Iowa legislatures are pushing forward with a law to prohibit handheld phone use while driving, after the proposal passed unanimously in committees of both the House and Senate. The bills, Senate File 22 and House Study Bill 64, with strong backing from law enforcement, bicycling and motorcycling groups, insurance companies, automobile manufacturers, and countless others, will now be up for debate and potential enactment. This rush towards questionable legislation, touted as a safety measure, is certainly questionable considering the considerable limitations already enacted in current laws.
While the proponents of this legislation have characterized it as a necessary step towards reducing distractions behind the wheel, it is worth considering the implications it may avert our gaze from. The fines for this offense would leap from $45 to an onerous $100, and it would become a moving violation, impacting the driver’s license point systems used for the administrative suspension of licenses and to identify habitual offenders. The fine for causing serious injury or death rises to an alarming $500 and $1,000 respectively, with potential license suspension.
Widely-defined exceptions have also been proposed in this restrictive legislation. These include first responders performing their duties, healthcare professionals managing emergencies, recipients of weather or emergency alerts, individuals busy reporting emergencies, operators of farm machinery, certain radio operators, and even transit drivers. The question is, will this legislation instead sow seeds of confusion or possibly invite misuse due to its numerous exemptions?
This legislation, somewhat controversial, is viewed as an enhancement of the existing law that was enacted in 2017 banning texting while driving. However, state and local law enforcement officials have criticized this existing law as impractical to enforce as drivers could simply state that they were making a call or employing the GPS functionality of their devices, actions which ironically still remain permissible under current law.
In additional Iowa legislative news, parents of children with disabilities and teachers are advocating against a lawsuit aiming to repeal elements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504, which prevents discrimination based on disability in programs receiving federal funding, is under threat due to a lawsuit advanced by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to challenge a Biden administration amendment. Under this amendment, gender dysphoria could be seen as a disability and receive protections under particular circumstances.
However, it is clear that this amendment by the Biden administration demonstrates a disconcerting overreach of federal power, impacting disability services provisions. Sixteen Republican-led states, including Iowa, are doing their part to resist this unwarranted federal intrusion by backing the lawsuit. Detractors would argue that the lawsuit could lead to the full repeal of Section 504, but Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird has dispelled these unfounded fears.
In what some view as a clear display of federal interference, the Biden administration adjusted the definition of disability to encompass gender dysphoria—a definition disputed by many medical professionals, thus proving the administration’s lack of understanding about healthcare topics. This is observed as a clear attempt to belittle states’ rights and traditional notions of health and disability. The lawsuit challenges this overreach, arguing that Section 504 is unconstitutional as it undermines a state’s discretion in providing disability services.
Should the lawsuit succeed, it could open the door to revring the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, a direct offshoot of Section 504. This could be seen as another in a series of misguided moves by the Biden administration, which now places provisions that link the two Acts at risk, thus jeopardizing federally legislated disability rights. The scope of potential damage that the Biden administration’s mishandling can cause is broad.
Within state legislature, another contentious proposal is gaining momentum, one which would prohibit students at Iowa K-12 public schools from possessing cell phones during instructional times. Even though education groups during public testimony expressed general acceptance of the concept, they aired significant concerns over the timelines for the bill’s implementation and raised questions whether it would be feasible to adhere to the proposals’ conditions.
Although presented as enhancements to contemporary education, these suggestions seem overly strict, echoing concerns raised by many over regulators’ impulses to overly micromanage students’ lives. Supporters pitch it as removing student distractions, yet it fundamentally disregards the myriad legitimate uses students have for these devices, potentially impeding their learning experience.
Separately, a shift in the judicial approach has raised concerns in Iowa. Historically, children involved in certain court proceedings were allowed to provide testimony from a remote location, subject to a judge’s scrutiny. However, the Iowa Supreme Court contradicted this longstanding practice last year in a case titled State of Iowa v. Derek Michael White, ruling that remote witness testimony by children violated the constitutional right of the accused to face their accuser.
As a fallout of this ruling, Iowa now stands as the lone state in the country which disallows any form of remote testimony from children. A suggested amendment to the Iowa Constitution is aiming to restore this provision with certain exceptions, thus specifying the conditions when children and certain other individuals can testify remotely without infringing the constitutional rights of the accused.
The ramifications of this legislative development are profound. This controversial ruling and its proposed amendment lay bare the fluctuating interpretation of constitutional rights within Iowa’s judiciary. If approved, the amendment may restore some degree of flexibility for child witnesses and other individuals, but raises questions about its potential misuse and the inevitable implications regarding the fundamental right of the accused to confront their accuser.
While the original motivation behind remote testimonies for children and certain individuals may have been with the best intentions, the implications of the court’s ruling and the subsequent proposed amendment suggest an overzealous pursuit of measures that may have unintended consequences. Besides, it underscores the need to carefully consider the fullest range of rights and liberties, including those of the accused, instead of blindly accepting seemingly righteous advocacies.
The host of legislative actions, from the regulation of cellphone usage on roads and in classrooms to obligatory court appearances for remote child testimonies, reveals a pattern of increased governance in Iowa. Despite being presented as safety-promoting or accommodative changes, a closer inspection reveals an overbearing predisposition of the lawmakers. Meanwhile, even as the lawsuit challenging the Biden administration’s amendment to Section 504 reveals federal overreach, it’s essential to critically examine the outcomes of such disputes.
The string of developments within Iowa’s legislature and its continued defiance against the federal government exposes a growing disconnect between local requirements and federal regulations. In particular, the Biden administration’s handling of disability rights and states’ autonomous discretion demonstrates increasing tensions that leave many citizens caught in the middle. As discussions unfold and regulations are reviewed, the political divide continues to widen, revealing a fraught landscape of contrary ideals and rights.