Recent editorials published in Indiana newspapers
South Bend Tribune. Apr 26, 2018
Accepting faults for untested rape kits only part of the solution
Acknowledging the problem is the first step toward coming up with a solution.
"I'm sorry. Pure and simple. We didn't do what we should have done," St. Joseph County Prosecutor Ken Cotter said last week in accepting responsibility for 83 untested sexual assault kits that should have been sent to a laboratory.
Of the 83 kits, 29 were never forwarded to a detective, which Cotter described as unacceptable. All of those kits that weren't forwarded have now been assigned to a Special Victims Unit detective for follow up.
Especially troubling is that the county led the state in untested kits when Indiana State Police released results in December of an audit of all the state's 92 counties.
Though the state reported the county had 478 untested kits, Cotter's inquiry found there were 414 untested. Of those, 331 were not tested for valid reasons such as the victim not wanting to proceed, defendants being convicted in the case, victims advising the original allegations were inaccurate and others.
Though any number of untested rape kits is troubling, what's being done to change the process to ensure it doesn't happen again is even more important.
Three detectives with SVU have been reassigned because they believed they sent the kit to the laboratory but did not.
All non-anonymous sexual assault kits will be sent for testing, even if they wouldn't have before under different guidelines. If the victim doesn't want to cooperate with the investigation, the kit will still be sent for testing, unless the SVU commander or lead SVU deputy prosecutor decide otherwise.
There also will be independent reviews of each investigation and yearly audits to make sure no kits were missed.
When the problem with untested kits was revealed late last year, we said that police and prosecutors should move fast to correct the problem. To their credit, they have done so while also accepting full responsibility for shortcomings in the process that have left some victims feeling as if they've been victimized again.
Let's hope the new process that's been put in place contains the proper safety measures so that victims will never again have to endure a system that failed them in the past.
____
The (Anderson) Herald Bulletin. Apr 27, 2018
Let's encourage youth to speak their minds
Students at several local high schools staged another walkout, this one on Friday to recognize the anniversary of the Columbine, Colo., school massacre 19 years ago and to call attention to the issues of school safety and gun violence.
The students ran into opposition from some school officials and took some scathing criticism from adults on social media. It should be pointed out that the school officials, understandably, were focused on student safety, and that social media users have every right to criticize the students.
That's part of being an activist - taking the heat from opponents and paying a price, whether it's punishment from authorities or social pressure.
The most important lesson for students to learn is that, if you believe strongly enough in a cause, you should be willing to make sacrifices for it. Clearly, some local high-schoolers were willing to not only talk the talk, but walk the walk, as they say. Others, when it came down to it, were not so committed to the causes that generated the walkouts.
There are at least two important lessons to learn here for adults, too.
We should be supportive of students exercising their First Amendment rights. Youth shouldn't be censored, but should be encouraged to speak freely about political and social topics.
Active Americans who make their voices heard strengthen our democracy. Too many people are timid about expressing their opinions, thereby forfeiting their influence over important public policy.
But it's not enough just to let students vent. Adults should really, really listen.
While they might lack the years of real-world experience that can imbue adults with a more nuanced understanding of issues and human nature, youth often see issues with a crystal clarity that eludes older folks.
Instead of rushing to explain why they're wrong or why it just can't be done, try just sitting back and attempting to see things from the youths' point of view. And then engage in an open-minded, honest discussion.
American history shows that change is often fomented by the young. Think about the civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam War groundswell - students led the way.
On issues big and small, youth always have something important to say, if we would only listen.
____
The (Bloomington) Herald-Times. Apr 24, 2018
Heed Holcomb's directive to stay focused on a few issues in session
Members of the Indiana General Assembly left two or three important issues undone in March when they approached their deadline with professional efficiency that rivaled the knuckle-head brothers of "National Lampoon's Animal House."
Thus, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb has called them back to Indianapolis for what Hoosiers should all hope is a one-day special session on May 14.
Holcomb said he wants sharp focus on making $5 million available for school safety measures, authorizing Ball State University to take control of Muncie schools and changes necessary for the state to be in step with changes in the federal tax code.
The Muncie schools bill promises to be prickly, as it's seen as diluting the idea of home rule.
The other two issues deserve to pass with little to no debate. It's a dizzying failure that despite huge majorities in the House and Senate, Republicans couldn't complete the work of trying to make students attending schools more safe in the aftermath of high-profile school shootings around the country without incurring costs of $30,000 a day for a special session. It's similarly concerning that they couldn't make sure the state conforms to the federal tax law in the time they had allotted.
Holcomb, also a Republican, has said he would "be politely encouraging" the leaders of his party to not stray from these core issues, which he said are time sensitive and urgent. Hopefully the GOP leaders will do just that.
Despite the seeming waste of money, Holcomb also was correct when he said that the $30,000 a day cost for a special session would be "dwarfed by the cost of inaction."
Poor governing by the Legislature delivered the need for this special session. We hope for better on May 14.
____
The (Fort Wayne) Journal Gazette. Apr 26, 2018
State's abortion obsession wastes scarce dollars
Last week a federal appeals court struck down Indiana's abortion ban, a 2016 law prohibiting a woman from terminating her pregnancy because of the gender, race or disability of the fetus.
This week another lawsuit was filed challenging an Indiana law set to take effect July 1 - this one requiring physicians who treat women for a physical or psychological condition connected in any way to a past abortion to report detailed patient information to the state. Don't be surprised when it is struck down, as well.
The Indiana General Assembly's obsession with abortion restrictions is responsible for a long and costly collection of unsuccessful court battles. The state has paid nearly $3 million in legal fees to the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana since 2011, with the costs still rising.
As voters weigh campaign pledges before the May and November elections, they should consider candidates' willingness to risk more tax dollars on legislation that will inevitably land before the courts. The time and resources spent in pursuit of unconstitutional aims could be directed toward other goals, such as ensuring Indiana children are safe from abuse and neglect.
"I think that's part of the unfortunate thing with all of the lawsuits is we end up spending a lot of time debating policies that have really already been decided some 40 years ago, when we really could be focusing on helping Hoosier families by focusing on how to prevent unintended pregnancies," said Christie Gillespie, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Indiana's abortion ban last week.
Three Republican-appointed judges agreed that House Enrolled Act 1337 violated well-established legal precedent that a woman may terminate her pregnancy prior to viability for any reason. They rejected the state's argument that because of advances in genetic screening, Indiana has an interest in prohibiting discrimination against fetuses with disabilities.
The issue is settled, the judges ruled.
"We cannot reweigh a woman's privacy right against the state's interest," they wrote. "The Supreme Court has been clear: the state may inform a woman's decision before viability, but it cannot prohibit it."
Senate Enrolled Act 340 takes a different approach. In announcing the new lawsuit this week, Gillespie called the measure "yet another attempt by politicians to shame and stigmatize pregnant Hoosiers and spread the myth that abortion is dangerous."
Testifying against the legislation in March, former state health commissioner Richard Feldman warned it would erect barriers in the patient-doctor relationship. The legislative chairman of the Indiana Association of Family Physicians said the organization opposed the proposal because of the "onerous" compliance burden it would place on doctors, and the "intrusive" questions they would be required to ask female patients.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, which filed the suit on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, argues that the abortion complications reporting requirement creates "vague and uncertain standards" that are written so broadly "as to be meaningless."
Two area legislators, Sens. Travis Holdman and Liz Brown, were authors of the bill; Sen. Dennis Kruse was a co-author, and Rep. Chris Judy was a House sponsor.
While SB 340 sailed through the process, time ran out before some necessary legislation was approved. Now Hoosiers are left with the bill for a special session, a still-growing legal tab and serious problems in child protective services, wage growth and more.
When will lawmakers' priorities change?
____