive leadership and getting proven results. Candidates that simply use applause lines to get votes will not be able to get results when they find themselves in a jam with Congress. Webb deserves your consideration in the Democratic nominating process because he delivered on the Post 9-11 G.I. Bill, which was a piece of legislation that he wrote before he came to the U.S. Senate. The Post 9-11 G.I. Bill has allowed millions of veterans advance their education and reach their true occupational goals. Jim Webb got results as a pro-bono attorney advocating for veterans that needed to navigate the bureaucracy of the Veterans Administration.

Steve King has been in denial about climate change for years. He has said that global warming is not happening, and he doesn’t accept the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect. Since the main purpose of the Clean Power Plan is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, King’s opposition to the plan would be expected. Nevertheless, I think global warming leading to climate disruption is a huge problem that must be addressed. The Clean Power Plan is an important step in the right direction. King is my rep, so I sent him an email asking him to support the Plan.

King responded by email on August 4, the day after the final version of the Clean Power Plan was released. (The text of his response is below.) He stated four objections to the Plan. He called the deadlines “unrealistic.” He said the Plan will increase costs which will be passed along to end users. King claimed the EPA exceeded its authority by passing regulatory standards “without the approval of Congress.” And he said the plan will cost jobs. All wrong.

Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen announced yesterday that he will not seek re-election in 2016 and will step down from leadership before next year’s legislative session. His surprise move kicks off what will be the most competitive leadership election within the House Republican caucus since colleagues elected Paulsen minority leader shortly after the 2008 general election.

Linda Upmeyer, a seven-term incumbent who has served as majority leader since 2011, immediately confirmed that she will run for speaker. She would be the first woman to lead the Iowa House, and to my knowledge, the first child of an Iowa legislative leader to follow a parent in that role. Upmeyer’s father Del Stromer was House speaker for part of the 1980s.

She won’t get Paulsen’s job without a fight, though.  

A U.S. District Court judge has ruled unconstitutional an Idaho law that criminalized lying to obtain employment at an agricultural facility or making unauthorized audio and video recordings at such facilities. Will Potter, one of the plaintiffs challenging the “ag gag” law, has been covering the case at the Green is the New Red blog. Judge Lyn Winmill’s ruling (pdf) found that the Idaho law’s provisions violated both “the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” of the U.S. Constitution.

The Iowa House and Senate approved and Governor Terry Branstad signed our state’s version of the “ag gag” law in 2012. It was the first of its kind in the country.

Although Iowa’s law differed from the Idaho statute in some ways, several parts of yesterday’s federal court ruling would appear to apply equally to Iowa’s law. After the jump I’ve enclosed the relevant language from both state laws and excerpts from Judge Winmill’s ruling.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign started running two 60-second television commercials today in Iowa and New Hampshire. An August 2 press release noted,

These ads are part of an initial five-week, approximately $1 million ad buy in each state plus additional digital advertising. In New Hampshire, the ads will run statewide – in the Boston/Manchester market and in the Burlington market. In Iowa, the ads will air in the state’s two largest media markets – Des Moines and Cedar Rapids. As of today, Republican candidates and their SuperPACS have spent or reserved $34 million in air time in the four early primary states.

I enclose below the videos for “Dorothy” and “Family Strong,” with my annotated transcripts.

The commercials are strong, but I have to say: if you can afford to spend $2 million on tv ads in August (and Clinton can, having raised $47,549,799.64 for her campaign between April 1 and June 30), then you should have paid your full-time summer interns–sorry, “fellows.”

Yesterday the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released the final version of its Clean Power Plan for existing power plants, the “first-ever national standards to limit carbon pollution from power plants.” The final rule differs from the EPA’s original proposal last June in several respects. An EPA fact sheet spells out the key changes to the Iowa targets:

The goals are much closer together than at proposal. Compared to proposal, the highest (least stringent) goals got tighter, and the lowest (most stringent) goals got looser.

o Iowa’s 2030 goal is 1,283 pounds per megawatt-hour. That’s on the high end of this range, meaning Iowa has one of the least stringent state goals, compared to other state goals in the final Clean Power Plan.

o Iowa’s step 1 interim goal of 1,638 pounds per megawatt-hour reflects changes EPA made to provide a smoother glide path and less of a “cliff” at the beginning of the program.

You can read the final Clean Power Plan and related documents here. The EPA has posted a good summary of current climate change research here. After the jump I’ve enclosed excerpts from a White House list of benefits from the plan, the EPA’s two-page fact sheet about Iowa, and a graphic showing how much power plants contribute to U.S. carbon emissions relative to other major sources.

Renewable energy resources should make it easy for Iowa to meet the carbon emissions targets. I’ve also enclosed below excerpts from Donnelle Eller’s report for the Des Moines Register and Alisa Meggett’s commentary for the Cedar Rapids Gazette. The facts about wind and solar power’s potential belie scary rhetoric from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and various groups funded by fossil fuels interests about how the Clean Power Plan will affect businesses and consumers.

Reducing carbon emissions will incur massive collateral health benefits. The Physicians for Social Responsibility report Coal’s Assault on Human Health is still the best one-stop shop on why coal combustion causes so many premature deaths and chronic health problems. On the editorial page of today’s Des Moines Register, Dr. Yogesh Shah, associate dean of global health at Des Moines University, outlined the “human health effects of climate change,” which “are real and already being felt in Iowa.” Scroll to the end of this post to read excerpts, or better yet, click through to read his whole piece.  

U.S. Senator Joni Ernst’s bill seeking to end all federal funding for Planned Parenthood failed to reach the 60-vote threshold today to pass a cloture motion for proceeding to debate. Background and details on today’s vote are after the jump, along with the full text of the legislation and some Iowa political reaction to the Planned Parenthood funding controversy.

UPDATE: Added more comments from Senator Chuck Grassley. The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman is spearheading an inquiry into Planned Parenthood’s fetal tissue donation practices. Whereas Ernst would end all federal funding for Planned Parenthood immediately, Grassley appears open to continuing to fund the organization, depending on the findings from that investigation.  

GOP county leaders in the second Congressional district elected Dr. Mariannette Miller-Meeks to the Republican Party of Iowa’s State Central Committee on August 1, the Iowa GOP announced in a press release. An Army veteran and ophthalmologist, Miller-Meeks was the Republican challenger to Representative Dave Loebsack in IA-02 three times: in 2008, 2010, and 2014. She also served as director of the Iowa Department of Public Health in Governor Terry Branstad’s administration from January 2011 to January 2014, when she stepped down in preparation for her third Congressional campaign. She currently lives in Ottumwa.

Although Miller-Meeks was not able to unseat Loebsack, she left a lasting mark on Iowa politics in at least one way. I am convinced that her coattails in the Ottumwa area pulled Mark Chelgren over the line in his 2010 Iowa Senate race against Democratic incumbent Keith Kreiman. Chelgren won that election by ten votes in a district considered so heavily Democratic that neither party spent any serious money there. Don’t get me started on how Chelgren managed to win re-election last November. Democrats should have been able to get Iowa Senate district 41 back. Chelgren may be the GOP nominee against Loebsack in IA-02 next year.

The Iowa GOP just opened a field office in Ottumwa, signaling that Republicans view that part of southeast Iowa as fertile ground. Thanks in part to a strong history of organized labor at area factories, Ottumwa has traditionally supported Democratic candidates. In fact, Wapello County was one of just five Iowa counties to vote for John F. Kennedy in the 1960 presidential election as well as one of just four counties to vote for Bonnie Campbell in her 1994 gubernatorial race against Terry Branstad.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? Ten days after the New York Times published a train wreck of an exclusive about Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, the fallout continues. Kurt Eichenwald walked through many factual errors and “fundamentally deceptive” frames in the report about a “criminal referral” that never existed. The Times’ Public Editor Margaret Sullivan dug into how a story “fraught with inaccuracies” ended up on the front page. Matt Purdy, the “top-ranking editor involved with the story,” told Sullivan, “We got it wrong because our very good sources had it wrong.” New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet suggested the mistakes “may have been unavoidable.”

Really? No chance you got played by “very good sources” who are out to get Hillary Clinton? It wouldn’t be the first time. Representative Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Benghazi and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, made a strong case that the Times fell for a familiar “ploy” of letting partisan anonymous sources “mischaracterize” documents reporters have not seen. The Clinton campaign’s official response is devastating, which may be why Baquet refused to publish it.

Some mistakes are inevitable when covering current events on a tight deadline, but thankfully, few political writers will ever commit malpractice on this scale. Aspiring journalists everywhere should study the cautionary tale. I liked Josh Marshall’s “thought experiment” for reporters “about to publish a big piece or something a lot rides on”:

Pretend that the story blows up in your face. And you have to explain to me or your editor what went wrong. If you’re the reporter in that case, you take your lumps but when you have that conversation, you really want to be able to say and explain how you covered every base, checked every box on the list and it still went wrong. When you go through that exercise it often makes you think of some box that hasn’t been checked that you really want to have checked if you find yourself in a real version of that hypothetical conversation.

I hope the Times will assign Matt Apuzzo and Michael S. Schmidt to different beats, because they have lost all credibility to report on Clinton.

This post is an open thread: all topics welcome.

Cedar Rapids City Council member Monica Vernon was the first Congressional candidate endorsed this cycle by the influential political action committee EMILY’s List. The PAC’s mission is straightforward: “We elect pro-choice Democratic women to office.” EMILY’s List did not get involved in the 2014 primary to represent Iowa’s first district, in which three of the five candidates were pro-choice women. But the PAC’s leaders have signaled they will fight to help Vernon win the IA-01 nomination in 2016.

As in the last election cycle, Vernon’s main competition for the right to face Republican Rod Blum will be former Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy. Even before Murphy officially entered the race last week, EMILY’s List took the first shot at the 2014 Democratic nominee. Cristinia Crippes reported for the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier on July 20,

“Pat Murphy cannot be trusted to stand up for women and families across Iowa — just look at his long record of trying to restrict women’s access to health care and put politics in the middle of decisions that should be left between women and their doctors,” Emily’s List press secretary Rachel Thomas said in a statement.

On July 29, EMILY’s List fleshed out that case with a graphic I’ve enclosed below, highlighting Murphy’s “pro-life” votes and statements between 1996 and 2007.

This lifelong Democrat and third-generation supporter of reproductive rights in Iowa has one question for the EMILY’s List strategists: Do you really want to go there?