Last week, District 18 Rep. David Wolkins voted to preserve the marriage amendment and send it to voters this fall. District 22 Rep. Rebecca Kubacki voted to weaken the marriage amendment and keep it off the ballot entirely.
Kubacki cited polls that only 43 percent of her district want to vote, 51 percent are against and 6 percent are undecided. However, in Wolkins’ neighboring district, numbers were 78 percent supporting a vote, 18 percent opposed and 4 percent undecided. Area Sen. Ryan Mishler’s polling mirrored Wolkins: 70 percent want to vote. Could this stark difference be explained by the polling questions?
Wolkins: “Do you support allowing Hoosiers to vote on an amendment to the constitution that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman?”
Mishler: “Should the state constitution be amended to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman and prohibit legal recognition of any other marriage-like relationship?”
Kubacki: “Current Indiana law code IC31-11-1 states in Chapter 1: Who may marry; IC31-11-1-1 Same Sex marriage prohibited. Sec 1(a) only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female. (b) A marriage between persons of the same gender is void in Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized. Do you support or oppose amending the state constitution to define what is already law?”
Wolkins and Mishler asked clear polling questions. Kubacki asked a leading question, and relied on flawed polling to deny everyone’s marriage vote opportunity. Kubacki needs to go.
— Lynn Howie
Prescription mandate would harm poor families
Since 2004, the Indiana Institute for Working Families (IIWF) has been committed to promoting public policies that help Hoosier families achieve and maintain economic self-sufficiency. Our efforts go toward helping the 2.45 million Hoosiers who fall below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. We are at the frontlines of policy battles that concern the rights of these people, and we work hard to represent them on all levels of government.
The IIWF supports the decision by the House Committee on Courts and Criminal Procedure to deny a vote on the recently proposed legislation that would have significantly curtailed the rights of law-abiding Indiana families. The proposal they rejected would have implemented a costly prescription requirement for all cold and allergy medicine containing pseudoephedrine.
Requiring a prescription for pseudoephedrine is not the right solution to Indiana’s meth problem. A mandate would have had a drastically negative effect on low-income families who rely on this medicine remaining affordable. Families under the poverty level can ill-afford to skip work for a doctor’s visit; not to mention the additional costs required for that visit. Moreover, few of the families our organization represents have enough insurance to cover these visits, forcing parents to pay out-of-pocket for each consultation.
We are thankful for the legislature’s efforts to curtail meth abuse, and we are equally grateful for their choice to protect honest, low-income families.
— Derek Thomas
Senior policy analyst, Indiana Institute for Working Families