What is the most important vote on Tuesday’s ballot?

By Tom Quiner

Brenna Findley at the Pro-Life Townhall meeting

Iowans are faced with huge choices on Tuesday.

Do we replace our big-spending Governor?

Do we oust three activist Supreme Court judges who imposed gay marriage on Iowa?

Do we replace a Congressman with a 100% voting record on the Pelosi index with a fiscally-prudent conservative?

These are all big choices.

But the biggest may be to replace Iowa’s long-standing Attorney General, Tom Miller. And we have a stellar conservative candidate in Brenna Findley to do that and help right Iowa’s course.

I heard Ms. Findley speak at the Pro-Life Townhall meeting a week ago. I was impressed. I was struck by her intelligence and articulation. I appreciated her work ethic. She worked her way through Drake University and went on to earn a law degree at the University of Chicago.

She is the same age with the same amount of experience as Tom Miller had when he was first elected Attorney General of Iowa.

Mr. Miller has staked out clear-cut positions in support of Planned Parenthood and Obamacare. Regarding Planned Parenthood, AG Miller refused to prosecute Planned Parenthood for performing telabortions despite a law that requires a doctor to be present when an abortion is performed. He passed the buck saying it was up to the county attorney to make the call. However, Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue, who filed a complaint against the practice, said this doesn’t make sense:

“Because Planned Parenthood’s telemed abortion scheme involves remotely dispensing dangerous abortion drugs at the push of a button in as many as twelve Iowa counties, it was only logical to file our complaint with the Attorney General’s office since he would be the only one to have jurisdiction in all of the locations involved. There is a jurisdictional question since the licensed physician never leaves Polk County, yet distributes abortion drugs to remote counties over 100 miles away. In which county is the crime committed, the county where the button is pushed or the county where the drugs are actually dispensed? Filing with the AG solves the obvious jurisdictional problems.”

Even before, reading the complaint, Mr. Miller’s office said the Iowa Board of Medicine needed to weigh in on the telabortion scheme before any legal action would even be considered. Here’s Ms. Sullenger’s reaction:

“As for waiting until the Iowa Medical Board acts, it is irresponsible for the state’s ‘top cop’ to continue to allow women to be placed at risk while they delay law enforcement on the outcome of an investigation of a Board that very likely operates under different burdens of proof.”

Ms. Sullenger and Ms. Findley both spoke at the Pro Life Townhall Meeting where Findley said she would not have waited for the Iowa Board of Medicine to decide. She would not have referred this issue to County Attorneys.

She would not have passed the buck on this critical health question for women and their unborn babies.

On another key issue, Obamacare, Ms. Findley said she will join 14 other Attorney Generals around the country in filing a lawsuit to block enforcement of the law’s provisions,  a lawsuit Mr. Miller refused to join. Here is Ms. Findley’s reasoning for filing suit:

“The Constitution does not give Congress unlimited power. The federal government is claiming that it has the authority to force Iowans to buy health insurance under its power to regulate interstate commerce. However if a person decides not to buy health insurance they are, by definition not engaging in commerce and therefore are not subject to the federal mandate. As Iowa’s Attorney General I would take a stand for Iowans against this abuse of power by joining 14 other Attorneys General from other states to challenge this unconstitutional law in court.”

Mr. Miller, on the other hand, equates the issue with a state’s mandate to purchase car insurance. Ms. Findley says the comparison doesn’t hold up:

“Our current Attorney General claims that Congress forcing you to buy a certain kind of health insurance is no different than our state law which requires licensed drivers to carry proof of car insurance. There are several fatal flaws with his argument.

First of all, there is a fundamental constitutional difference between the inherent police powers of a state and the enumerated powers of the federal government. Our country was founded on the principle that the federal government is limited to the enumerated powers granted to it by the Constitution and that Congress does not have unlimited power.

Second, car insurance coverage required by state law covers damage to other people’s cars and property (liability coverage). It doesn’t mandate that we insure against damage to ourselves. State law gives us the freedom to decide whether we want to buy full coverage insurance for our cars. Congress mandated “full coverage” health insurance for everyone.

Third, car insurance requirements are for a voluntary activity, driving a car on public roads. The health insurance mandate imposes a mandate on a condition of life itself—our very existence as human being.

Finally, driving on public roads is a public behavior. Your health is a private matter and the federal government shouldn’t be able to force you to buy their mandated coverage.”

I like Brenna Findley. She has my vote. This may be the most important vote Iowan’s make this year.