(Music) A judge rejects an effort to broaden Indiana's abortion ban.

Vice President Harris and former President Trump debate.

Plus, Jennifer McCormick's cannabis plan and more from the television studios at WFYI.

It's Indiana Week In Review for the week ending September 13th, 2024.

Indiana Week in Review is made possible by the supporters of Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

This week, a county judge rejected an effort by abortion care providers to expand the health exception in Indiana's near-total abortion ban.

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled last year that the state constitution guarantees the right to abortion only if a pregnant person's life or serious health is at risk.

That is one of the few exceptions to Indiana's abortion ban.

But some of the state's abortion care providers argued in court that exception in the law is vague and too narrow.

But judge Kelsey Hanlon disagrees.

She says the providers couldn't come up with any examples of medical conditions that would cause serious health risks, but aren't allowed under the law.

Hanlon also rejected the arguments that emotional or mental health conditions should be allowed under the law, saying there is no evidence that abortion is necessary to treat such conditions.

And Hanlon says that while some doctors can't be certain what qualifies under the bands health exception, the law is not too vague.

Is the issue of abortion access access largely settled in Indiana?

It's the first question for our Indiana Week in Review panel.

Democrat Ann DeLaney.

Republican Mike O'Brien.

Ebony Chappel, market director for Free Press, Indiana.

And Niki Kelly, editor in chief of the Indiana Capitol Chronicle.

I'm Indiana Public Broadcasting Statehouse bureau chief Brandon Smith.

Ann DeLaney, we've now seen the ban has been in effect, in effect for over a year.

We've seen multiple lawsuits, some of them still ongoing.

The Indiana Supreme Court will almost certainly weigh in on this one.

But is the permanent picture of abortion access in this state?

Do we do we know what that is now?

Oh, I think we do.

As long as there's a supermajority of Republicans in the legislature and a Republican governor mean they don't care what the voters want, that's pretty clear.

They don't they don't want to know.

And they think they know, but they don't like it.

So they don't want to ask the voters what they want.

They want to codify their own religious principles.

That's what this is all about.

Their religion says that this is where life begins, and they're going to make sure that everybody follows it.

So I think it's I think it's done.

The way this will come up for in the courts again, is when a doctor exercises his or her medical judgment and says this is necessary to prevent serious injury to the mother.

And then some goofball in the ilk of Todd Rokita rides in on his prosecutorial bandwagon and files a felony charge against the doctor.

And that's basically you not only have a total abortion, even where abortions would be permitted, because the mother's health is seriously at risk.

It won't happen in Indiana because no doctor wants to subject him or herself to the same kind of pain and public torment that Todd Rokita visited on Doctor Kate and Bernard, so they won't happen.

They're going to have to travel abroad even when their health is seriously at risk.

And that's what the Indiana General Assembly wanted.

Is at the legislative level.

Are we done regulating abortion in Indiana, or is there more that you think the legislature will do?

We are right now because the court has said the law's constitutional right.

And in part, that was because they couldn't produce a tangible example of when, you know, reason need to be.

It needs to be clarified or altered.

So the legislature doesn't have a reason to come back right now.

For unless it's called for restrictions, it's politics or which is what Democrats are hanging their hat on this this election cycle.

Right.

We're seeing it in swing states around the country, not so much in Indiana.

The Democrats are definitely trying to make it a, an issue in certain parts of the state and certain certain races we haven't seen.

Of course it is, but we haven't seen it benefit yet in a bit politically in an election.

And so until that changes, the majorities change we see or we have a court come in and say, no, this needs to be clarified, that no or there's there's no really cause for the legislature to come back and pick this up again.

Unless they want to restrict more, unless they want to restrict certain kinds of contraception or the morning after pill or IVF.

Yeah, we we've had a couple sessions since then and we're certainly there's members that can IVF.

And to be fair, IVF was protected specifically in the original abortion ban.

Right.

And that doesn't mean it can't be changed by the supermajority that gets added, gets more radically right every time.

Well, so politically speaking, you know, Mike just brought up the fact that Democrats are trying to make this an issue in certain state House races.

There was no real fallout for any Republican, certainly in 2022 after the ban was originally passed, but it wasn't in effect, them.

So this is the first election in which the ban was in effect, and it's been in effect for about a year.

But do you think voters in Indiana, in large numbers, are going to go to the polls thinking about Indiana's abortion ban?

I think they are.

We've seen polls come out where the majority of Hoosiers have said that they feel like the ban is way too restrictive.

So I think it is one of the main things that is going to fire up, especially first time voters, people who haven't engaged in elections in quite some time.

I think this is one of those issues that's going to pull them out.

If any Republicans do suffer consequences from the abortion ban in this election.

or actually, let me rephrase that.

If they don't, if we kind of see the results go the way they've gone, does it embolden some Republicans in the legislature now who would like to see the ban go further, more restrictive?

Does it embolden them to go listen?

Clearly, the voters are on our side.

We need to go further.

And do you think leadership will?

I mean, I think there's a small core of lawmakers who would see that as a reason to move forward.

But I think overall they'd be able to get that passed because between some Republicans who aren't comfortable with going further and the whole Democrat caucuses, I think that would be enough to shut that down.

That's obviously what we saw in 22. but I expect those bills to be filed as amendments to be filed.

because those are core beliefs for a small group of Republicans.

Time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we post an unscientific online poll question, and this week's question is, is the issue of abortion access settled in Indiana A - yes or B - no?

Last week we asked you whether the U.S. should continue to provide aid to Ukraine.

93% of you said yes.

7% said no.

If you'd like to take part in the poll, go to wfyi.org/iwir and look for the poll.

Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump met in their one and possibly only debate this year, in a race that will likely be decided by a razor thin margin.

Harris, who only became the nominee a few weeks ago, used the debate to try to introduce herself to many Americans and pitch some of her policy proposals.

I have a plan to give startup businesses $50,000 tax deduction to pursue their ambitions, their innovation, their ideas, their hard work.

I have a plan $6,000 for young families for the first year of your child's life.

Trump sought to tie Harris to President Joe Biden, the previous nominee who stepped aside after a disastrous debate performance earlier this year.

They've had three and a half years to fix the border.

They've had three and a half years to create jobs and all the things we've talked about.

Why hasn't she done it?

But Harris also repeatedly baited Trump into talking about anything but the topics moderators asked about.

People don't leave my rallies.

We have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics.

That's because people want to take their country back.

Harris's campaign called for another debate, while Trump so far resisted that call, accusing moderators of being unfair.

I'm going to ask both of our partisan panelists basically the same question, but I'll start with you, Mike O'Brien.

Did Donald Trump have the performance he needed?

We've seen so many versions of Donald Trump since that, since the first debate, right, that he clearly won by all accounts, except Democrats into a tailspin on who their camp was going to be and then was really disciplined about what that just what let the party just burn and go.

Go figure it out.

But then the party leader himself.

Then but then he kind of went back to old Trump at the convention.

Right.

He tossed out, you know, the assassination attempt.

He supposedly throws out the old speech, which was kind of the same old stuff, name calling and, you know, these things.

And he's going to have this serious speech and he gives the speech and seemed to kind of give both versions the one he threw out and the new one.

And with this debate and it's so party leaders in the wake of that, and the people around him from all reports were very focused on don't enough with the name calling focus on the policies.

For relitigate the same.

Three and a half years of of the border crisis getting right focus on these things that that our voters are really concerned about.

The Americans are very concerned about.

And for the last three days, we've been talking about eating cats and dogs in Ohio.

And so like when you when you don't what?

It was hyperbolic on both sides.

Donald Trump handed the Biden administration the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Clearly not true.

As a creator created the greatest economy the world has ever seen.

Also not true, but let's have the debate on that on that basis.

But you can't.

But we can't.

We got to get rid of crowd size.

He's got to get rid of crowd size.

He's got to get rid of whatever the bizarre story of the day is eating cats and dogs, the stuff that make Republicans go, God, I want to get there.

But, I mean, you're keeping me away.

He was keeping.

You know, by the way, I'm so again, version of the same question.

Did Kamala Harris have the performance that she clearly.

I thought her performance was excellent, starting out with forcing him to shake hands at the beginning of the debate.

I mean, she controlled the agenda and she controlled the answers and her demeanor, unlike his I mean, he demonstrated a temperament that's unsuited to be the chief executive officer of this country.

He really did.

And when you listen to him, you know, when his father died, he inherited 11,000 New York City apartments.

Okay.

Now he did it all himself.

He's declared bankruptcy six times.

And yet he's the great, I don't know, the great businessman.

He just.

You can't believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

Weird is not an adjective that describes it.

It's not.

It's not enough.

And besides which, he looked incredibly old.

I mean, he could not make eye contact with her.

Couldn't lift his head.

He scowled the entire time.

He really, by comparison, is somebody I heard once upon a time said, you know, if you have an old cat, you may not realize how old the cat is.

Then you get a new cat, and then you realize just how old that first one was.

That's what voters saw that night.

Making the record.

I have a new cat named Clemmy, named after Clementine.

Winston Churchill's wife.

Oh, that's our.

Other cat is Winston.

So you know what.

I.

You're not.

You're not a. Charles, like, pretty.

Old, Nicki.

And in the immediate aftermath.

Now.

Now, you know, I mentioned that it seems unlikely that Trump will do a second, but he said, I think after I wrote that yesterday, he came out and said, absolutely not.

Of course, these things can change and often do change.

But when you're the candidate who, after the debate goes, oh no, we're not having another debate, and who basically spends all your time saying it was the moderators fault and that you were ganged up on, did you have a good debate?

There are two reasons to refuse to debate a you're so far ahead that you don't need it.

It's a distraction.

And that's what we see.

You know.

So potentially yeah, it's there's no reason for you to.

The second is you just got toasted.

I mean, I look as much as he won the first debate with Biden.

You can't argue that.

You also can't argue.

I don't think that he completely lost this one.

there is still an outside chance out there that his ego will will get the best of him, and he'll want a rematch because I'm sure he hates that he didn't do as well as he wanted to do.

He believes, I'm sure, that he did perfectly well.

I'm not even sure he believes that I.

But perhaps most the most important question is we're still nearly two months out from Election Day.

Will this debate end up mattering to the final results in November?

I think it will matter to certain people speaking to Trump's performance.

You know, he had the concept of a performance and barely that.

if we can even call it that.

I think that it matters to certain people who really want to hear more about their respective policies, who want to get to know Kamala Harris.

This was an opportunity for millions and millions of Americans to get to know her more.

So I think it serves the Democratic Party to have another debate.

The Republicans, not so much.

I've been talking about this all week with friends and family and coworkers.

I think a lot of people want the Democrats to speak more realistically, more grassroots, about how these policies are going to impact their daily life.

So perhaps if it's going to do that, I think it'll have some impact.

But yeah, it's kind of hard in that format where you only have a minute or so.

Absolutely.

Yeah, absolutely.

All right.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jennifer McCormick says Hoosiers have told her they're ready for the state to legalize adult cannabis use.

And she unveiled a plan to do so this week, one that begins with medical use and would draw from lessons learned in other states.

McCormick says she would start by creating a commission to develop the framework for a well-regulated cannabis industry.

Making sure we have the right partners again, who have the expertise to understand the impact, to have already done an amazing amount of research in this area.

McCormick says she has no set timeline for how the state would move from legal medical use to legal recreational use.

It is really dependent upon how this rolls out and what successes we see and what barriers we come across, because we know there will be both.

Republican legislative leaders have been staunchly opposed to cannabis legalization.

McCormick says different leadership in the governor's office and pressure from the public could change that.

Niki Kelly, how much can the new governor?

And to be fair, I think Mike Braun is certainly more open to legalization in some form than certainly Eric Holcomb has been.

I know Donald Rainwater is open to complete legalization.

So is Jennifer McCormick now.

How much can whoever the new governor is impact this debate?

Oh, I think they can really impact it.

I mean, if you make it a priority and you establish a commission and, you know, those are all going to be covered by reporters, and you're going to discuss real regulatory issues about how an industry would be set up, who sells it, where does the money go?

You know, how do you ensure that addiction rates don't go up?

I mean, that can constantly be in discussions.

We've seen everything shifting already, so we're only probably a couple of years away from that, as is just having seen the natural shift at a governor in there who wants to push it.

And I think, you know, it would accelerate it.

If this is kind of goes back to the question about the debate performance in the sense of how will it matter?

Poll after poll after poll for a while now in Indiana, has told us that of a large majority of Hoosiers are ready for at least medical cannabis and most of them recreational cannabis, to.

But that hasn't really changed what is going on at the legislature.

There's more discussion there, bills there's no real probably change.

It is slowly changing.

Have a.

Hearing.

You know, but it hasn't moved the needle nearly as much as clearly the needle has moved in the public.

Why?

Why is that.

Why can't why isn't that public sentiment being translated to the statehouse?

I think you can argue that for all the other issues that we discussed this afternoon, it's because you have a majority, a supermajority, that is in charge of making those decisions.

They are not interested in what the average Hoosier is interested in.

So that's why we end up with the situations we end up with.

I think it's good that, you know, Jennifer McCormick is interested in studying this.

And setting up a commission, learning from other states.

We're surrounded on all sides by states that have this legalized.

So in the meantime, I guess Hoosiers would just have to take little road trips and vacations to enjoy whatever it is that they would like to enjoy.

And the numbers weigh on our state to catch up.

And the numbers strongly suggest that they do add in some large numbers.

she just mentioned that we're probably only a couple years away from the legislature almost being forced into this.

Do you feel the same way?

Well, generally, I think we can we apply this to a lot of different issues, like the overwhelming number of Hoosiers.

Agree.

It's like, well, normally those polls are put on by industry that the industries that want to actually want to legalize it.

But the brunt of it, and it's also it's also a difference between, oh, I might I might agree with something or believe something, but I'm not getting that vote for it when I, when I vote that's, that's that's.

One that's the issue on this one.

It's it's intense.

It's intense in a small group.

And it's not enough to make a difference in an election.

I mean, that's just what's up and down.

Do you support it?

Yes.

Top ten issues nowhere close to it.

Right.

And so that's that's what that's what motivates those outcomes.

And that's what politicians tend to react to.

Right.

Just just generally but I think you know, I think Todd Houston has said, look, I don't think the public policy of Indiana, if we're going to legalize this, we're saying more people should do this.

And he doesn't he doesn't believe that.

So but you've also had Eric Folsom.

That said, the feds have got to act on this first.

We're not actually legalizing anything.

It's still federally illegal.

We complicate things for a lot of industries like banking, but we do do it.

And it's also not part of the justification to pass it from Jennifer McCormick and others.

There's been this windfall of money, and that's just not played itself out in other states that the net costs of of regulation and the black market that continues to exist and thrive and in legalized states.

But it's not the whole that's not the whole story.

That's not a reason for me not to do it.

Fine.

Go, go do it.

But but at least make the feds open the door and create some, some kind of standard framework for it.

So we're not.

So it's not just the Wild West.

It's been.

Is there a difference in your mind from a public policy standpoint, whether this is a good or a bad move for the state of Indiana to take between decriminalization, which is one thing, and full legalization, you could take away criminal penalties and still not say you can.

Yeah.

And you could just say, now everybody, it's not only just decriminalized but also legalized.

There are two differences.

Do you think one is better than the other or is it time to go all the way?

I think it's time to go all the way.

I mean, you can you can hedge your bet by going by going on decriminalizing, which makes perfect sense.

The idea that we're spending 50 or $55,000 a year to lock somebody up for marijuana possession is crazy.

I've advocated for years for medical marijuana.

When you have veterans that have PTSD and you have people with chronic illnesses that only get their relief from the medical marijuana, and we're holding it back and saying, no, no, take opioids, take, you know, do these other things, but not not something that will really help you.

It's coming, I think, when when President Harris is in office and Democrats control the House and the Senate, you'll see a federal resolution of this issue.

And I do agree it has to be done because of the banking problems with that and the money being transferred, transmitted back and forth across state lines.

But but it's time for people to stand up.

And it I don't care whether it's one of the top ten issues.

This legislature with the super majority is completely a two tone deaf to the voters.

They're completely tone deaf, and the gerrymandering has allowed them to continue that.

Well, that's what does it.

You can laugh all you want, but that's what's.

Motivating issue for 9,090%.

But it is an issue some a lot of people care about.

And the legislature.

Can draw lines around.

But okay, well, let me tell you, there wasn't a mass outpouring for choice and that didn't stop the legislature from enacting it and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on it.

Maybe it's also not a priority for most Hoosiers.

Maybe that's maybe that's another issue.

That's the same way, because we've got so the.

Legislature can do what it wants then, Well, I think they're going to do the things that Hoosiers prioritize, which is what we've seen.

Like abortion, like abortion.

We haven't seen that at all.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is promoting training to combat antisemitism for local prosecutors and law enforcement.

And at least one prosecutor is sharply criticizing that move.

Rokita cites a sharp spike in reports of anti-Semitism after the Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel last year, and recent protests at Indiana University over Israel's war in Gaza as reasons for the training.

Rokita says law enforcement should adopt a zero tolerance policy towards antisemitism and encourages police to patrol synagogues and Jewish schools.

Long time Wayne County prosecutor Michael Shipman says prosecutors are already equipped to deal with violence against citizens of any background.

In a letter to Rokita, Shipman says the training is unrelated to the duties of the attorney general's office, and Shipman, a Republican, accuses fellow Republican Rokita of misusing his position to grandstand and further his own political ambitions.

Rokitas office, says the interest and positive feedback for the upcoming training are overwhelming.

Ebony quite frankly, do you see anything wrong with Todd Rokita's office providing this sort of training?

I tend to agree with Mr. Shipman on this.

I don't understand what this training has to do with the Attorney General's office.

I think if Mr. Rokita is truly, concerned about issues of xenophobia, racism, prejudiceed behavior, that this should be more broad.

we should focus on that across the board.

I think what you see happen in this situation, in others, when you look at what happened at IU Bloomington, there are people, that are focusing on criticism of Israel and equating that to anti-Semitism, as if they are the same thing and they simply are not.

So I, I don't understand what the point of this is.

And yeah, I tend to agree with Mr. Shipman.

This is not the first time on this show we've discussed something Todd Rokita is office is doing and questioned whether or not it's the business of the office of the Attorney General.

This one feels a lot closer to the business of the office of the Attorney General, does it not?

Yeah.

I mean, I don't necessarily see anything wrong with it.

I don't know that it needs to be done.

I think local police and prosecutors are probably handling these things fine.

But I also don't necessarily think there's a problem with it.

You know, it's something he's identified as an issue.

I don't think anyone wants antisemitism in the state.

So good for that.

He is trying to kind of push them to be harsher.

he made very clear giving examples in the letter about, you know, yes.

You know, protesting is one thing, but if they block a road, that's a crime.

Like he was trying to distinguish between speech and crime.

And so he's certainly taken a hard line stand that he wants them to as well.

but yeah, I mean, it's at least pretty.

I wonder if we're going to see a similar response when we have, truck caravans blocking traffic on I-40.

Again.

That's the big question led by Rokita.

Yes.

Let's layer it across the board if that's what we're really concerned about.

And I don't believe that's what he's really concerned about.

I know you're a huge fan of Todd Rokita.

but.

Are you.

What is that what is the problem with this?

Because what it says to the prosecutors and the overwhelming majority of whom are Republicans, you don't know how to do your job.

And I, who have never been a criminal prosecutor, Rokita has never been a criminal prosecutor.

Okay.

He handles appeals of somebody else's work.

That's all he does.

All right.

And so he's coming in and saying, I know better than you do how to do this.

And it's offensive in the extreme.

There are no examples where prosecutors haven't been aggressive on this, and they certainly don't need tutoring from somebody who has no experience.

Well, there's there is an example, in that the Monroe County prosecutor declined to bring charges against all the people who, potentially could have been charged with the, at IU Bloomington.

Is this in a back doorway aimed a little bit at that situation?

Oh, none of what?

Look, it's no secret that like this glowing fan of Todd Rokita on this show and everything that he's done.

I call the shots when I think he's right.

I say that when I think he's wrong, I. I see that most of this is that's a brought up is not we have had a Trump caravan that sure that Rokita.

Has a Trump.

Caravan as refused to that's refused to do anything about it.

Look I think the problem I've got with this dynamic between the prosecutor Rokita is Rokita has said, hey, here's a vulnerable population.

Here's some things you can do to make sure that you're going the extra steps to protect it.

You have the prosecutor going, no, it's almost like the Black Lives Matter.

No, all lives matter, right?

And I was like, okay, well, can we can we at least agree that there's vulnerable populations that are more targeted right now at synagogues, like going after the president?

We're not going after we're not going after Presbyterians.

And I'm totally agree.

I completely agree.

With your.

Audiences.

Totally agree.

People that need this I completely agree.

If that's what he's really consulting.

You should pick and choose.

I think we absolutely should be identifying marginalized populations that are more susceptible to be targeted.

This is an example.

Of police departments as well.

Do you.

Think they.

Actually do?

Okay.

That's Indiana Week In Review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Ann DeLaney.

Republican Mike O'Brien.

Ebony Chappel of Free Press, Indiana.

And Niki Kelly of the Indiana Capitol Chronicle.

You can find Indiana weekend reviews, podcast and episodes at WFYI.org/IWIR or on the PBS app.

I'm Brandon Smith of Indiana Public Broadcasting.

Join us next time because a lot can happen in Indiana week.

The opinions expressed are solely those of the panelist.

Indiana Week in Review was a wfyi production in association with Indiana's public broadcasting stations.