Governor Braun orders the release of abortion reports, more tax cuts under a Senate bill, plus slashing unemployment benefits and more.

From the television studios at WFYI.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending January 24th, 2025.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by the Indy Chamber, working to unite business and community to maintain a strong economy and quality of life.

This week, governor Mike Braun ordered the Indiana Department of Health to resume releasing individual terminated pregnancy reports, as it did before the state's near-total abortion ban took effect.

Terminated pregnancy reports, or TPR, are completed by medical providers following an abortion and include data about the patient and the procedure.

The Department of Health stopped sharing individual TPR in December 2023 due to patient privacy concerns.

Instead, sharing abortion data quarterly.

An anti-abortion group sued over the department's decision, but a judge said Indiana's public records law protected the reports, contrary to the view held by Attorney General Todd Rokita.

Governor Braun's new executive order directs all state agencies to cooperate with the attorney General when it comes to abortion laws.

Braun was asked about the patient privacy concerns.

When it comes to that particular issue.

I'm going to not comment on it because I don't know.

Braun says all he's trying to do is enforce state law.

Is Indiana risking patient privacy?

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

Democrat, Ann DeLaney.

Republican, Mike O'Brien.

Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana lawmakers.

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

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

Mike O'Brien, with so few abortions taking place.

Is Indiana risking exposing these patients?

Yeah, I think I think that was the reason that, doctor Weaver originally did this way to set this up prior to the Holcomb administration the way they did.

And it's and it's not and it's actually also not uncommon the way that there are there are some obscure benefits through their family social services, like benefits that very few people take advantage of.

And those are that data is reported.

But they do it.

But it's also identifiable, right.

Because so few people so they aggregated and.

Sent to make it clear to do that when these TPRs were released in the past than when they were in the past.

There's a lot of information that is redacted.

So it's not like little is out there.

But even then, because there are so few, I.

Think I was thinking that was a concern.

The whole ministration, it was there's so few this can kind of become identifiable because there there are so few.

But I've also you you can you can hate the you can not like the abortion ban and I don't, I don't but it is it should be useful because it exists.

The government should have that information.

It should just happen in a different way, in a way that that is aggregated, that does, you know, if there's only been a few of these taking place in a in a small county, it's I mean, Indianapolis isn't a good example, but, you know, Switzerland County might be, you know, and there's other reasons that you would terminate a pregnancy that someone went and got an abortion.

Yeah.

because they were had the life of the mother rape exception or, you know, it.

Was the fetus was dead.

if you have an ectopic pregnancy or something.

So I think there is of course, that element to it that it is the intent of it is to from the pro-life community to say, well, why are any of these happening?

Right.

And I think that's the problem with releasing the state of the way you are, because it does make it look like, well, the the the ban hasn't gone far enough.

I mean, the other the stated reason that folks like Todd Rokita and the pro-life groups who the pro-life group who filed a lawsuit over this originally say is, well, this is how we enforce the law.

We have to know these are taking place so that outside groups can pore over them and go, oh, was this really done properly?

Let's, you know, let's just what's going on in Miami.

Yeah.

Is it that's nonsense okay.

That's just Rokita backfilling.

This is designed to further traumatize the women and girls that are going through this procedure.

We already have a near-total ban on abortion.

So by definition if a woman or a girl is having an abortion in Indiana, she's already traumatized for one or another reason.

Okay.

And this is to add to it, this is to put that data out there so that those groups that apparently the the Christian nationalists, which the surprising part of this for me is that Mike Braun jumped into bed with Todd Rokita and Micah Beckwith and the Christian Nationalists on this issue.

I mean, the only purpose of this is to further traumatize the women who and girls who have these abortions, the limited number to possibly expose them to, to public ridicule and harass them in some other fashion, if that's the only purpose.

There's no legitimate government purpose for this particular information.

And it is it is appalling, but it is an indication that they want all abortions.

Stop.

They don't care if ten year olds are raped.

They don't care if the pregnancy is not viable.

They don't care about any of that.

Okay.

So that's that's their position.

What what should we make of Mike Braun's answer to the are you concerned?

I know this was the question because I asked it.

Are you concerned like the Department of Health was before that because of so few abortions, releasing even the redacted reports risks patient privacy.

And the answer is, I'm not going to comment because I don't know.

It's not what you want to hear from a governor.

Yeah.

I mean, you have to know the pros and cons of the situation you're putting out there.

And I actually don't think it's about traumatizing the women.

I think it's about the doctors.

And without that individual report, the doctors names who are performing these abortions are not released for those groups who want to track, they want to see.

Are all the rape exceptions getting approved by doctor A?

They want to, you know, be able to file a complaint if the abortion record came in two days after the deadline.

You know, those are the kinds of things they they want to see.

And that's what you need the.

So they wanted to finalize the doctors that that's what.

It's about.

But, I mean, that's just the way it is now because clearly this is this is going to be the policy of Indiana.

I think that's right.

Whether it's the goal is traumatizing women, girls or doctors or both, the result is largely the same.

And that is to put an end to abortion.

And I think that is ultimately the goal of groups that are pushing for this.

And the governor, you know, took a pretty yep, there's a little wiggle room there.

but but but I mean, it's, people are being coy about this.

At least this is.

This is the way.

This is the way.

Yes, I agree that the way the executive order is written, it doesn't say you must release these interviews, which.

Means can they be still be redacted, which was what was past practice running.

But, when we talked to when, when another reporter and I asked Chief of Staff Josh Kelly about it, his point, which is I think well taken, is well, if we were just wanted them to do what they've already been doing, we wouldn't be issuing an executive order about.

Right.

Well, we know what it is.

That is the goal of the agreement.

Agree on what the goal is.

Even though people are being coy about it, at least say, in Texas right now, that's brewing.

The attorney general there, the Rokita, his counterpart, he's pretty open.

He's like, we want to get rid of HIPAA.

So we can actually find not only who's trying to get abortions, which is a virtual impossibility here, but who is traveling out of state to get an abortion or what doctors are advising people, and perhaps offing or offering referrals to go out of state.

So, I mean, I mean, that's pretty up front.

I don't know, in terms of.

Republicans being, caring about privacy.

It's not something that that party's been like for, for the last thousand years or anything like that.

Indiana is in there is Indiana is in the midst of a five year reduction of its individual income tax rate and a bill unanimously approved by a Senate committee.

This week would continue to cut the rate after that, but only if state revenues grow.

Indiana's individual income tax rate will go down to 2.9% in 2027, the third lowest rate in the country.

For states with an income tax.

Republican Senator Travis Holden's bill would automatically lower the tax rate further by 0.05% every even numbered year beginning in 2030, but only if state revenues grow by at least 3% in the previous even numbered year, which allows for the General Assembly to take proactive steps to stop or to suspend the reduction in the individual income tax rate, should they choose to do so.

For a household earning $100,000, that would be a savings of $50 a year.

It would cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars per year in revenue.

Ann DeLaney, this was my favorite question to write this week because I have a feeling I know your answer.

I know what comes up.

Yeah, yeah.

She never she's never really mentioned it.

So I would have to read the tea leaves.

Do you think this is a prudent move?

Oh come on, you know we don't have a five year plan for, the terrible condition of our roads and streets.

We don't have a five year plan for three, three, third graders learning to read.

We don't have a five year plan for expanding preschool.

We don't have a five year plan for daycare, but we can fiscally in the future, cut taxes these minimal amounts $50 a year.

If you're making $100,000, okay, that's dinner out without any wine, without any wine, and only a certain restaurants.

It's ridiculous.

And they are one trick ponies.

They all they want to do is cut taxes.

It doesn't matter.

Doesn't matter what the needs of the state are.

And we have needs in this state.

We really do.

And we're not addressing them because they keep telling us we don't have any money and yet they keep cutting.

The revenue is absolutely fiscally irresponsible.

And this from the party.

We're talking about privacy for a thousand years.

They were supposed to be the fiscally responsible party.

For a thousand years, it was us Democrats that were fiscally irresponsible.

Now it's the republicans.

Youre saying it's a two trick pony, not a one.

It's a one trick pony.

What?

I was.

The history.

Books on the Democrats.

I was just going to say, yeah, I was just going to say irresponsible financially.

I think we just confirmed.

No, I want to ask this.

So we obviously have this original tax cut package in 2022, which we're still cutting that right?

I'm a rule for a couple more years, but that was in the middle of two different budget cycles where we had literally billions upon billions upon billions of dollars pouring into the state coffers from federal money, from inflation, etc..

This is a very different budget year where the message is we don't have money, especially the second year, it's going to be tightening up.

Does this bill, in that light make as much sense?

Only if you assume that keeping a tax rate high gets you more revenue instead of what Travis Holden is saying, which is a Republican principle that if you lower taxes, you actually increase revenue, which is what.

You were.

Triggered by.

Right.

and think about the evolution of the income tax conversation.

We have we had, you know, we had a conversation before Suzanne Crouch even came out on it in the and up the gubernatorial primary.

We, Travis Holden and the tax committee is looking at, okay, is there is there a future where Indiana can follow Tennessee or Florida and not have an income tax?

So what does that look like in terms of our tax mix?

and in Indiana.

And then they started going down this path of cutting it.

There's never a reaction here.

to zero on it out was we can't do that.

We can't afford it.

Okay.

Well, what if we phase it down?

But only when revenue is stable.

That's you start with, is this prudent?

That feels like the most absolutely the most prudent way to do this.

If that's if that's what the the goal is to lower the individual income tax.

Now I'm old enough, as is my three year old nephew, to remember a time when the tax cut package of 2022, the income tax cut, had these sort of guardrails that we're going to you know, do it like every two years.

And only if state revenues grow by a certain percentage.

And then one year after that, bill, less than a year after the bill took effect, they got rid of the guardrails entirely.

So it does seem like a prudent thing.

Like if we have lots more money than we need, why don't we shave that rate down a little bit?

Do we have any reason to believe that's what will actually happen if this bill becomes law?

No, no.

And I guess if you want to be intellectually honest, why not?

If you'd want to put triggers in place and guardrails, call them what you will go both directions.

Say if the, state is flush with cash, tax rates go down.

If we hit a bump in the road, if things are bad, they go up, they go up, take the heat off lawmakers just like they've done with salaries.

It's built in to the cost of living, so they don't have to take the suffer the indignity of voting themselves a pay raise.

Why not do this?

They won't have to worry about tax cuts and tax increases, because it'll be built in to inflation and the cost of doing business in the state.

How should have done that when Eric Holcomb was governor?

Because he was already high tax, Holcomb said.

Just another way.

Check another one off the list.

And in terms of attracting other states that I mean, that is an argument, certainly.

But we already have among states that don't have, I mean, this do have income tax.

We're already, I think, the third lowest.

Yeah.

So it's not as if we are like some outlier where nobody wants to come here because we have onerous tax rates.

so I think, and if you want to now, I wasn't being, I was being sort of tongue in cheek before, but if you really want to get tongue in cheek, you could do away with everything.

Property taxes you could do, take a hated tax, do away with it, but just build a trigger such that it will never happen.

But you can go home and tell your constituents.

We don't enough.

You could do away with every tax.

Yeah, but you just you build it in in a way that it essentially could never happen.

Is there anything disingenuous, Niki, in your mind, to have a bill like this in a session where the budget is so tight at the same time that a lot of these same lawmakers are telling local communities, raise your income tax, raise your income tax, raise your income tax.

I wouldn't say it's disingenuous, but I think, you know, people need to recognize that they, you know, they want to cut all the local government funding from property taxes.

They want them to raise the taxes.

They want them to raise the income taxes.

Similarly, we're talking about this bill at a time that Governor Brown put out his first budget.

So we can't even afford what we're already paying for.

He he zeroed out the Indiana Women's Commission, he zeroed out Martin University.

Martin University's program.

You know, so to be talking about new tax cuts at a time when we can't even have a zero based budget is pretty amazing.

All right.

Time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we post an unscientific online poll question.

And this week's question is, should Indiana continue cutting the individual income tax if state revenues grow by at least 3%, a yes or b no?

Last week we asked you whether you support Governor Braun's decision to close Indiana's equity, inclusion and Opportunity office.

36% of you say yes, 64% say no.

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

Well, Hoosiers on unemployment insurance could see the maximum length of benefits cut nearly in half.

Under a new proposal in the state Senate.

Indiana Public Broadcasting's Timoria Cunningham reports supporters of the bill say it would help small businesses find workers, but others raised concerns.

The bill would reduce the current time limit for those on unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 14.

Rob Henderson is the executive director of the Indiana State Building and Construction Trades Council.

He says his members don't want to be on unemployment, but he says uncontrollable factors like weather and project delays sometimes result in them needing the program, especially in an economic downturn.

Our preference would be to remain at the 26 weeks maximum benefit and stay consistent with the majority of the country and surrounding states.

Applicants could receive an additional two weeks of benefits if they meet certain requirements, Henderson says.

If the bill is passed, he would like people employed in the construction industry and enrolled in a training program to qualify for those additional two weeks.

Niki Kelly, most projections have unemployment increasing in Indiana and in the nation over the next couple of years.

Not skyrocketing, hopefully, but certainly increasing.

It's the right time to be cutting benefits nearly in half.

I think it's, you know, an interesting philosophical discussion about it.

I didn't really understand because on one hand that they got up and said hardly anyone ever uses the top end of, you know, the full.

26 weeks.

Right?

Well, then why do you need to take it away?

Like, like like what's the I guess I didn't understand why we're bringing the bill now.

The unemployment fund is in good fiscal shape.

It's, you know, rebounded.

And, you know, for the few people that struggle beyond those 12 weeks, it gives a little extra, you know, cushion.

And again, let's remember, these are people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

And they have to.

And there's requirements about you have to be looking for work.

It's not just somebody sitting on their couch collecting benefits for 26 weeks.

You have to show that you're out there looking for work.

Now, you disagree with me on that one?

Well, I just I mean, that's fine if they want to do it, but I just need to we need to come up with a better sales pitch because I don't really get why we're bringing the bill now.

Yeah.

Does this just feel punitive at that point?

it probably does.

And there were even Republicans in committee who sort of raised that very point and said, you know what?

Why are we doing this?

We're not I mean, maybe if in the, you know, let's go back a few years before your three year old nephew would remember, but we were running a huge deficit in this state and begging the federal government to pay for to help.

Yes, that's for unemployment dollars in the fund.

to I think we were, what, a couple billion dollars.

In the pandemic?

Yeah, a lot of people.

Well, even before they before that, even before.

That years and.

Yeah, even before that, it was really.

Bad.

Yeah.

In the Great Recession.

Yeah, it was really bad.

And so now we're flush with cash.

I mean, it's not it's not bleeding, ink and dollars.

So that does beg the question why?

I think the suggestion this legislation puts forth is that people will wait 26 weeks, and then, like, decide, well, that gravy train is over.

I'm going to go get a job now.

Well, keep in mind you only get 47% of your max pay you received at your old job.

Capped at what, 390 or 380?

$390.

So you're not.

It's not the gravy train.

and it's almost like telling, you know, somebody who's recovering from an injury, leg fracture that we're going to take away.

Good news.

We're taking away your crutches.

So you'll go through rehab faster.

I mean, it doesn't.

And that's one there's not necessarily a correlation.

It seems to me.

I could see maybe an argument for.

Yeah.

Right now the fund is in great shape.

If things take a turn and we really start to strain, making it 26 weeks would put an even greater strain.

But nearly cutting it in half.

Does it does that feel draconian?

But I feel like Cork grows old with like Cousin Eddie.

You can't find a job in six months.

Hold on for a management position.

I'm like.

I'm like, was like bigger.

Than a year.

Yes, it was seven years.

Very good.

You can't find a job in 26 weeks.

I mean, I you're I'm getting like you get no sympathy for me on.

Are you on for a year off?

I need a job.

I was 13 years old.

I've had like 20 of them.

I can walk across the street and get a job at McDonald's right after we leave here today, and I'll know how to work the fryer, because I've done it before.

So I've got very little sympathy for, especially in this economy.

Are you kidding me?

I'm going to drive home today and drive past.

How many places have a help wanted?

How many employers?

It's been the biggest thing the chamber has has told lawmakers now for years workforce, workforce, workforce.

Our people cannot get a full or employers can't be at full, full employment.

So make it.

Well, this is this is this is the this this raises a point of we've seen particularly since the pandemic, particularly the service industry struggle to keep and retain, you know, retain workers or find workers.

Is this the sort of thing that could push people?

Maybe they didn't want to get the job at McDonald's.

At 14 bucks an hour?

Yeah, at 14 bucks an hour.

I did it for seven.

But is that true?

U.S.

Senator and I, I had to go to work on this day.

But this is the sort of thing that might push people to at least maybe get more of these jobs.

So our benefits comparatively nationwide are pretty pitiful to begin with.

Okay.

And, you know, I don't think, as Niki was saying, people don't stay there the whole 26 weeks.

But, you know, we don't we're not going to have the Biden, the economy going into the future.

If we wind up, if we wind up with those tariffs, we could have inflation and significant unemployment.

And this isn't the time to be cutting them.

All right.

A state Senate bill aims to address concerns over large water transfers, like those planned to serve the controversial Leep industrial district in Lebanon, but Indiana Public Broadcasting's Rebecca Thiele reports the legislation could exempt one of those transfers for the project, which makes some environmental groups uneasy.

Companies creating long haul water pipelines would have to get a certificate from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, and if a big water transfer happens between two different water basins, they'd also have to get a permit from the Department of Natural Resources.

But existing transfers like the Water Citizens Energy Group already pumps to the city of Lebanon would be exempt.

That includes any water it would provide for the leap district.

Desi Rybolt is with Indiana Conservation Voters.

We feel it is crucial to include the district in this permitting process as a major water user and the driver for this conversation over the past year.

But if that water comes from a new source like Tippecanoe County, that pipeline would have to go through this process.

Citizens Action Coalition largely supports the bill, but says it would like to see more protections for ratepayers.

Jon Schwantes, a state lawmaker literally lost their seat largely because of this issue.

So are you going to satisfy the people who are clearly upset about this?

If part of the controversial project is carved out?

Well, I'm I'm a little confused about why it's carved out.

when I was talking to Senator Cook about this last week, he was saying.

And I ask him specifically, would this address the Lake District?

He said, no, they're in the same basin now.

I don't know any.

I could not tell where the where this basin starts and the next one stops.

You don't know your water basin.

I don't know my water basins.

I'm lucky I can turn on the water and drink it.

that's about the extent of it.

But he said to take it at face value.

They're in the same basin, so I don't know if he went out of his way to exempt existing projects.

I'm not even sure the word how you would word that because nothing actually has been built.

I mean, yes, leap has been built, but no pipeline I don't believe is.

Thinking right almost anything.

Oh, I guess I'm I'm not doubting that.

so I don't know about that, but, but I know Niki knows about sub basins.

I'm lucky to struggle with basin, so maybe she's going to show the folly of my opinion.

regardless of how it's being written in here.

I mean, addressing the I mean, let's be honest, this bill doesn't come up at all, if not for the LEAP district.

So the fact that part of the LEAP district, however they're doing it isn't going to be included feels a little strange, does it not?

Yeah, it's a little confusing altogether.

I mean, part of it is a permit on pipelines.

Another part of it is a permit on large water transfers, which I'm unaware of.

How you do a large water transfer without a pipeline.

So I don't I don't really get the truck.

now, citizens already has water in Boone County, so it's decidedly less of a pipeline than all the way from Tippecanoe.

but I think it would just behoove everyone, if anything, with this project, which has become such a controversy, you know, filed a permit.

It's not a, you know, it's just a basic permit.

So I don't, you know.

Just I don't imagine the Republican led General Assembly is going to make this permitting process particularly onerous.

so why, why carve certain things out or keep certain things, you know.

The leaf project when you're.

It has so many problems.

Okay.

I mean, why do you have, a development that's water intensive in an area of the state without water?

Why aren't we discussing that?

Why don't we have, God forbid, a five year water plan?

I mean, you've got you've got the governor wanting to put one of those data centers on every street.

They're extremely water intensive and extremely electric intensive, and they create no long term jobs.

And they're going to get property tax abatement, too, I'm sure.

So I mean, there are all of these questions that really need to be addressed.

This legislation doesn't do that.

All right.

We'll see how it ends up.

But that is Indiana Week in review for this week.

Our panel our panel our panel is Democrat Ann DeLaney.

Republican Mike O'Brien.

Jon Schwantes of Indiana Lawmakers and Niki Kelly of the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

You can find the Indiana Weekend Reviews podcasts 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 an Indiana week.

The views expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by the Indy Chamber, working to unite business and community to maintain a strong economy and quality of life.